Cork Feminista Conference Recording 21st June 2014

[Empirical]

Absolutely no one defines oppression in such a way that being denied a vote wouldn't count. If they do they are wrong. To talk about other forms of oppression is distracting right now. I'm only talking about women vs men.

In that case, you can go back to the change between hunting/gathering and settled agriculture. Settled agriculture introduced the concept of "property", and also the idea that property should pass to legitimate heirs, ones that were the certain offspring of the father, and not someone else's children that he had raised by mistake. To be certain that your heirs were legitimate, you had to control women's sexuality, which in turn can be argued as leading to the concept of virginity.

In Genesis, Eve is described as being made from Adam's rib; that is, she wasn't a "proper" person like Adam, but was a subsidiary part of the man, someone who was "second rate" or "second class", or an "afterthought".

You can still see these ideas in action even today.

[Paul Carr]

Let's take this one thing at a time Paul. No changing topic until we're done with each point.

1. Have women been historically oppressed?

They didn't get to vote until much later than men in almost every country. Can you explain how that is compatible with your assertion that they have not been historically oppressed.

It is simplistic to say men were oppressing women. Historically, men and women were socialized into separate roles. Each gender was, for the most part, a slave to its role rather than it being the case that one gender was oppressing the other. The traditional role for a woman was to raise children. The traditional role for a man was to protect the woman he married and their children, by providing the finances for example (and also fighting the wars). In the olden days, men, for the most part, ruled but when they passed laws it was more often to take rights away from men than from women. Women were left in peace to perform her wifely duties of homemaker and raise the children. Laws barely touched them there.

Angry Harry puts its well.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhataPieceofShtisMan.htm
_____________________________________________________
"Men have all the power" - a common feminist slogan.

In our prisons "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

In our police force "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

In our legal system and our government, "men have all the power". But they wield it, by and large, over men!

In our society "men have all the power"! But they wield it, by and large, over men!

The idea that "men have all the power" is therefore nonsense given that to the extent that there is any power, it is wielded mostly over men.
_________________________________________

As for suffrage, generally speaking, universal female suffrage was granted about 10 to 50 years depending on the country, after universal male suffrage was granted. For hundreds of years, men didn't have the vote either. In the UK until the 1918 Representation of the People Act, about 40% of men didn't have the vote either because of property requirements. Women got equal voting rights with men in 1928. Why were men given the vote first? I think because women's traditional domain was in the home but the public place was seen as the domain of men. Government in those days was a lot smaller. Taxation raised by governments was a lot less. If I am not mistaken, even today, men pay 70% of the income tax in the UK. What governments did in those days was a lot less. In the US, for example, before WW1, there was the postal service and the army and an anti trust authority but not much else that the federal government got up to. There was no welfare state like we know it today. In the US, income tax before WW1 was like 6% and only affected the wealthiest top 2% of the population. I think it was something similar in the UK.

[Paul Carr]

Absolutely no one defines oppression in such a way that being denied a vote wouldn't count. If they do they are wrong. To talk about other forms of oppression is distracting right now. I'm only talking about women vs men.

But there is no women vs men like the feminists like to say. Men and women are meant to complement one another not go to war with one another. In the past, men and women were socialized into distinct roles. In these separate roles, one gender was dependent on the other.

[Paul Carr]

In that case, you can go back to the change between hunting/gathering and settled agriculture. Settled agriculture introduced the concept of "property", and also the idea that property should pass to legitimate heirs, ones that were the certain offspring of the father, and not someone else's children that he had raised by mistake. To be certain that your heirs were legitimate, you had to control women's sexuality, which in turn can be argued as leading to the concept of virginity.

I see more evidence in the world today of control of male sexuality rather than female sexuality. Take circumcision a.k.a. male genital mutilation. 30% of males are circumcised worldwide according to WHO. This compares with 70 million females worldwide. A third of the foreskin of the penis is removed in circumcision. This causes discomfort for the man as well as the woman during sexual intercourse. The man additionally will have more discomfort masturbating. This was the intent of circumcision. I linked you previously to the statement of Rabbi Maimonides (born 1135 died 1204)

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. "

In Genesis, Eve is described as being made from Adam's rib; that is, she wasn't a "proper" person like Adam, but was a subsidiary part of the man, someone who was "second rate" or "second class", or an "afterthought".

You can still see these ideas in action even today.

How on earth can men think of women as an afterthought? It is impossible for men to ignore women. Feminists, of course, like to think that women don't need men. There is Gloria Steinem's famous refrain that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. This is utter bunk. Look at all the technology we take for granted today that was invented by men. The female contraceptive pill, computers, the internet.

[Empirical]

I see more evidence in the world today of control of male sexuality rather than female sexuality. Take circumcision a.k.a. male genital mutilation. 30% of males are circumcised worldwide according to WHO. This compares with 70 million females worldwide. A third of the foreskin of the penis is removed in circumcision. This causes discomfort for the man as well as the woman during sexual intercourse. The man additionally will have more discomfort masturbating. This was the intent of circumcision. I linked you previously to the statement of Rabbi Maimonides (born 1135 died 1204)

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. "



How on earth can men think of women as an afterthought? It is impossible for men to ignore women. Feminists, of course, like to think that women don't need men. There is Gloria Steinem's famous refrain that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. This is utter bunk. Look at all the technology we take for granted today that was invented by men. The female contraceptive pill, computers, the internet.

Some men did:

St Paul—
(Thought) “celibacy as the ideal state for ‘mankind’”

(Thought) “women as ‘naturally’ inferior beings; they were a kind of afterthought”

[Saw man alone as] the image and glory of God

[Woman is but] the glory of the man

Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent.

The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man

[Curvaceous Kate]

Some men did:

St Paul—
(Thought) “celibacy as the ideal state for ‘mankind’”

(Thought) “women as ‘naturally’ inferior beings; they were a kind of afterthought”

[Saw man alone as] the image and glory of God

[Woman is but] the glory of the man

Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent.

The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man

That's pretty damning evidence and I for one am very glad we are moving away from that direction.

[Empirical]

That's pretty damning evidence and I for one am very glad we are moving away from that direction.

A few more, from the early Doctors of the Church:

Tertullian of Carthage

Dripping breasts, stinking wombs, and crying babies

Woman is a temple over a sewer

[Women should wear perpetual mourning to atone for] the ignominy and odium of having being the cause of the fall of the human race

Clement of Alexandria

Every woman ought to be filled with shame as the thought that she is a woman

Amongst all the savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman

And this, surprisingly, is from Martin Luther:

And if a woman grows weary and at last dies from child-bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it

[Curvaceous Kate]

A few more, from the early Doctors of the Church:

Tertullian of Carthage

Dripping breasts, stinking wombs, and crying babies

Woman is a temple over a sewer

[Women should wear perpetual mourning to atone for] the ignominy and odium of having being the cause of the fall of the human race

Clement of Alexandria

Every woman ought to be filled with shame as the thought that she is a woman

Amongst all the savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman

And this, surprisingly, is from Martin Luther:

And if a woman grows weary and at last dies from child-bearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it

No likey!!! Although this one might be true maybe once a month

Amongst all the savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman

[Empirical]

I see more evidence in the world today of control of male sexuality rather than female sexuality. Take circumcision a.k.a. male genital mutilation. 30% of males are circumcised worldwide according to WHO. This compares with 70 million females worldwide. A third of the foreskin of the penis is removed in circumcision. This causes discomfort for the man as well as the woman during sexual intercourse. The man additionally will have more discomfort masturbating. This was the intent of circumcision. I linked you previously to the statement of Rabbi Maimonides (born 1135 died 1204)

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. "...

The problem with the assertion about the problems that circumcision produce it that they are unverifiable. To be certain of this effect, it would be necessary to have a large group men complete a survey of their sexual experiences before and after circumcision: and the prepuce would have to be normal, not diseased. It's impossible to imagine this happening.

I'm not sure that you can conflate circumcision with control of male sexuaity; it certainly doesn't interfere with enjoyment in the way that female genital mutilation does. FGM is certainly done for cultural reasons, though the underlying reason is "control" of sexuality; male circumcision is mostly done for "religious, cultural" reasons. And, again in Victorian times, surgical excision of the clitoris was used as an anti-masturbatory treatment.

The anti-masturbatory movement had its origins in a deliberate misunderstanding of the story of Onan in the Bible.

It might certainly be possible to ask a large group of women which they prefer or find more comfortable. I'm not sure if this has ever been done scientifically; there are reports that really don't give a clear preference for one or the other.

As far as Moses Maimonides is concerned, certainly circumcision was an anti-masturbation operation in Victorian times, though he was surely not imagining this. In his days, boys were circumcised on the 8th day; and childhood memories are unreliable before they are about 4 years old. To remember something that happened as a neonate, when brain functions are not anyway fully established is simply impossible. And as a cleric, I ask why he is so concerned with sex, which is a normal bodily function; and if you look at the views of others I've cited above, it's clear that their opinions were based on opinion and not fact.

[Paul Carr]

Some men did:

St Paul—
(Thought) “celibacy as the ideal state for ‘mankind’”

(Thought) “women as ‘naturally’ inferior beings; they were a kind of afterthought”

[Saw man alone as] the image and glory of God

[Woman is but] the glory of the man

Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not allow any woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain silent.

The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man

Ah, so St Paul was the Gloria "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" Steinem of his day. Okay.