Soy Chicano Forums

Go Back   Soy Chicano Forums > Identity/Culture/Race/Religion > Identity

Identity Anything pertaining to Identity issues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #76  
Old 06-26-2013
miguelito21's Avatar
miguelito21 miguelito21 is offline
Maestro
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 3,249
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

Quote:
This is an issue historians disagree on, but bear in mind this... When the Crusades ended and the knights templar returned to their respective kingdoms they were everything you described. They were of high esteem and sought out by kings. Yet when the Vatican caught wind that they had fallen into idolatry and were leading people astray due to their prominence, the Pope revealed he was anything but a lesser power as he had them rounded up across europe and executed.
It isn't much disputed that for quite a long time (roughly 5th to 11th century give or take) the Pope had very little power over monarchs.
The papacy did undergo a process of centralization of power in order to remedy that imbalance, the only problem is that monarchs were doing the exact same thing.
Papacy's growing power clashed with the rise of modern States which also yielded much more power than the isolated, smaller and decentralized principalities they were slowly replacing.
As I said, it was a constant clash of power (when monarchs were unable to place a subservient Pope, they would challenge his authority) and the example of the Templars is actually a sign of the monarchs' growing power:
Phillipe IV, head of the Capetian family, was the one who ordered them to be arrested and Pope Clement V (French also) disposed. The growing power of the Templars and the fact that they answered to no one but the Pope constituted an unacceptable challenge to the king's authority and he had them removed - a move I'm not sure the papacy was too happy about.


Shit sorry for dragging this off-topic subject on and on.
What can I say, I love history and you don't wanna get me started on some subjects hehehe.




Quote:
I was thinking about how so many of you complained this lady failed to substantiate her point with evidence so I decided to post various webpages of feminist historians whose research verifies what the lady in the video claims.

The following blog is by a lady who documents the matriarchal history of humanity that predates patriarchial civilization. She also cites how women were seen as superior in status due to her ability to create a child. I read through several pages of her research and I agree with her that patriarchy was a response to matriarchy. Matriarchy devalued the male and modern archeology is verifying this. During this era that predates patriarchy, men were regarded as lesser in value by matriarchal societies thus giving birth to the concept of male disposability that survived to this day. Male disposability isnt a recent phenomenon but rather an ancient one largely forgotten by patriarchal history.

I'd be more than happy to read from those historians you talk about.
If you have any reference (book or academic articles) don't hesitate and share them, I actually like reading this stuff.


Now as far as the first blog you linked to, I have several objections to what you wrote:


1/ She doesn't say the same thing as the lady in the video. You may find some common ground here and there but basically:

The lady in the video argued that women actually benefit from "male dominance", that under this system they are in reality the beneficiaries, more highly regarded than men and that modern feminism is but a scam, a successful "society-wide manipulative psychology".

Nothing remotely as ridicule as those claims are found in the blog, which is much more sensible and interesting than that video.



The very first post reads:

* Why, throughout recorded history, has the female sex been held inferior to the male sex and undeserving of rights and opportunities equal to men‘s?

* What made it OK for men to not just ignore or disdain women but treat them in ways that are flat-out sadistic - whether displayed openly as physical or mental cruelty or hidden under false courtesy and bloodless idealization?

* How could such an extreme male behavior be accepted as normal all over the world and last for thousands of years (until the women’s movement began to make a rift in it)?

* What became of the anger women couldn’t freely express but had to stockpile all this time, doomed as they were to institutionalized passivity?"



In other words, even if you agree with her theories that matriarchy first dominated the world and that patriarchy and male dominance is actually a response to what she calls "Malevolent Matriarchy", she still agrees that for millennia up to this day, women have indeed suffered from patriarchy, male dominance and inferiorization.




2/ As far as the validity of her theories, I have to say I don't see much at all to substantiate her claims.



First of all she is anonymous: there is no way to find eventual academic works she may have published so as to evaluate their academic merit.

Second, throughout the posts, the scarcity of references is what struck me most.

Some names are thrown here and there but even when they are, often she uses them to justify positions that those people she names have not defended themselves. That would explain why her references are so vague: it makes it that much more difficult to verify.

A lot of times she writes "recent research .. a study .. modern historians .. most agree that .. ect" without any kind of reference.

More common are formulations like "my take .. my guess .. my opinion ..." but with very little to substantiate her positions.


Forgive my attention to details, but when dealing with history, those are not details: they are the core of a historian's work: sources and references to sources so as to limit speculation to its bare minimum.

In her - quite interesting nonetheless - posts, sources are extremely scarce and speculations turned into assertions and affirmations abound.


Contrary to what she seems to think, a lot of historians, ethnologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc. intensely study prehistoric societies and tackle the issue of ancient matriarchy and the transition to patriarchy.

However the great scarcity of remains, especially remains of artifacts made by women (because they usually used organic materials that completely disintegrate, as opposed to stone artifacts) makes it extremely difficult to unravel these societies' functioning, their social structures, cultures and beliefs.

Grand assertions like the ones she makes are simply impossible, and I for one am quite reserved about the idealized visions of ancient matriarchal societies, which are often reflections of our representations of our own modern patriarchal societies.


I haven't checked the second link yet, but for some reason I fear I'll have similar objections.

Sorry if I come out as an ass or whatever, it's just that having studied history it's hard to get me to agree with theories about history that I consider unsubstantiated.
__________________
"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-26-2013
Cal's Avatar
Cal Cal is offline
ಠ_ರೃ
Veterano
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Marland
Posts: 8,513
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong black woman ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-26-2013
miguelito21's Avatar
miguelito21 miguelito21 is offline
Maestro
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 3,249
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

╔═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╗
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong black woman ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
╚═════════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ════════════════╝
__________________
"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-26-2013
CaliPac's Avatar
CaliPac CaliPac is offline
Director
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,180
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-26-2013
GrimmStabnandez's Avatar
GrimmStabnandez GrimmStabnandez is offline
Travieso
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 465
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

__________________
Violence has its own economy. Therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 06-27-2013
KoolArrow's Avatar
KoolArrow KoolArrow is offline
Veterano
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: West L.A/Las Vegas
Posts: 8,605
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

__________________
“The secret of happiness, you see, is not found in
seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less.”― Socrates

"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me" - Nathaniel Lee
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-29-2013
REMAINING STRONG's Avatar
REMAINING STRONG REMAINING STRONG is offline
Mocoso
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 158
Smile Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

Quote:
Originally Posted by miguelito21
It isn't much disputed that for quite a long time (roughly 5th to 11th century give or take) the Pope had very little power over monarchs. The papacy did undergo a process of centralization of power in order to remedy that imbalance, the only problem is that monarchs were doing the exact same thing. Papacy's growing power clashed with the rise of modern States which also yielded much more power than the isolated, smaller and decentralized principalities they were slowly replacing. As I said, it was a constant clash of power (when monarchs were unable to place a subservient Pope, they would challenge his authority) and the example of the Templars is actually a sign of the monarchs' growing power: Phillipe IV, head of the Capetian family, was the one who ordered them to be arrested and Pope Clement V (French also) disposed. The growing power of the Templars and the fact that they answered to no one but the Pope constituted an unacceptable challenge to the king's authority and he had them removed -a move I'm not sure the papacy was too happy about.
You are right about Philip being a manipulative king that used Pope Clement. However even your argument reaffirms just how powerful Rome was. King Philip understood he could not dare directly oppose the Catholic Church. His actions were quite strategic in how he sought to seize the wealth of the Templars he was in debt to without directly contradicting the authority of the church. Many historians believe he poisoned Pope Benedict XI to manuever Pope Clement V into power. Likewise he encouraged Clement to be stationed in France instead of Rome to prevent him from being poisoned by the italian cardinals. Nine french cardinals were placed on the college of cardinals to displace the power of the italian cardinals within the college of cardinals. Why did king philip go through such great lengths to place people within the Catholic infrastructure unless even he as king knew he could not directly contradict them due to the power they held over the people! Do not underestimate them, if they openly condemn an individual (even a king) as an enemy of God this will cause people to overthrow even a monarch. This is why the monarchs in all their power and debauchery knew to still pay them their respects.

Granted, king philip is credited in having pope clement issue a papal bull ordering the arrest and trial of the templars but we are given conflicting reasons as to why. The templars and their lodges were rumored to have been followers of occult practices and their lodges and secrecy made them a threat to both monarchs and popes. Many Islamic historians consider the Templars the origin of modern freemasonry. When Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay was burned to death he made an interesting statement that both the king and pope would soon join him. That same year both king philip and pope clement were dead. This means there is another player on the board that neither of us has even acknowledged, a player with the capability to murder both popes and kings. That player is Freemasonry. While Templar/Masonic lodges were already secretive, having a papal bull issued against their leadership from the vatican (not the monarch) that was causing them to be executed drove freemasonry further underground and into hiding. Yet their power behind the scenes in europe has been researched and the subject of much controversy. The masons became so powerful that the Vatican viewed them as a threat and it is speculated that the Jesuits were in a power struggle with them for a while. However due to the secrecy of both the Vatican and the Freemasons the true activities, murders, meddling and foul play both partook in to retain power over the european continent will remain unknown.

Ever since Templars spilled the blood of the first Muslims, some in the Muslim community have been keeping track of templar/freemasonic run/manipulated nations showing hostilities towards them from the crusades to retake jerusalem to the more recent "war on terror". Some of their documentaries are interesting on the freemasons and how much control they have over many governments.

I think it is safe to say that human relations are organic in nature and as a result cannot be mapped, defined or spoken in absolutes. No one group ever had absolute power as the balance of which fluctuated between them over time.

Quote:
The lady in the video argued that women actually benefit from "male dominance", that under this system they are in reality the beneficiaries, more highly regarded than men and that modern feminism is but a scam, a successful "society-wide manipulative psychology".
From my understanding the lady in the video was concerned feminism had been infiltrated by agents of this belief. She wasnt disgreeing with feminism so much as this belief that she stated has basically crept into feminism. Although I disagree with her to a large degree, for her as a woman who obviously spends alot of time pondering these issues (given she has a you tube channel and blog), this warrants some merit. If she has firsthand seen or even personally experienced this and as a woman has the bravery to publicly say it then I felt it deserves consideration, no matter how unacademic her argument was. We do not live in a world of absolutes and it is dangerous to make blanket statements as if we do. She is no more an idiot than anyone else. We should try to hear her out with an open mind.

Incidentially, there are men that are disadvantaged. She has a point that there is considerably less social services for them as a group, although this group does exist. The current map of who is oppressed blatantly ignored groups of people who are and included people who arent always. Humanity is living and as a result the map is living and it fluctuates and changes and SOMETIMES someone who is a victim of sexism or racism today will at times be benefiting from sexism or racism in their favor tomorrow. Ive seen people who were victims of racism in one way benefitting from racism in another way at the same time! So I feel that the attempt of this lady to counterbalance the stereotype that woman are always the victims of men was commendable, regardless of how awful you felt her arguments were.

Quote:
In other words, even if you agree with her theories that matriarchy first dominated the world and that patriarchy and male dominance is actually a response to what she calls "Malevolent Matriarchy", she still agrees that for millennia up to this day, women have indeed suffered from patriarchy, male dominance and inferiorization.
Agreed.

Quote:
In her - quite interesting nonetheless - posts, sources are extremely scarce and speculations turned into assertions and affirmations abound.
True. I hope more of the theories on human history asserted by feminists will be methodologically researched and substantiated. I find alot of their theories reasonable to believe and worth researching myself.

Quote:
Grand assertions like the ones she makes are simply impossible, and I for one am quite reserved about the idealized visions of ancient matriarchal societies, which are often reflections of our representations of our own modern patriarchal societies.
Neither of the links I posted were of people who had idealized visions. The first openly acknowledges matriarchy demoted males in equality and is to blame in some regard to the rise of patriarchy. This painful admission is not what someone who is idealizing and romanticizing would want to acknowledge.

The second link also advocates a theory that it is cautious to base on archeological evidence. She cites that stone carvings and statues found are almost exclusively of females and when a male is shown it is in a lesser manner to her. She also acknowledges that due to a lack of weapons recovered it is possible warfare was a phenomenon of patriarchy which she did cite archeological evidence or lack of to substantiate her observation.

Quote:
I haven't checked the second link yet, but for some reason I fear I'll have similar objections.
I should of put the second link first. She actually goes through great lengths to cite her sources and often has footnotes. Although she is far more radical in her feminism I still appreciated reading her presentation of matriarchal civilization and the origin of humanity.

I fear if you are expecting me to provide published works of female authors on the subject of matriarchy then good luck. I suspect modern academia is still heavily sexist in this area against female authors and even more so of matriarchal evidence of the origin of civilization. On her website she has an article on the Gobekli Tepe Temple, which is the oldest temple known of in the world. While the scientific community has made a huge deal about how it is ancient even to the pyramids of Egypt and this pushes the date back by thousands of years in terms of human development, the fact that it is suspected of being matriarchal is ignored or suppressed. The sole stone carving of a human is of a woman who appears to be giving birth. Yet while various articles on this site included pictures of the stone carvings of all the animals carvings, the one of the women is never included. They acknowledge it is there in print but they never include the picture of the female from this archeological site. I went on the web looking and although various articles admit there is a stone carving of a woman, none of them include a picture of her among all the pictures they made available of the place. Isnt that sad?

http://www.mother-god.com/gobekli-tepe.html

Quote:
Sorry if I come out as an ass or whatever, it's just that having studied history it's hard to get me to agree with theories about history that I consider unsubstantiated.
Fair enough. You have good reason to be, considering how many times in the past people have assumed beliefs which were later exposed to be wrong.

You are analytical and that is understandable. It doesnt make you an ass or a douche or whatever people are calling it these days.

peace

__________________
Dont assume that when people speak of the sacrifices they've made that they are speaking of self sacrifice. The wolves here are disguised as sheep and the sheep are framed and slaughtered by the wolves.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-01-2013
REMAINING STRONG's Avatar
REMAINING STRONG REMAINING STRONG is offline
Mocoso
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 158
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

Quote:
Originally Posted by ;1493804
Although historically the example given by this comedian is true, apparently this wasnt the case with the Costa Concordia.




The captain was a man and he bailed out on everyone!
__________________
Dont assume that when people speak of the sacrifices they've made that they are speaking of self sacrifice. The wolves here are disguised as sheep and the sheep are framed and slaughtered by the wolves.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-27-2013
miguelito21's Avatar
miguelito21 miguelito21 is offline
Maestro
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 3,249
Default Re: Feminism & the Disposable Male

Sorry for the - very - late reply.


Quote:
No one group ever had absolute power as the balance of which fluctuated between them over time.
Sure, that's what I meant when I wrote : "I don't agree that the true or highest power in medieval Europe was the Vatican. The Vatican was one among other power players who, like the rest, constantly tried to assert dominance."


Quote:
I felt it deserves consideration, no matter how unacademic her argument was. We do not live in a world of absolutes and it is dangerous to make blanket statements as if we do. She is no more an idiot than anyone else. We should try to hear her out with an open mind.
Agreed; and I did listen through the entire video and took the time to respond to it.
I just came to the conclusion that her arguments were very weak and explained why.
I didn't mean to give the impression I thought she was an idiot.



Quote:
Neither of the links I posted were of people who had idealized visions. The first openly acknowledges matriarchy demoted males in equality and is to blame in some regard to the rise of patriarchy. This painful admission is not what someone who is idealizing and romanticizing would want to acknowledge.
I could've been more clear: I didn't mean "idealize" in the sense of "romanticizing", but in the sense that the visions of past societies that were exposed seemed to stem more from existing mental images rather than the scarcely available archaeological evidence which, in my opinion, do not allow for grand assertions and generalizations like the ones presented.


As for academic sources, you can find plenty of interesting material arguing both sides of the argument.

It's only my personal preference and bias, but as far as history/archaeology, I will always prefer articles that are sourced, referenced and peer-reviewed over anonymous blogposts or amateur websites.

If you're into it, there is an interesting exchange between Cynthia Eller and Max Dashu about Eller's book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory.

You can find the exchange here: http://cynthiaeller.com/mmpreviews_new.htm (along with other reviews critical of Eller's book).

For my part, I agree a lot with the following position from Eller:

"I am making the much more modest claim that however prehistoric societies were organized, we can be pretty sure that they were not all matristic, goddess-worshipping, and respectful of women. In other words, I am arguing against the thesis of universal prehistoric matriarchy; not in favor of the thesis of universal patriarchy. "
__________________
"Advertising has us working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." - Tyler Durden

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell (copied from the most honorable KA)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 AM.


All the comments are property of their posters. Images, logo, content and design are © copyright by SoyChicano.com. All Rights Reserved.