Researching!

Started by lkanneg, Nov 28, 2005, 05:35 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

lkanneg

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Ikanneg, you keep saying women were disenfranchised.


How many women fought and died in

Pequot War (1637-1638)  
 Beaver Wars  (1642-1698)
 Dutch-Indian War  (1643)
 King William's War (1689-1698)  
 Pueblo Rebellion (1680)
 King Philip's War (1675-1676)  
 Queen Anne's War  (1702-1713)    
 Tuscarora War (1711-1715)
 Dummer's War  (1723-1726)
 King George's War (1744-1745)
 French and Indian War  (1754-1763)
 Pontiac's Rebellion (1763-1766)  
 Lord Dunmore's War

How about

American Revolution (1775-1783)  
 Tripolitan War  (1801-1805)
 War of 1812 (1812-1815)
 Creek Indian War (1813-1814)
 The First Seminole War (1818-1819)
 Texas Revolutionary War (1835-1836)
 Second Seminole War  (1835-1842)
 Mexican American War  (1846-1848)
The American Civil War (1861-1865)

Disenfranchised could be seen as being socially or legally forced to kill and /or be killed, just as much as it could mean not getting to vote.


So could it be that this was a trade off? That perhaps women were not so much disenfranchised as protected from these duties, both easy (voting) and difficult (war)?

That the small benifit to risking one's life was a say in the government which risked it?

I am not saying that women should not vote. I AM saying that women were not disenfranchised as a sex. That would be missing much of the big picture, to imagine women as a class being 'victims' of men as a class.


Actually we all covered pretty much all these issues in the threads in which they came up originally, but I will summarize:

1.  Disenfranchisement, while it can mean deprivation of *any* legal right, is usually used to mean deprivation of legal *voting* rights, and that was the way in which I used it.
2.  I oppose gendered draft laws, and consider them to be sexist discrimination against men, just as the historical deprivation of legal voting rights was sexist discrimination against women.
3.  Men didn't try to "protect" women from dying in childbirth, which they historically did with far greater regularity than men died in war.  As a matter of fact, those in power did their damndest to "protect" women from legal contraceptive use, and even the legal ability to sometimes refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands to avoid constant pregnancy.
4.  The ability to vote is what gives citizens of a government the ability to create, change and erase laws in their society.  "Taxation without representation," etc. etc.  It is not possible to use the word "protect" in conjunction with the concept of forcing an adult citizen to live by the laws of a society while forcibly depriving him or her of the right to have any legal say about those laws.  It makes a mockery of the entire concept of "protection."
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

SIAM

Quote
1. Disenfranchisement, while it can mean deprivation of *any* legal right, is usually used to mean deprivation of legal *voting* rights, and that was the way in which I used it.


True legal disenfranchisement would only occur if women's rights were not recognised by any law. They were protected from going to war - this in itself could be seen as a privilege.  Assume a person is completely non-patriatic.  Ask them if they'd rather go to war and have the ability to vote, or not go to war and not vote.  Actually Ikanneg, what would you prefer?

Quote
3. Men didn't try to "protect" women from dying in childbirth, which they historically did with far greater regularity than men died in war. As a matter of fact, those in power did their damndest to "protect" women from legal contraceptive use, and even the legal ability to sometimes refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands to avoid constant pregnancy.


Hmmmm, I don't get this - so men were completely passive and let women die in childbirth when complications happened, or was it more likely the case that the lack of medical knowledge at that time in human history meant that more women died when giving birth?

Anyway, you're saying nature is "sexist" here - it's like me complaining that men have it hard because only they get prostate cancer.

Quote
4. The ability to vote is what gives citizens of a government the ability to create, change and erase laws in their society.


In theory yes, in practice......only sometimes - some would say very rarely.  In the UK, acts get passed in the House of Lords by members who are not voted in by the public.  Even in the house of commons, acts are passed without any public referendum.  In short, all the laws get passed without public vote.  We just get a vote every 5 years for one of two parties.  Hardly what I'd call the ability to "create, change and erase laws in their society".  Don't know too much about the US though.....maybe citizens have more influence there.....

lkanneg

No. 5:

I'll have to ask for clarification on this question.  (if Galt's following this thread!)  Are you asking if women are more likely to get more money from the outcome of a divorce as in division of joint marital property, as in alimony, and are you asking if this happens regardless of income and solely as a function of gender, ie, the woman makes the same amount of money as the man (or more) and yet she still ends up with alimony?  Also, does any of this encompass child support?
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

lkanneg

No. 6:

I can't find anything that breaks spending on women's health care down by what's spent on reproductive and related organs/systems and what isn't--I looked all over.  Sorry about this one.
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

lkanneg

No. 7:

This is a yes-and-no answer.  (Disclaimer:  the following statements are generalizations of both genders, to which there are multiple exceptions, of course.) I would agree that yes, women get far less *additional* scorn and pressure heaped upon them when they are irresponsible doofuses ( :D ) than men do.  However, unfortunately, this is a function of women being considered *lesser* than men in the first place.  The attitude being, Oh well, what can you expect, so-and-so is a woman, after all.  So, rather a combination benefit/liability.
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

The Biscuit Queen

Quote
However, unfortunately, this is a function of women being considered *lesser* than men in the first place.


No, that is not necessarily true. Unless you do research specifically seeking causation, you have no way of proving this statement.


Quote
1. Disenfranchisement, while it can mean deprivation of *any* legal right, is usually used to mean deprivation of legal *voting* rights, and that was the way in which I used it.


You cannot take something totally out of context and use it to deseribe the whole. You cannot look at voting rights without looking at what else went with it, good and bad.

Quote
2. I oppose gendered draft laws, and consider them to be sexist discrimination against men, just as the historical deprivation of legal voting rights was sexist discrimination against women.


What you think about it is irrelevant. You must look at this in its entirety. Men only could vote, and men only could die fighting in wars. (yes, women died as incidental casualties, as did boys, girls, and older men.)That you disagree with the past does not change the past.


Quote
3. Men didn't try to "protect" women from dying in childbirth, which they historically did with far greater regularity than men died in war. As a matter of fact, those in power did their damndest to "protect" women from legal contraceptive use, and even the legal ability to sometimes refuse sexual intercourse with their husbands to avoid constant pregnancy.



Men had no control over the safety of pregnancy. If you look at how many men died in just the battle of Gettysburgh of the civil war, which was 51,000 men, you will have a hard time convincing me that childbirth killed more women than war killed men. They may have had problems more consistantly (ie not in groups of time such as wartime), but men died in greater numbers in during the years people were at war, and overall died in greater numbers.  Also, you are not looking at the jobs men went to which were deadly, such as mining, logging, fishing, farming, etc. I highly doubt that if you add up the numbers from both war casualties AND workplace deaths, that women dying in childbirth was even close.

There was a ban against women getting out of childbirth. Unfortunately, given high death rates from childhood deseases, dangerous work conditions, etc, having and raising children was manditory for the continuation of the nation, and the species. Was it nice, or even fair on a personal level? Not really.  it was a necessary evil for women to bear children and men to work to support those children, both of which carried risks to their lives.  

Quote
4. The ability to vote is what gives citizens of a government the ability to create, change and erase laws in their society. "Taxation without representation," etc. etc. It is not possible to use the word "protect" in conjunction with the concept of forcing an adult citizen to live by the laws of a society while forcibly depriving him or her of the right to have any legal say about those laws. It makes a mockery of the entire concept of "protection."


But you are saying that representation without taxation is fine? Today we think that women must have the vote, but if you look at accounts of those early days, you will see that women were not chomping at the bit to be men. When men created enough worksaving devices that women had more free time, that is when they demanded the vote. Even then, many, many women had no interest in it.

I am not saying that we should not be voting today.It is a different time today. But assuming that women were pining for representation, for political clout, is really inaccurate.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

lkanneg

Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Lisa there was no response that I could find on the "question for lkanneg."  You tried to divert attention away from the topic by trying to shame the members here.  I mean, really, taking TB's beer squirting robot as an example of misogyny was just too funny!  lol  Problem is you never answered the question.  Here's what was asked repeatedly that you avoided:

Quote
Let's see if you can stick with the question lkanneg rather than trying shift the ground away. Come on and tell us how David is wrong. The six criteria are all involved in determining a hate group. Tell us how David is incorrect in his assessments of feminism. Prove him wrong. Let's hear it.


(sigh) Just because you don't *like* my response doesn't mean it doesn't count as a response, Dr. E!  I did respond to this, as I did respond to the voting issues, and I really don't want to rehash any more old topics on here.  This thread is for research I never did and questions I never responded to.  Not for questions you didn't like my response to.

If you want to restart this issue as a separate thread, I'll respond to it there.  But I don't want to be stuck in this one for the rest of my life--I want to post on other threads too, some interesting ones have come up!
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

dr e

As far as I can tell you never responded to it other than to try to shift the focus in a different direction.  Yes, I would like to hear you defend feminism from what David Byron has written.  I will start a new thread.

E
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

lkanneg

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Quote
However, unfortunately, this is a function of women being considered *lesser* than men in the first place.


No, that is not necessarily true. Unless you do research specifically seeking causation, you have no way of proving this statement. .


Hmm...how could I do research specifically seeking causation?  Now, the problem is that I can't imagine any other reason for people being less surprised and less condemning of a group of people failing a standard unless their standards were already held to be lower in the first place.  Can you suggest a different reason, for comparison?

Re the voting stuff, BQ--if you want to start a separate thread to rehash this issue, I'll definitely respond to you there.  But not on this one, please?  I really don't mind going over the voting stuff once more, just not here if that's okay?
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

Roy

Quote
Unless you do research specifically seeking causation, you have no way of proving this statement.


It appears that we've returned to the long-ago shelved debate which posed this (paraphrased) question ---

"Can you identify one anti-women law, act, behavior, or crime that is socially sanctioned in our current day and age?"

In other words, if oppression against females is rampant in our culture, how come all the laws and customs discriminate against men?

Or, can you find even one socially approved example of discrimination against women?

One trivial instance of state-sanctioned Patriarchy?
It's a terrible thing ... living in fear." (Roy - hunted replicant. "Blade Runner.")

hereandthere

Quote
can you find even one socially approved example of discrimination against women?

One trivial instance of state-sanctioned Patriarchy?


yes..
women are expected to keep their fetus inside their wombs.
oh my god!
can't you see how oppressive that is?
you can't?
oh horrors!
you must be a misogynist!
hen I feel at peace: If you listen carefully to the sky, you can hear the voices of Heaven praising me...

The Biscuit Queen

To do research seeking causation, you would have to find studies specifically questioning why people did what they did. Or you would have to find expiriments with a control group showing this.

You need data supporting your claim, not the lack of data refuting your claim.

2000 years ago, the world was flat and sickness was caused by demons. There was no proof of either, but there were no better explainations as to what shape the earth was, or how people got sick.

Also, in order for your theory to work in whole, you have to prove that there were also no areas where men were seen as inferior, where men had less expectations on them. It had to have been a one way street. I can say that there were ways that men were not held to the same standards as women, such as moral behavior and responsibility to illigitimate children. So by your reasoning, men were as oppressed as women, were seen as inferior, because they were not held to the same standards of behavior as women.

My main thought is not that social responsibility didn't denote a measure of competance and superiority, but that you are applying it unevenly.  You are picking out a few example from history without looking at the whole picture.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

Haefalas

Now I *THINK* you can relate this two No.2, in that it gives an explaination of romance and the basis of it, but i'm not sure completely what relevance it has...It's interesting all the same however...

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/econ669/love.html

(Not copied because it's quite a long article)
s God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?  Then from where comes evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?
Epicurus (circa 300 AD)

Men's Rights Activist

#1  
Quote
"Men didn't try to "protect" women from dying in childbirth, which they historically did with far greater regularity than men died in war."


#2
Quote
"I did respond to the voting issues,"


Ike:

#1  I would like to see your source, your documentation for the statement you made to the effect that "more women died in Child Birth than men died in wars."  What periods in history did the date gathering cover?  How far back did the data gathering go?  

#2  You never responded to my assertation that of all the people born in the 20th century, men are the ones whose voting rights have been most oppressed.
http://desertlightjournal.blog-city.com/the_eternal_silence_of_a_unique_group_of_rarely_mentioned_men.htm

The Eternal Silence of a Unique Group of Rarely Mentioned Men
(Remembering America's War Dead - Who Never had the Right to Vote)


Quote
"Historically, it is men who almost exclusively make up the millions who've been "asked" to die for their country, and in that group of millions is a select group of men seldom mentioned. Sadly, that group of Americans (all male) from a recent time in our history, were asked to make the supreme sacrifice for their country (and did so) without having ever been granted the sacred right of voting in their own country (America)."



I get really tired of the propaganda being thrown around today about the "historical" oppression of women's voting rights, while ignoring the "historical" oppression of men's voting rights. I get tired of that biased modus operandi being used by gender feminist's and their ilk as they attempt to revise history and the truth.

I am told that during WWI in the U.K. it was common practice for a woman to give man a white feather if she thought he should be off fighting and dying in the trenches.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:93e2JdmDd90J:www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html+the+white+feather+wwi&hl=en  
Quote
"The suffragettes' alacrity in forming an alliance with the government on the outbreak of war. On 8 September 1914 Christabel Pankhurst returned from Paris and immediately gave a speech not on suffrage but on "The German Peril." Led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, militant suffragettes became the most enthusiastic advocates of the war. Copying Admiral Charles Fitzgerald with his initial group of thirty women, they became active all over Britain in "White Feather Brigades," handing white feathers to any man in civilian clothing with the intention of shaming him into enlisting.20 So fervent were they that demobbed soldiers, soldiers on temporary leave, civil servants and boys were confronted with this symbol of cowardice. Christabel Pankhurst crossed the Atlantic shortly afterwards to seek American support for the war.

Much of the propaganda of the time featured obvious sexual imagery. Typical was the portrayal of a masculine German "brute" and a vulnerable, feminine Belgium, which men were exhorted to rally to defend."


I am told that during WWI, men who were not land owners in the U.K. were not allowed to vote. How many non-landowners in the U.K. gave their lives for their country without ever having had the right to vote?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:93e2JdmDd90J:www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html+the+white+feather+wwi&hl=en
Quote
"The suffragette movement arose in Britain in the years before the First World War, and this campaign of civil disobedience, arson and hunger strikes by prisoners culminated in parliament granting voting rights to women in January 1918, 10 months before the war ended. Emmeline Pankhurst and her eldest daughter Christabel declared a truce for the duration of the war, and six days after its outbreak the British government released all suffragette prisoners.2

The franchise was given to women even before being widely available to men: at that time only male property-owners were able to vote. Actually, up until the First World War women, having been responsible for the hiring of domestic staff, were the biggest employers, and to grant voting rights to even a minority of women was to consolidate their elevation above millions of men."



The Eternal Silence of a Unique Group of Rarely Mentioned Men
(Remembering America's War Dead - Who Never had the Right to Vote)


http://desertlightjournal.blog-city.com/the_eternal_silence_of_a_unique_group_of_rarely_mentioned_men.htm  
Quote
"The sad truth of the matter is that there were so many names that came up, when I put in the search criteria, that I kept getting "There were too many matches," as an "invalidating" response. I swallowed the lump in my throat, narrowed my search to just include California men who died in the Vietnam conflict (who were not 21 years of age), then I was even more saddened to see how many of them were so very young. The results are as follows:

There was one (1) - 17 year old.

There were two hundred twenty eight (228) - 18 year olds.

There were eight hundred twenty five (825) - 19 year olds.

There were one thousand three hundred seventy two (1,372) - 20 year olds.

That makes for a sub total of 2,426 men, but we must subtract the men who died after July 1, 1971. On July 1, 1971, the 26th amendment to the U.S. Constitution became law and 18 year olds were given the right to vote. I rechecked the dates for all 2,426 California men who died in Vietnam and subtracted 45 of them, under 21 years of age, who died after July 1, 1971. After subtracting those 45 men, I wound up with a great grand total of two thousand three hundred eighty one (2,381) California men who died in Vietnam without ever having the reached legal voting age.

All eight ( American women who died in Vietnam where over the age of 21 at the time of their deaths. However, all those who died serving their country in Vietnam (without ever having the legal right to vote) were male.

There were many, many other 20th century, American men, and a few women, who didn't have the right to vote while serving their country in the military in time of war (because they were less than 21), who are still alive today. I'm one of them. I was in Vietnam, or Southeast Asia in '67, '68, '69 and '70 for a total of 21 months, and I was first allowed to vote in the Nixon/McGovern election of 1972 after I was honorably discharged from military service.

Please remember, the male deaths I am citing are only from one state (California) and one war (conflict), Vietnam. There are names from 49 other states on the Vietnam Wall memorial. There are thousands, or more likely tens of thousands, of young men who died in Vietnam without ever having had the right to vote. There are men, many men, from other wars in this century who gave their lives for America without ever having been given the right to exercise their choice for the leadership and direction of their country.

The further back we go in time, the more difficult it becomes to get detailed information concerning America's war dead, but this site offered relevant data concerning the lives of twelve courageous Marines who where involved in one of the most famous and celebrated events of WWII, the flag raising on Iwo Jima

It bears mentioning that there were actually two flag raisings on Iwo Jima, but it is the second one that is most often remembered due to a photograph that has become nothing short of an American icon,

The lives of the second flag raisers at Iwo Jima are chronicled on this web site.

One key piece of information that can be gleaned from the information given on the "Find A Grave, Claim to Fame: Flag Raisers at Iwo Jima" web page is the age of those flag raisers at the time of their deaths. Of the twelve flag raisers, six died in the war, and four of those six died having never reached America's legal voting age of 21:

Block, Harlon Henry, November 6, 1924 d. March 1, 1945 (age 20 years, 3 months)

Charlo, Pvt. Louis Charles, September 26, 1926 d. March 2, 1945 (age 18 years, 5 months)

Sousley, Franklin, September 19, 1925 d. March 21, 1945 (age 19 years, 6 months)

Thomas Jr., Boots (Ernest Ivy) March 10, 1924 d. March 3, 1945 (age 20 years, 11 months)

Considering the present, politically correct, gender feminist climate in America's educational and governmental institutions, I guess I really don't expect much recognition concerning the historical voting oppression experienced by America's apparently ten's of thousands of eternally silenced American males.?"
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Go Up