Why do men beat their wives? [Archive]

Enemy

7th February 2005, 03:57

Originally posted by captain [email protected] 7 2005, 03:51 AM
Alot has to do with childhood influences to answer both those questions. In some situations, yes poverty from capitalism may create a anger that leads to both molesting and abuse, but it cannot all be from poverty as michael jackson is rolling in $$$$$$$. But, if you ever watch stuff like Law and order, they do tend to touch upon molestation and abuse, and consider it mental or a result of recieving it from childhood.
What about controlling another person? The feeling one gets when they dominate another. Do you think this has anything to do with it?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

7th February 2005, 04:59

A society based on violence and coercive heirarchies, internalized, drives all sorts of fucked up behavior. Throw in a bit of Christianity to ensure some sexual repression, and a social agenda that sets up the ideal of the violent white male . . . well, what do you expect?
It would be reductionist to lay the guilt at the feet of any one institution or system - rather it is a product of over-lapping, and interacting systems of domination and control. Capitalism just happens to be part of that greater ideological structure.

(I'd include a "wink" smiley, but given the gravity of the topic, I think it would be in poor taste.)

Enemy

7th February 2005, 05:10

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 7 2005, 04:59 AM
A society based on violence and coercive heirarchies, internalized, drives all sorts of fucked up behavior. Through in a bit of Christianity to ensure some sexual repression, and a social agenda that sets up the ideal of the violent white male . . . well, what do you expect?
It would be reductionist to lay the guilt at the feet of any one institution or system - rather it is a product of over-lapping, and interacting systems of domination and control. Capitalism just happens to be part of that greater ideological structure.

(I'd include a "wink" smiley, but given the gravity of the topic, I think it would be in poor taste.)
Yes we all know that only white christian males beat their wives and molest children. It never ever happens anywhere else especially muslim countries. If we just put a end to capitalism all would be good. We would also need to outlaw religion and stop free speech(somebody might get offended). If only we were like cuba.

NovelGentry

7th February 2005, 05:58

What about controlling another person? The feeling one gets when they dominate another. Do you think this has anything to do with it?

Indeed it probably does. The only way I can think to remedy this is to make no one feel as if they are smaller than someone else. Usually it is people taking the anger or hurt they feel inside out on someone else, they feel small, and thus need to prove they can suppress another human life.

The best way to do this would probably to destroy inequality on all levels.

redstar2000

7th February 2005, 06:23

Originally posted by Enemy
Yes we all know that only white christian males beat their wives and molest children. It never ever happens anywhere else especially muslim countries.

You sound rather upset; read these and it will make you feel better.

Women in Islam (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089328946&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Lifting the Veil; Communism vs. Islam (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083544363&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Guest1

7th February 2005, 06:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:10 AM
Yes we all know that only white christian males beat their wives and molest children. It never ever happens anywhere else especially muslim countries. If we just put a end to capitalism all would be good. We would also need to outlaw religion and stop free speech(somebody might get offended). If only we were like cuba.
Speaking as a former muslim born in Saudi Arabia, I'd say you missed the point if you took his attack on hierarchies and reactionary society to be a defense of Islam.

In fact, as Communists, Islam is as big an enemy to us.

pandora

7th February 2005, 06:39

I think controlling others is often engaged on when the abusive spouse sees the other person as responsible for their happiness, or becomes deperate thinking there happiness is dependent on the other person, so they must control the other person at all times, and keep them from leaving them for someone else. They do not care for the happiness of the object, only what makes them happy, and are very selfish and sad.

In a Communist society and some tribal societies, the community is so strong that if the one mate, usually female rejects the male, they have the community to intercede to force the male to leave. In our society the police can remove the male, but sometimes they will not even do that. And there is no guarentee the enraged partner who believes this person has taken their happiness will not try to come back. But if there is a wise community others can say you need to leave and intercede.

Our current society encourages these sorts of dysfunctional relationships. Advertising coerces women to appeal to the lust of males for control. Beer ads project women as commodities. But the real pain is that the society is so disjointed that often people put their entire attention on one person, so that they feel unstable of seperated from that person, instead of being reliant on many people and families for support. There is no support in our society besides the nuclear family, so if the parents seperate there is no family essentially.

This also destroys the social status of both partners as married couples are rewarded in our society and single people are not, they are seen as "not grown up" or not serious. Our society encourages the breeding of children for workers, but does not care about the manner in which they are raised, or the society in which they are raised.

I think people need to be educated by their community in loving others, and that one should never be solely focused on one person as a source of happiness, they should give their love to many people, perhaps only keeping sexual love to one partner. Then they would feel more secure, but this would be against the spirit of competition and markets. It would mean truly wanting others to be happy.

Zingu

7th February 2005, 13:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:10 AM

Yes we all know that only white christian males beat their wives and molest children. It never ever happens anywhere else especially muslim countries. If we just put a end to capitalism all would be good. We would also need to outlaw religion and stop free speech(somebody might get offended). If only we were like cuba.
I knew you would start accusing us again. :rolleyes:

Essential Insignificance

9th February 2005, 02:27

Why do men beat their wives?

It would be historically fallacious to solely attribute "wife beating" to the mass wretchedness that capitalism creates.

For women have been the "brunt" of male suppression since the inception of class society itself... where the male "class" were able to assert their authority through a commonly held "natural" predisposition -- physical means (strength) -- and thereby force women and children to produce and by virtue of thus -- extract life's requisites.

There is no doubting that through the economic and therefore political liberation of humanity -- by means of proletarian revolution -- people will live a lot more economically "secure" and "protected" life.

Which would therefore lower the "possibility" of depression, anger and antagonism.

The "causes" of brutality.

Yet it would be absolutely imprudent to suggest that it is "economic oppression" that "make" men hit their wives -- for a man can always "focus" aggression in other ways.

As the act of hitting women (or men) is one of the most contemptible acts -- one, accordingly, that will not be tolerated in a communist society.

And as such... the emancipation of the working class will bring about the emancipation of women from men.

This goes back to the days where the man brings home the money and the woman is supposed to clean the house.

I think you have the "mentality" of a sociologist living in the 1940's and 1950's in America... and depicting the "picture" that it truthfully emitted.

It's most certainly true that some men are incredibly chauvinistic about them needing to "provide for their family" -- but what this entails and gives them is the economic power and by virtue of thus, the political power within the family "nation".

I know of a few people like this personally... and I think this "mindset" is inherited from the practices that they have witnessed and being a part of as child themselves.

So the "wife & children" become exclusively dependent on the "breed winner".

Something the male chauvinists yearns for -- power over others (the weaker).

And it is with this "power" -- which the male thinks -- he is "permitted" to beat those who belong within his "national" family unit.

But with the development of capitalist technology, and the commencement of female secondary education -- the formally placed restriction on females in both sectors of labor -- manual and mental -- have enabled them to gain employment on an "equal par" with men.

Thus allowing the female populace to "invade" the previously dominated male "role" ("the breed-winner").

And this places the male in an "anxious" and "apprehensive" position... something the chauvinist's "from top to bottom" detests.

And this is where I'd imagine some (if not most) of the violence and sadism stems from.

The male trying to "assert himself".

RedStarOverChina

9th February 2005, 03:03

dakewlguy

9th February 2005, 15:13

Originally posted by Enemy+Feb 7 2005, 03:46 AM--> (Enemy @ Feb 7 2005, 03:46 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 03:42 AM
really what i think, and its not all of us, is because in an argument were usually out smarted, and at the end we're just not intelligent enough to sort it out with intelligence, so we resort to our strenght.
Ok. Another question then.

Why do people molest children? [/b]
Very recent psychological research has suggested that people who find children attractive have a faulty interpretation of the signal they recieve when they see children. Naturally everyone experiences a pleasant chemical reaction to seeing children, due to evolutionary advantages related to protecting our offspring.

However research into illness's such as schizophrenia has shown how these signals can become distorted, and one theory is that in Peadophiles, the brain mistakes the signal for sexual desire.

dakewlguy

9th February 2005, 15:14

As for wife beating, in all societies, and pre-society in the prehistoric ages, men have been dominant(regardless of this being right or wrong), so no it is not a result of Capitalism.

t_wolves_fan

9th February 2005, 16:33

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 9 2005, 03:13 PM--> (dakewlguy @ Feb 9 2005, 03:13 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:46 AM

[email protected] 7 2005, 03:42 AM
really what i think, and its not all of us, is because in an argument were usually out smarted, and at the end we're just not intelligent enough to sort it out with intelligence, so we resort to our strenght.
Ok. Another question then.

Why do people molest children?
Very recent psychological research has suggested that people who find children attractive have a faulty interpretation of the signal they recieve when they see children. Naturally everyone experiences a pleasant chemical reaction to seeing children, due to evolutionary advantages related to protecting our offspring.

However research into illness's such as schizophrenia has shown how these signals can become distorted, and one theory is that in Peadophiles, the brain mistakes the signal for sexual desire. [/b]
Which is good enough reason in my book to execute them.

dakewlguy

9th February 2005, 17:04

Haha I'm more partial to giving them drugs to correct the problem but whatever works dawg.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

9th February 2005, 17:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:14 PM
As for wife beating, in all societies, and pre-society in the prehistoric ages, men have been dominant(regardless of this being right or wrong), so no it is not a result of Capitalism.
But capitalism perpetuates it. There has also often (Though not in all societies) been massive wealth-inequality - but under current circumstances, capitalism is clearly the driving force behind that inequality.

t_wolves_fan

9th February 2005, 17:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:03 AM
Men beat their wives is because they are "superior" in the family.

Their "superiority" is an result of their access of more financial income. According to Marxism, people's status within a capitalist society depends on their ability to earn income.

Since traditionally, women were robbed of their rights to provide income for the family, women's social status is low. We can see their rising as an average income for a woman increases.

So inequality between genders is a result of both ill-traditions and the capitalist in material wealth.
Whatever you say, Chairman.

Shouldn't you be busy starving a few million people to death on those farms of yours?

dakewlguy

9th February 2005, 17:57

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Feb 9 2005, 05:45 PM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Feb 9 2005, 05:45 PM)
[email protected] 9 2005, 03:14 PM
As for wife beating, in all societies, and pre-society in the prehistoric ages, men have been dominant(regardless of this being right or wrong), so no it is not a result of Capitalism.
But capitalism perpetuates it. There has also often (Though not in all societies) been massive wealth-inequality - but under current circumstances, capitalism is clearly the driving force behind that inequality. [/b]
What was the driving force of the inequality in previous societies, if not the society itself? What you said of capitalism can be said of all societies, it's a no brainer: In Feudal society the driving force of inequality was Feudalism, etc.

How does Capitalism perpetuate male dominance any more than previous societies. Capitalism thanks to its progressive and questioning nature has in fact made the genders more equal. In previous societies women being lessers to men wasn't even questioned, it was an accepted fact. Even in the French Revolution of the 1800s, it was stated that men were all equal naturally, but there was no mention of women.
Whereas now the Feminist movements have developed due to Capitalism being far less traditionalist. Women are no longer - as was the case in previous societies - seen as property of men. It has also been only in Capitalism that the idea of women being individuals and deserving the rights men have, has came into existance.

t_wolves_fan

9th February 2005, 18:02

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 9 2005, 05:57 PM--> (dakewlguy @ Feb 9 2005, 05:57 PM)
Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2005, 05:45 PM

[email protected] 9 2005, 03:14 PM
As for wife beating, in all societies, and pre-society in the prehistoric ages, men have been dominant(regardless of this being right or wrong), so no it is not a result of Capitalism.
But capitalism perpetuates it. There has also often (Though not in all societies) been massive wealth-inequality - but under current circumstances, capitalism is clearly the driving force behind that inequality.
What was the driving force of the inequality in previous societies, if not the society itself? What you said of capitalism can be said of all societies, it's a no brainer: In Feudal society the driving force of inequality was Feudalism, etc.

How does Capitalism perpetuate male dominance any more than previous societies. Capitalism thanks to its progressive and questioning nature has in fact made the genders more equal. In previous societies women being lessers to men wasn't even questioned, it was an accepted fact. Even in the French Revolution of the 1800s, it was stated that men were all equal naturally, but there was no mention of women.
Whereas now the Feminist movements have developed due to Capitalism being far less traditionalist. Women are no longer - as was the case in previous societies - seen as property of men. It has also been only in Capitalism that the idea of women being individuals and deserving the rights men have, has came into existance. [/b]
Yep.

As we've seen from our communist posters, in their society someone who challenged the status quo (i.e. women being property) would have been told to shut up or leave.

DaCuBaN

9th February 2005, 18:06

However research into illness's such as schizophrenia has shown how these signals can become distorted, and one theory is that in Peadophiles, the brain mistakes the signal for sexual desire.

Yes, I've heard this one too. Another I've heard is about the way the brain makes connections as you are developing, and in effect learns the incorrect response to this. If this is true, then becoming sexually active at a young age may well increase your chances of being "paedophilic" in later life.

Just a bar convo, but interesting nonetheless.

Even in the French Revolution of the 1800s, it was stated that men were all equal naturally, but there was no mention of women.

I'd be interested to see some text to back that up, of course. The french language is structured by sex, but the philosophers who were spawned of that age (I was under the impression) believed intensely in human equality

If it says, "tous les hommes sont égaux", I stand corrected. Bear in mind, despite the arguably sexist nature of the english-language, we still use men to refer to the human race.

dakewlguy

9th February 2005, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:06 PM

I'd be interested to see some text to back that up, of course. The french language is structured by sex, but the philosophers who were spawned of that age (I was under the impression) believed intensely in human equality

If it says, "tous les hommes sont égaux", I stand corrected. Bear in mind, despite the arguably sexist nature of the english-language, we still use men to refer to the human race.
It's an issue of language, partly yes. But that there is no mention of women in particular, who at the time were considered inferior to men and as having no place in politics. So the revolution can be seen as continuing male dominance because it does nothing to address the problem. It can be assumed that the revolters were content with the gender situation.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

9th February 2005, 22:53

I agree that the oppression of women could possibly continue under modern Communist ideas, but more likely than not it wouldn't. As you can see from this board, the majority of Communists are strong supporters of gender quality. Maybe 100 years ago that wouldn'tve been the case, but that isn't the point. In Capitalism, the equality of men and women is generally determined by the employer, not society's views as a whole. Given this, if the manager of a certain store is sexist, he can choose (though not legally allowed to, in the US at least) to discriminate against women and pay them less. Such action would not be possible or accepted in a Communist or Socialist society.

Freidenker

9th February 2005, 22:56

I don't know. I know that if I ever raised a hand to my girlfriend, she'd beat the shit out of me. I don't hit girls. Hahaha. My girlfriend and I are complete equals. Except, she's better. ;)

amusing foibles

9th February 2005, 23:31

Regardless of the causes of abuse (and I've been led to believe that it's largely a product of upbringing, ie if your dad beat your mom you're more likely to beat your own wife), as Pandora already mentioned a communist system would provide for a greater support system for the abused, or at least make it easier to get out because the abused wouldn't be financially dependant on the abuser. This can help to "break the cycle of violence."

Capitalism thanks to its progressive and questioning nature has in fact made the genders more equal.

How has Capitalism, in and of itself, lead to greater equality between men and women? Last I checked any semblance of equality is do to the generations of women (and men) fighting for this equality, not the market, and certainly not private property- the idea of which allowed women to be "owned" by their men (yes, even in Capitalist societies).

Capitalism, when used as a tool by people with already sexist mindsets, is easily used to reinforce false inequalities since it institutionalizes inequality (through wealth, through class relations). A woman can be (and was) rendered dependant to the men in her life if no one believes her competent for any serious work- and since under capitalism if you don't work you starve to death, she has little choice. This is obviously not to say that that's what it's like now, just that Capitalism itself has little to do with gender equality.

Right_is_right

9th February 2005, 23:34

Alcohal makes a lot of people beat their wives and children.

RedStarOverChina

10th February 2005, 01:30

Men beat their wives is because they are "superior" in the family.

Their "superiority" is an result of their access of more financial income. According to Marxism, people's status within a capitalist society depends on their ability to earn income.

Since traditionally, women were robbed of their rights to provide income for the family, women's social status is low. We can see their rising as an average income for a woman increases.

So inequality between genders is a result of both ill-traditions and the capitalist in material wealth.

Whatever you say, Chairman.

Shouldn't you be busy starving a few million people to death on those farms of yours?

Ahhh u have nothing to say now, do u?

go get an education or something. attacking the person instead of the problem never wins u an argument, unless u use it on children.

RedStarOverChina

10th February 2005, 01:38

Under communism, women no longer depend on men to make a living. They are more free to leave their partners if they feel like it. And vice versa. Thus the oppression against women will be ended. Again, people's status within a capitalist society depends on their productivity.

Objectivist

10th February 2005, 01:46

Don't people beat their wives because they want to? What does the economic/political situation have to do with it? RedStarOverChina:
Under communism, women no longer depend on men to make a living. They are more free to leave their partners if they feel like it. And vice versa. Thus the oppression against women will be ended. Again, people's status within a capitalist society depends on their productivity

Do women depend on men to make a living now? What is your evidence for this? Why shouldn't people's status depend on their productivity?

Objectivist

10th February 2005, 01:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:30 AM
Ahhh u have nothing to say now, do u?

go get an education or something. attacking the person instead of the problem never wins u an argument, unless u use it on children.
Does not capitalizing things win arguments?

amusing foibles

10th February 2005, 01:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:38 AM
Under communism, women no longer depend on men to make a living. They are more free to leave their partners if they feel like it. And vice versa. Thus the oppression against women will be ended.
There's a bit more to sexism and inequality than this... even if we wake up tomorrow in a magically communist society, people will still be sexist.

In order for their to be true equality, people have to change their mindsets. A purely economic revolution won't change that.

RedStarOverChina

10th February 2005, 02:40

Do women depend on men to make a living now? What is your evidence for this? Why shouldn't people's status depend on their productivity?

Women are alot less dependent upon men. This is why in women the west have more equality. However, many jobs in our society are still considered unsuited for women. As long as this exists, it will limit women's income, thus keeping down their social status, allowing sexism to happen. u cant deny that overall men make more money than women.

Don't people beat their wives because they want to? What does the economic/political situation have to do with it?

There's a bit more to sexism and inequality than this... even if we wake up tomorrow in a magically communist society, people will still be sexist.

In order for their to be true equality, people have to change their mindsets. A purely economic revolution won't change that.

Our mindset is the product of our economical environment!! Remember all that jazz Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote? guess wht, they actually make sense.

Think about it. Didnt women's social status rise during WWI and WWII? cause all men went to war and women started to earn income for the family. Their increasing role in production led to their rise.

To stressing gender equality from correcting the mindset only forces people to pay more lipservice.

Us Marxists believe that the root of the inequality (not just between man and women, but also between Africans and Caucasians, cities and villages, so on and so forth) is, as mentioned times before, the difference in productivity.

amusing foibles

10th February 2005, 02:55

Think about it. Didnt women's social status rise during WWI and WWII? cause all men went to war and women started to earn income for the family. Their increasing role in production led to their rise.

Women after WWII (and especially after WWI) were still regarded as woefully lesser then men, and were booted right back to the kitchen after the menfolk came home.

To stressing gender equality from correcting the mindset only forces people to pay more lipservice.

The women's rise in social status in WWI and II was just lipservice to get women to mobilize for the homefront. Is that any better? I'm not saying that economic relations aren't important to equality- they are. But women are in the workforce now, aren't they? Are they in the workforce as much as men are? Is there still sexism? Yes.

RedStarOverChina

10th February 2005, 03:16

But women are in the workforce now, aren't they? Are they in the workforce as much as men are? Is there still sexism? Yes.

Read my statement:

However, many jobs in our society are still considered unsuited for women. As long as this exists, it will limit women's income, thus keeping down their social status, allowing sexism to happen. u cant deny that overall men make more money than women.

It is still considered suitable for women to stay home and for men to work.

I read statistics about average income of a woman and man in Canada. Unfortunately, I cant find it for now. But men make much more than women, even in a country like Canada, where gender equality is regarded as generally accepted idea (lipservice only).

Are they in the workforce as much as men are?

actually, not really. For example, in the province of Saskatchwan, Canada, the employment rate for men and women can be seen on this website:
http://www.swo.gov.sk.ca/employment.html

Not to mention women's pay is on average lower than that of men. Only when women are equal with men in terms financial ability, sexism can be eliminated.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

10th February 2005, 05:19

Red Star Over China - Don't be reductionist!!!
Economics are a KEY force in social interaction, but they are not the only force. Other power structures and oppressions - patriarchy, racism, etc. - are related to economic structures, but it too is defined in relation to them.

Smashing capitalism, alone, will not free us from every other burdern - but it will certainly help, given:

Capitalism thanks to its progressive and questioning nature has in fact made the genders more equal.

How has Capitalism, in and of itself, lead to greater equality between men and women? Last I checked any semblance of equality is do to the generations of women (and men) fighting for this equality, not the market, and certainly not private property- the idea of which allowed women to be "owned" by their men (yes, even in Capitalist societies).

Capitalism, when used as a tool by people with already sexist mindsets, is easily used to reinforce false inequalities since it institutionalizes inequality (through wealth, through class relations). A woman can be (and was) rendered dependant to the men in her life if no one believes her competent for any serious work- and since under capitalism if you don't work you starve to death, she has little choice. This is obviously not to say that that's what it's like now, just that Capitalism itself has little to do with gender equality.

amusing foibles

10th February 2005, 07:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:16 AM
Read my statement:

However, many jobs in our society are still considered unsuited for women.

I'm confused as to what jobs in the modern workforce you consider "unsuitable" for women. The only thing I can possibly think of is "heavy labour" jobs like construction, carrying around large boxes, etc. and they hardly present a huge chunk of available jobs.

It is still considered suitable for women to stay home and for men to work.

Where? Where I live, and (I would presume) throughout most of North America (at least), it's not only considered suitable but nessecary for women to work- the economic realities mean that for most people it's just not feasible anymore to have a male "breadwinner" and a stay-home mom. The only person I can think of off the top of my head who's a stay-home mom is my aunt, and that's only because she's freakin' rich.

I would venture to say that stay-homes are even looked down on by many women and parts of society.

According to StatsCan, in 2002 76% of women above the ages of 25-44 (and 74% of women aged 45-54) held jobs, as compared to 85% (and 84%) of men. While it's still true that fewer women than men work, 76% speaks volumes about what is "suitable."

I read statistics about average income of a woman and man in Canada. Unfortunately, I cant find it for now. But men make much more than women, even in a country like Canada, where gender equality is regarded as generally accepted idea (lipservice only).

Obviously there is still inequality, and nowhere is it more blatent than wage inequity. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I do think the economic factor is important- just not that it is everything. The Vote, bourgeois palliative or not, was not won through economic conditions. Classification of women as "persons" in Canada was not as a result of increased production.

Only when women are equal with men in terms financial ability, sexism can be eliminated.

Undoubtably. But similarly, only when men (and women) stop thinking of women as objects can sexism be eliminated.

t_wolves_fan

10th February 2005, 12:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:30 AM

Men beat their wives is because they are "superior" in the family.

Their "superiority" is an result of their access of more financial income. According to Marxism, people's status within a capitalist society depends on their ability to earn income.

Since traditionally, women were robbed of their rights to provide income for the family, women's social status is low. We can see their rising as an average income for a woman increases.

So inequality between genders is a result of both ill-traditions and the capitalist in material wealth.

Whatever you say, Chairman.

Shouldn't you be busy starving a few million people to death on those farms of yours?

Ahhh u have nothing to say now, do u?

go get an education or something. attacking the person instead of the problem never wins u an argument, unless u use it on children.
I have an undergraduate degree with a double major in Political Science and International Relations, and I'll put my alma mater up against yours anytime, ace. I also have a Masters in Public Administration.

I've also worked for 5 years in the policy world of Washington, DC. I have friends who work in nearly every major federal agency (including FEMA, which today I learned from the highly-educated, well-experienced posters on this board, rounds people up and tortures them), and who are both liberal whackos and right-wing nutjobs.

Care to compare our respective education levels?

I didn't attack you personally as part of the argument, I did it to entertain myself.

:ph34r:

dakewlguy

10th February 2005, 13:37

How has Capitalism, in and of itself, lead to greater equality between men and women?
As I highlighted, under Feudalism women were not even considered individuals. Nobody even considered the issue of gender, it was so accepted. Even revolutionaries such as the French in the 18th Century didn't think to question it. Upon society moving from Feudalism to Capitalism, the issue of gender did arise. Why? Because key features of Modern society that distinguish it from Feudalism are
1. Detraditionalization. Tradition no longer being an acceptable excuse for a situation.
2. Desacredization. God no longer being an accepted excuse for a situation.

Last I checked any semblance of equality is do to the generations of women (and men) fighting for this equality
This fight did not exist before Capitalism.

not the market, and certainly not private property- the idea of which allowed women to be "owned" by their men (yes, even in Capitalist societies).
These are not the features of Capitalism which allowed the gender issue to arise. Detraditionalization and Desacredization, ie. the idea of questioning everything, is.

Capitalism, when used as a tool by people with already sexist mindsets, is easily used to reinforce false inequalities since it institutionalizes inequality (through wealth, through class relations). A woman can be (and was) rendered dependant to the men in her life if no one believes her competent for any serious work- and since under capitalism if you don't work you starve to death, she has little choice. This is obviously not to say that that's what it's like now, just that Capitalism itself has little to do with gender equality.
Parts of this post aren't relevant, but Capitalism itself has everything to do with gender equality. Before Capitalism there was no equality, no one thought of it, no one cared. Why? Because those societies lacked a key feature of modern society - progressive thought.

I have an undergraduate degree with a double major in Political Science and International Relations, and I'll put my alma mater up against yours anytime, ace. I also have a Masters in Public Administration.
dual majors reprazentin.