a culture that places them in much more danger than the women
Again, the fact that men are generally more at risk of being killed in armed conflict etc means nothing in this argument. Sure, men are more likely to die fighting. So? Does that automatically mean there's no sexism? Your logic really is failing abysmally on that one
Says you. It would make a rather compelling argument if it was women setting up men to spend their time getting killed off battles to defend the women's lands, Defending her honour, undertaking dangerous jobs to make more money to provide for her or defending the house (extension really of the country) to keep her safe.
That would make a perfectly good argument for sexism......against her.
You are not saying that though and nor am I. You are saying "Who cares if all of the above is what a man risks, it makes him superior than her. It is a culture that he has done to put himself at risk and not her, and he has cleverly done this without women's knowledge or consent?". (Stupidest plan in the world)
I do not find that logic follows at all.
I think rather than really consider things, people quite often just call sexist.
Yep. True. Much like people sometimes play the race card or disability card. Doesn't mean there isn't also genuine racism etc. Nowadays, people can often be way too quick to call something sexist, and it gets ridiculous. I really don't think you can say that women being legally prevented from leaving the house falls into that category though. Nor does husbands being allowed to rape their wives fall into that category.
Again are you talking about what the wacko fundamentalists preach OR are you talking about what the Iraqui people practice. Are you prepared to talk about Christians and cite the Westboro Baptist as your inspiration for the American Christian's values and morality?
If you aren't then perhaps citing a nation's morality or values is a bit rich.
If you say "Yes OK not all..." No that too is not nearly good enough either as in fact MOST does not meet that concession. "Not all" gives the impression of a few decent ones but most attach themselves to a large faction of religious zealots trying to drag the society into the Dark Ages.
That is as best misleading.
I think you would be better either saying "a small minority of Iraqui people" or perhaps just saying the religious fundamentalists and their supporter" both would be accurate and fair "The Iraqui people is not" nor are pronouncements made on behalf of them based on the preaching and practices of the religious zealots who enforce these practices on an oppressed Iraqui people.
Make sense? No. I know Adam. You struggle.
Then do, by all means.
I have. Clearly you haven't.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life?
I have a few extra years on you, so rather ironically there is a good chance I have read more than you.
But we are not going to try and turn this into a I have read more than you, debate are we? Be like having a debate who has the worst Dad or something. Complete bullshit derailment. Stupid question.
But then you did the callout. Now you are stuck with me. It was quite your own fault.
Lol. No. I did the callout yes. The callout had absolutely NOTHING to do with "cavemen" and their sex lives though.
Yes you did make the callout. It was your choice whether to or not. You can not control what I type or the quantity or the quality or me saying the things you want me to say or taking the callout where you would want.
Bad luck Adam. It is not going the way you want and I simply don't care.
I would stop moaning about it if I were you and get on with it
As to what species do. No I am talking about humans. Species don't drive cars, worship gods or land on the moon. We are talking about Humans. So rather than see this in terms of some biological drive which overrides any thought, you will have to do a little better.
Uh, aren't humans biological animals too? I thought you were trying to explain your "point" though some kind of pseudo-scientific bollocks. So I thought I'd respond with some basic biology too. Now you tell me to stop talking about biology?
Yes we are biologically driven but that can not be your answer if men do something non-sexist (or worse that makes a case against the culture being sexist) that they just did that because they are biologically driven BUT when they do something that looks like it could possibly make a point for your case that it is a thought out rational response to oppress women, because men consider themselves the superior gender and women inferior.
Arguments do not work that way.
It is a simplistic cop out. Men then, like men now, most likely loved their kids and probably more than fancied their wife.
Generally, yes. Of course. And? Butterflies made an excellent point about this in the peanut gallery. I won't bother repeating it here.
Then that is a point you have not made in this callout. I am cool with that. I will not bother discussing this with Butterflies or addressing Peanut Gallery comments here, using you as a medium to channel Butterflies.
If I told you that many of the old women in Iraq have an education and many were working for much of their adult life, what would you say? What if I said that most of the younger women do not? Would that suggest to you some big change in society? If I told you that the Iraq of the past was a very progressive place and very much advanced, would you deny that? Why then is it stymied now? But here is the big one. If it is going backwards in becoming this restrictive culture then is that likely that the reason for it is something along the lines of, that is because the people of and in Iraq agree it is best OR a small but controlling population within Iraq is trying to dominate the country with laws and impose a culture that oppresses all of them and that they do not want or need"?
Finally you're actually (kind of) getting to the point of the callout!
But you're still kind of missing it at the same time. Regardless of WHY women are treated as inferior in Iraq, the fact is that they are. And that in itself is clearly sexism in its most basic form. You deny that?
Men and women are both equally oppressed in different ways by a religious fundamentalist regime. The men risk their lives by going out onto the streets each day, but they have no choice, they must. The women who used to work side by side with their men can no longer do this and have to stay inside.
Both are oppressed and neither the man or the woman has a choice.
The laws and the religious practices by which they zealots (not the mainstream) preach and practice are oppressive to both genders equally but in very different ways.
Think about it.
That, coming from you, is kind of like George Bush and his "is are children learning?" quote. Being told to "think" by you of all people. Haha!
Because you are in a position to gauge intellect I suppose Adam? Yes? You kill me Adam. I often find myself at the stage where I think "I don't know how much further I can break this down for Adam. He truly can not join the dots. Either he is just trying to have a lend of me by pretending to be stupid OR he is not pretending.
But I am getting sidetracked.
Really? I think you were getting sidetracked in your first post
Incorrect use of the word "think". I do not believe you were thinking when you wrote that sentence
As for whether a woman not choosing her suitor, remember the bit about the Father having to make decisions for the daughter when she is a child and the husband take responsibility for the girl when he marries her? This was part of that. She basically was allowing Father carte blanche
Wtf? She was ALLOWING her father to make those decisions? No. She had no choice. That's the point.
In your imaginary world, men have obligations that come with a set of treatments and women want the set of treatments in every instance and every culture but just without the obligation or expectation that comes with it.
It is not true. Even if you really, really want it to be true.
Many woman do not want to have the right to go outside their house because the men's right to go outside the house comes with an obligation that they must go out of the house and if the are obliged then they risk getting shot, harassed, beaten and whatever. They need the right to which to affix the obligation.
Similar to a policeman may have the right to be carry weapons or arrest people (unlike the public) because (unlike the public) he will have the obligation to use the weapons and arrest people
Men in Iraq have the right to work and the obligation to provide for the family. If Iraqui women had the right, then it would be attached to a similar set of obligations.
If you say that most women want this, then I say the thinking thing that you mentioned you are doing, you aren't.
Men have the obligation to making decisions in the interest of the family in this culture and olden day cultures. They also are responsible for every decision and every problem that comes up as a result of. There is no "Ok I want to be able to make decisions on this, this and this but I don't want any responsibility or to take on everything". If she were to want to fix any problem in respect to something she has stuffed up on, the she would not have the obligation nor the associated rights to fix it . So again the obligations she gives away. It has become a social rule accepted.
Now, personally, I can comment on today's Western society's division of rights and responsibilities and say it is more or less right in respect to where we are in terms of political, cultural, medical, technological standard. Trying to imprint our rights, responsibilities on Iraq or Sixteeth Century society is rather silly.
You know what is even sillier? I can see you looking at this point and say "WTF have police got to do with Iraq and Iraqui women? Iraqui women can not become police!" and I will shake my head and sigh and say "Ah Adam, how can I break this down for you?"
No not at all because some make the claim it IS sexist. Why? Because either they are not incentivising women enough or they are conditioning young girls away from it. See at base tacks the most innocuous thing or disparity could be turned around to a nonsensical "Sexist because men have penises".
Again, isn't this callout meant to be between me and you? Not you arguing with an invisible enemy of feminists? As I've already said, people are often accused of sexism unjustly. That has fuck all to do with this though. The callout is about what I was calling sexist. I am not saying society is sexist because there are less women in IT. So why the hell are you arguing with me about that?
And again, "sexist because men have penises" - surely you can grasp by now that that "argument" REALLY doesn't apply to me?
Feminism has infused itself into society. When people think feminism they automatically parrot "I believe in Feminism, I believe in equal rights for women/for equality" or "I am a Feminist I believe in equal rights"
They do this in the same way that people thinking about Autism "Yeah Autistic people are good with numbers and have special talents..."
People do not think and are happy to ascribe sexism where it doesn't exist or look at women and overlook the man and his plight completely. It is a blindspot. It also means that they focus on seeing inequities where they do not exist, for fear that they may still exist or that fear-mongering may root out any issue to be dealt with.
It is conditioned into society. Therefore the instinct is to jump to defence of women. Sometimes it is simply unwarranted and men's issues ignored. It is "invisible" not feminists like you claim, they are more visible.
Treating people differently even according to gender is not sexist. Sorry, but it just is not. Treating another gender as inferior is sexist. If you think that men in society do and always have then I have a seat on the Titanic for you. I want you to tell me before you sink if you are surrounded by men or inferior women.
You don't get it do you? The people controlling the country are not "the people".
Lol. OMFG. I never said they are. Jesus Christ. I am saying the LAWS, the LIFE of women, the SOCIETY is sexist. Not every fucking Iraqi. Of course the laws aren't made by every Iraqi man. The laws ARE sexist though.
Fuck me, this is like arguing with a brick wall.
Believe me I feel the same, I persist though, despite your anchoring the debate.
If overnight France successfully invaded England and replaced their laws with French laws would you say in a month from now IF you were being law abiding that you were accepting and believed in the laws and the new customs and everything OR would you be going along with it because you had no choice?
The laws would still be French though. Yet you'd be sat here arguing with me that they were German.
No I would be arguing that the people being accused of being French, were actually English, and with English sensibilities, and not invested in the French culture thrust on them. I would also be arguing how fucking stupid you were as an oppressed Englishman arguing that you were not oppressed for being occupied and beholden to laws and practices you do not agree with. Which is the position I am taking here isn't it?
Silly comparison Adam. Very silly.
