What's the deal with feminist myths?

Started by Galt, Aug 18, 2005, 08:02 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Galt

Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength.

This is usually in a military context.  Apparently, the implication is that women are equal in lower body strength, aggressiveness, devotion to duty and all the rest.

I don't know about the other (maybe subjective) areas, but I know that weightlifting records show that men can squat far more than women.  Men can run faster than women in terms of world records and in terms of averages.  Men win mixed marathons, in fact even to the extent that some marathons are now divided by gender, with the "winning" woman getting more prize money than a man who came in far ahead of her.

Women couldn't own property.

Sure they could, at least in the Western world.  The Domesday Book shows that women held property almost a thousand years ago.

http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/

You'll find more men there, but that's because the crude idea back then was that you either defend your land, or take someone else's land.  Mostly men did this - and then gave women the title to land (mostly royalty).  Kind of like Ivanna Trump today.

What I suspect (in fact strongly suspect since women's studies people are usually dumber than a brick - even doctoral people in this pseudo-subject) is that they are perverting the old legal concept of "coverture".  This was the old idea that when a man and woman married, the man had to be informed of the wife entering into contracts and the like.  And he also had to sign off on them.

At first, that sounds like really chauvanistic, male-pig type stuff.  And then you look closer at the corresponding laws, and you see that men were responsible for all debts of the wife.  She wasn't responsible for anything.  And people, men and women, accepted that arrangement back then.

If you friggin' think about it, if wives aren't responsible for anything, and if the man has to pay for anything his wife does, then he should be aware of what she is doing.  They're also married.  Now we've evolved to the phase in which men are mostly responsible for what their wife has done - in a divorce, for instance - but they certainly don't have any say over what she does.

I'm not sure which system is better, but I know that this has nothing to do with "women couldn't own property".

Women can multitask better.

There are real jobs in which multitasking is the ONLY job, and there is a huge amount of responsibility with each job that is multitasked.  A pilot is a good example.  Basically, he is just sitting in a chair, and has to be simultaneously aware of many events and computer screens, and has to simultaneously react to this information.

Most pilots are men.  You can Google some information on female pilots in the military, though, who were put into place despite qualification issues - and statistics vis-a-vis male pilots with regard to numbers of crashes etc.

If the issue is whether women can multitask better with idiotic tasks - like talking on the phone with Carol while watching Oprah while dusting, who friggin' cares.

No woman would lie about sexual assault.

Look around you for this one.  You may not know someone who has been falsely accused of something by a woman for personal gain or revenge, but you can almost certainly think of an example in which a woman lied or manipulated to get something.  Men do it too, certainly, but the focus on women here is because of their unique ability to lie about this area.

People - men and women - risk prison to embezzle money, they rob banks, they marry people they don't even like and "pretend" to get money, they scam insurance companies for money - they do all sorts of things.  Why WOULDN'T someone also lie if it's easy to do, the stakes are potentially great, and there are no repercussions, or only minor ones, for your attempt.  As it is today with this specific area.

-----------------------

These things seem pretty obvious.  What is really disturbing is that there is a subject at universities in which all of this crap - and much more - is spread around.  That subject is called "women's studies".  They don't examine what they are saying, they don't take historical context into consideration, they don't do anything EXCEPT spend all of their friggin' time trying to think about why women are exploited by men.  They come up with more and more subtle arguments - and more and more lies and distortions that the stupid general public may believe - while their fathers, boyfriends or husbands are working or studying something useful to pay for them to do this.

Wookie

Here's one,

Women have a greater emotional intelegence!

My comment: ?

Wookie
he Light That Burns Twice As Bright Burns Half As Long - Blade Runner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

sethay

What about "The term 'Rule of thumb' came from British law which allowed men to beat their wives with a stick no thicker then their thumb."

This was taught in a total of three of my college classes by three different profs...

As people here probably already know, the term has nothing to do with that.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-rul1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rule_of_thumb
http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm (even this very pro-feminist admits it is a lie!)

I even found an article in a peer reviewed journal debunking the myth.  I brought this to the attention of my profs.  However....I doubt they will stop teaching this lie.

bluegrass

I even heard Simon Shama bust that one out during a viewing of "history of Britain" on the hisotry channel.

I was shocked!  This guy's a reknown historian who is often credited with having written THE definitive history of the French Revolution -- yet there it was!
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

Galt

I had a feminist professor at university who droned on and on about that.  Sometimes I can't believe what society accepts.

bluegrass

Sethay-

I checked out that women's history link and of course found this quote:

"Yet ... there can be no doubt that wife-beating was once common and, in most legal circles, acceptable if it didn't "go too far.""

Really?  On what she bases this, she doesn't say.  In fact, I doubt if anyone could find contemporary sources that support that wife beating was common.

In fact, I've read things that were quite contrary.  If you read enough history of which the purpose is NOT women's issues, the authors often let snippets slip through under the radar.

I've come across several references to wife beaters being the recipients of vigilante justice in lots of instances.  She of course, doesn't mention this.
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

Galt

Another myth is that women are just slammed down in the work world

In the government, in universities and in very large corporations, there are definitely affirmative action goals in place for women.

In the area of self-employment, or starting a company, the government has set-asides for female-owned businesses.

Aside from the fact that almost no one cares whether a woman or a man started the company if he or she can get the same service or product for cheaper.

No one really cares if a woman busts her butt or a man busts his butt to start a real company with real services or products.

But all of the statistics fail to recognize that far more women than men are happy with leeching off ... men.  In other words, a large percentage of women in society are happy with a part-time job - or no job - if they are married to a man who produces everything for them.  It's not the same the other way around (with men).

So you are going to have a reduced pool of candidates - just on THAT basis, women are not going to fill 50% of the hard-core positions.  They don't want that, because they have the same lifestyle when the MAN (i.e. husband) fills the hard-core position.

That is just obvious, but it's apparently not obvious to most anyone else in society.

sethay

Quote from: "bluegrass"
Sethay-

I checked out that women's history link and of course found this quote:

"Yet ... there can be no doubt that wife-beating was once common and, in most legal circles, acceptable if it didn't "go too far.""

Really?  On what she bases this, she doesn't say.  In fact, I doubt if anyone could find contemporary sources that support that wife beating was common.

In fact, I've read things that were quite contrary.  If you read enough history of which the purpose is NOT women's issues, the authors often let snippets slip through under the radar.

I've come across several references to wife beaters being the recipients of vigilante justice in lots of instances.  She of course, doesn't mention this.


Yeah, I know....I just found it interesting that even someone so deep in feminist bs still admits that the Rule of Thumb thing is a myth.

realman

We also have to keep in mind much of what is said about poor treatment fo women in the past IS true... but the femmies don't mention that men underrwent treatment just as horrific if not worse.

For example, in viking culture if a wealthy property owned (male) passed on, it was customary for his comrades to all have sex with a slave girl, then the slave girl would join her master as part of the funeral pyre. Pretty lousy treatment of women, huh? Except for the fact that young amles slaves were routinely killed and hung in trees and left there to decompose. Pretty lousy treatment of men, huh?

How about viking women who were in charge of the servants, property, and workinsg of the home while their husbands were out risking life and limb and soemtimes meeting heinous fates in their efforts to bring prosperity to their family.

It's easy to amek it sound like women were so downtrodden in the past if you ignore all the ways men were killed, tortured, maimed, etc.

bluegrass

....or the concept of men having authority over their wives and in turn taking responsibility for the acts of their wives.  Why was this?

Because during the middle ages in much of Europe, civil law contests were decided through combat.  That is, if two people had a dispute that couldn't be settled "out of court" they met on the field with weapons and fought until one was either dead or surrendered.  The belief was that God would be on the side of the righteous and grant him a slight advantage to win.  So if a man had to take responsibility for his wife's actions, it could often mean his death.  

Now if the man wasn't killed, but surrendered and was allowed to live, the common sentence was usually having his eyes put out along with castration.

The position of women in this instance was somewhat similar to the position of nobility:  very often nobles would hire professional champions to fight in their stead -- just as a woman had a husband to fight for her.

And you still see this today.  As soon as some witch kills one of her kids, the first thing everyone tries to do is hold the husband accountable.

It's really amazing how little things have changed other than the intimacy and dramatic nature of the brutality.
"To such females, womanhood is more sacrosanct by a thousand times than the Virgin Mary to popes--and motherhood, that degree raised to astronomic power. They have eaten the legend about themselves and believe it; they live it; they require fealty of us all." -- Philip Wylie, Generation of Vipers

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "realman"
We also have to keep in mind much of what is said about poor treatment fo women in the past IS true... but the femmies don't mention that men underrwent treatment just as horrific if not worse.

For example, in viking culture if a wealthy property owned (male) passed on, it was customary for his comrades to all have sex with a slave girl, then the slave girl would join her master as part of the funeral pyre. Pretty lousy treatment of women, huh? Except for the fact that young amles slaves were routinely killed and hung in trees and left there to decompose. Pretty lousy treatment of men, huh?

How about viking women who were in charge of the servants, property, and workinsg of the home while their husbands were out risking life and limb and soemtimes meeting heinous fates in their efforts to bring prosperity to their family.

It's easy to amek it sound like women were so downtrodden in the past if you ignore all the ways men were killed, tortured, maimed, etc.


Exactly.  There was much bad treatment of both women and men, which was based overwhelmingly on class, not gender.  Feminazis have changed history in order to suit their agenda, morphing class-based abuse into "gender-based abuse."  

This is also the case with the vote, at least in the U.S.  As I've written several times before in other threads, suffrage was quite non-uniform in the colonies and early U.S., with most suffrage being based on land ownership (i.e., membership in the upper class).  And in many cases, land-owning women could vote alongside men.  Within about 10 years after the Civil War, men recieved universal suffrage, in large part as a reward for fighting the bloodiest war in history (at the time) to the preserve the Union.  About 40 years later (1919 I believe), women got universal suffrage as a reward for, well, complaining.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

lkanneg

"Men have a slight advantage with upper body strength"

"Women couldn't own property"

"Women can multitask better"

"No woman would lie about sexual assault"

Actually, I've never heard any of the four of these statements as they are written here, being major props of the feminist philosophy.  I've read articles about the average man's innate potential for greater upper body strength than the average woman; I've read about the historical gender division of property in various cultures; I've heard of studies that found that on average women outperformed men on psychological tests designed to evaluate multitasking capabilities; and...actually, I've never heard *anyone* claim that NO woman would lie about sexual assault.  JMO!
quot;Remember no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

"Something which we think is impossible now is not impossible in another decade."
-- Constance Baker Motley

"Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got."
--Janis Joplin

Galt

Quote from: "lkanneg"
... and...actually, I've never heard *anyone* claim that NO woman would lie about sexual assault.  JMO!


Then you never read the old MS Magazine boards   LOL ... but I agree that no *reasonable* people say that, even most feminists use the discredited Susan Brownmiller statistic of 2%.

Another typical feminist myth is that they say the FBI has this statistic on its website.  The columnist John Leo wrote about an interaction with a feminist telling him that.  He said that the FBI never said any such thing (in fact ... go to their website and try to find it).  The feminist then said it was probably from the Department of Justice (nope) or another important government website, but that was all irrelevant because he was obviously a misogynist who wanted to hold women down.

End analysis: Feminists DON'T CARE if something is true or not.  Neither do feminists in women's studies programs or classes.  Truly disgusting.

Galt

Ikanneg ... I don't know what to say if you have never heard these feminist myths.  

You've never heard that women weren't allowed to own property?

I'll put it nicely and say ... that isn't even credible.

RockyMountainMan

In case you missed it the first time:

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die
Give me liberty or give me death.

                              ----------------

Tact is for those lacking sufficient wit for sarcasm.

Go Up