Does the president have too much power?

[Walkie]

"From our earliest preserved records in the Old Kingdom on, the formal legal status of Egyptian women - whether unmarried, married, divorced or widowed - was nearly identical with that of Egyptian men," observes professor of Egyptology Janet Johnson, whose special interests include ancient Egyptian women.

Under the protective gaze of the goddess Isis, who signified the throne of Egypt, women were entitled to work, own property, go to court, bear witness, serve on a jury and much more.

In their private lives, they had the right to choose their partner freely, to marry out of love, to spell out detailed prenuptial agreements to protect them and their children, and to divorce for any reason they wished.

 (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html)

And if you don't like the source, Al, there are plenty of others that will tell you the same

[Al Swearegen]

"From our earliest preserved records in the Old Kingdom on, the formal legal status of Egyptian women - whether unmarried, married, divorced or widowed - was nearly identical with that of Egyptian men," observes professor of Egyptology Janet Johnson, whose special interests include ancient Egyptian women.

Under the protective gaze of the goddess Isis, who signified the throne of Egypt, women were entitled to work, own property, go to court, bear witness, serve on a jury and much more.

In their private lives, they had the right to choose their partner freely, to marry out of love, to spell out detailed prenuptial agreements to protect them and their children, and to divorce for any reason they wished.

 (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/egyptian-roots-feminism-170128132954736.html)

And if you don't like the source, Al, there are plenty of others that will tell you the same

By all means and to prove that Al is just being silly with his description and as a way to completely disprove me, you will no doubt point out every fucking third world country in which men and women are trapped in traditional roles and show me how much the great "cause of equality" (Feminism) has fared in changing their society (without resorting to how upper middle class women there may fare with it) over the last 50 years. Right? Oh...no?

No I get it, this was just a "gotcha" and ridiculous one. Wasn't it Walkie?

I mean I know personally Egypt is number one on my list when it comes to equality of the sexes. Yours too? Oh it is not the bastion of equality now but it was then? Oh Okay. How long did this last? Not sure? Okay? I spelled out why society was trapped in gender roles in every other society and you in return say what about Ancient Egypt. You do not want to examine the things that I listed were holding society back and see when they were addressed and coincide these reforms, inventions and developments and what effect they would have had being introduce into a society that they never pre-existed in before? No? You do not want to go to the labour of connecting the dots and seeing if anything I said does not stand up to scrutiny? You prefer to imagine that men and women lived in a slave/master relationship throughout history until Feminism and them abracadabra equality? Your proof is Ancient Egypt?

Just be very clear because on the face of it it looks lie a very fucking silly premise. Want to try again, Walkie or perhaps just tease out what you think you have because it sure as fuck does not counter what I have said in any meaningful way.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Thanks Walkie. Good use of a historical example to show that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism.

[Al Swearegen]

Thanks Walkie. Good use of a historical example to show that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism.

Except that only an idiot thinks that an exception is a rule. You think that though don't you MOSW.

So what do you know about this exception? What were the difference that existed in Ancient Egypt that were different to any other society. Why were their societies seemingly a lot less restrictive? Any idea? None at all? Your go to is "that gender inequality was a legal and societal construct for most of history, rather than some kind of necessity that was superseded by modernity with no help from feminism."?

That is some pretty stupid insight. I would like to think it is an act.

[Tequila]

It still is in a lot of crap countries.

[Walkie]

That example (from Ancient Egypt) could support any number of alternative narratives, Al.  The point that particular writer was trying to make, is  that Feminism is not a foreign (western) import into his country, but rather represents an older, Egyptian  tradition which has, conversely, exerted a positive influence over the profoundly patriarchal  West (via the relatively modern British obsession with Egyptology)

I do find his  point of view   intersting and refreshingly different  ( and recommend reading the full article)  but, no thank you, I don’t want to join a bunch of dots, jump to conclusions,  impose my own narrative on History, then play ideological wargames over it.  I just wanted to throw something in that doesn’t sit easily with your simplistic narrative, then  see what you do with it.

As for those loaded questions you’re firing at me:  well, you can trust me to just carry on absorbing different perspectives  and expanding my model of the Universe accordingly.  I like doing that, can formulate relevant questions all by myself (believe it or not)  and  don‘t need prompting from you in that respect.

[Al Swearegen]

That example (from Ancient Egypt) could support any number of alternative narratives, Al.  The point that particular writer was trying to make, is  that Feminism is not a foreign (western) import into his country, but rather represents an older, Egyptian  tradition which has, conversely, exerted a positive influence over the profoundly patriarchal  West (via the relatively modern British obsession with Egyptology)

I do find his  point of view   intersting and refreshingly different  ( and recommend reading the full article)  but, no thank you, I don’t want to join a bunch of dots, jump to conclusions,  impose my own narrative on History, then play ideological wargames over it.  I just wanted to throw something in that doesn’t sit easily with your simplistic narrative, then  see what you do with it.

As for those loaded questions you’re firing at me:  well, you can trust me to just carry on absorbing different perspectives  and expanding my model of the Universe accordingly.  I like doing that, can formulate relevant questions all by myself (believe it or not)  and  don‘t need prompting from you in that respect.

I should be doing something with it? How is this ancient Egypt, Feminist? What you described is not Feminist.

The first thing i note is that the Egyptian experiment of unrestricting an ancient culture has not carried on to its modern counter part. Why not?

When did these rights change and for how long and what was the effect on society?

Was there any counter forces to counter the dilemmas of disease, lack of social security for older people and such? What was it?

Was the interpretations correct in the first instance?

If you answer these questions then i actually have something to do something with. Otherwise at best you are giving me a failed experiment and touting it an alternative model and at worst a lie, all whilst calling my reasoning around why in every other culture the way to raise a society to equality is to remove the impediments that shackle it, through modernity, simplistic.

The answer to this is not to show me an obscure society but rather show me  what i said was wrong or why this traditional roles has been the one adopted throughout history and throughout the world with communities with no relationship with each other? Not a giant male oppressive conspiracy but rather the most effective way to survive.

[odeon]

I've met several who *claimed to be* Marxists. Every single one was actually a Communist. There is a difference.

I know there's a difference; or rather several alternative differences depending on which definitions you buy. And, ofc, it's entirely possible to be both Communist and Marxist  ...theoretically speaking. 
 
So I'm intrigued to know exactly where  you're coming from here? if you don't mind expanding on that? (not trying to grill you, nor debate the point; just intrigued,  like i said)

These people would either follow the Soviet version of Communism, Stalin and post-Stalin, or the Mao version for that matter, all while thinking that was Marxism, really. Most were members of what used to be the Swedish Communist Party or a small local Communist party frequented by the local cultural elite, sometimes with an unhealthy dose of Syndicalism thrown in. They were quite common in local art circles around here in the 70s and 80s, and some are still around even though now that the Swedish Communist Party changed to a more PC name and did away with mentioning the revolution in their charter.

Of course, none of these things are compatible with Marxism, and certainly not Marx's philosophy beyond his contributions to the Communist Manifesto.

[odeon]

Oh, and just to clarify, Communism in its various incarnations was fairly big around Gothenburg a few decades ago, with a very clear focus on the Soviet Union version. They were regarded by the authorities as borderline revolutionary and were probably all spied on.

We also used to have Sweden's largest collective of Syndicalists. I had a friend who attended many of their demos back in the day.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you  you go into a bit more detail please?

[Al Swearegen]

Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you  you go into a bit more detail please?

It would not help you.

[odeon]

Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you  you go into a bit more detail please?

 

[Walkie]

Al, I'm not really understanding your perspective here. I think it's because your posts are too short. Could you  you go into a bit more detail please?

seeing as this is a spazz board after all, i feel obliged to point out that if Al didn't get the irony, it's because he's autistic, and not because he's an idiot.
Some of need this---> [irony] inserted at the end of the comment  to prevent us from taking it literally.  Gotta confess, even i still need that sometimes (and as a kid, i needed it all the time, not that anyone supplied it)

That said, it was fricking funny 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

It's entirely possible to be both a spazz and an idiot.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

This is interesting in terms of debating techniques on display in this thread.

Repeating a series of loaded questions over and over is a mixture of JAQing off and argumentum ad nauseam.

If the implication is that the March towards gender equality is a function of modernity rather than the outcome of the struggle of feminism, then historically one would expect that all societies and cultures would be subject to the same pressures. And yet, historically, we see a small number of societies where actual gender equality was the norm. One conclusion that could be drawn from this is that a woman's rights relative to a man are a function of society and culture.

If improved equality for women is largely a result of feminism, then in modern cultures you would see more equality where feminism has been able to work for that equality. Places like a the UK, Europe, the US, Australia, NZ. And less equality in places where feminism hasn't really caught on, like Saudi Arabia. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

I have a feeling that the response to this will be long, angry, and will make not a lot of sense.