First of all, you can't be certain that my "fathers" were members of Western civilization. Second, I never even implied that previous generations of Western civilization were "monsters" (even accounting for hyperbole).
I would also like to request that you don't treat me like a 10-year-old, but that's neither here nor there.
I do have a feeling this conversation isn't going to lead anywhere good, but in a spirit of optimism, I'll post my response anyway. I'd appreciate it if you don't reply with insults this time.
I read the first half of your essay, then skimmed the rest (you can be somewhat long-winded, and I got the general idea). I'll just make the following points:
1. Let's stop generalizing with "Western civilization." There is no such thing. There are Western civilizations, and while some general trends can be noticed among them, a specific issue like the treatment of women has varied greatly. Even within one time period, Britain, say, treated women differently from Spain, France, Italy, etc.
2. I don't think you can say that Western cultures were better or worse than other cultures re: treatment of women. In some ways they were better, in some ways they were worse. That said, even if European cultures were better in this regard than their contemporary Arabian cultures, that's irrelevant to our discussion. They were still damn bad.
3. Of course, all women weren't treated like slaves. As I said in my post, poor women always had to work, first at the farm, then in the factories. And, yes, there were some women in the upper classes who held power. However, in the former case, that was out of necessity and not choice; in the latter, they were the exceptions, not the rule. You only ever saw a Queen, for example, if she didn't have any male relatives who might be given the throne instead.
It was certainly not as bad as it could have been. But it is inarguable that Western civilization has always treated women as second-class citizens (if they were considered to be people at all, of course). In Athens, only men could participate in politics. Aristotle openly doubted women had any rationality at all (Plato, on the other hand, was quite progressive in this regard--he thought women probably could be philosopher-kings, they were just less likely to be suitable to the role than men). Even in the late 19th century, most scientists thought women's mental abilities, aside from a few exceptions of course, were little better than that of children. And even today, the only Western country that generally allows female soldiers to fight on the front lines is Israel.
Certainly, sometimes, people make the history seem worse than it was. But I do prefer that to making the history seem better than it was.
Evidently you are not even willing to pay attention to anything I said - your mention of ancient Athens is enough to establish that, since any idiot - and I do mean idiot - who had actually read the post I linked to would know that I do not regard ancient Rome or Athens as part of Western civilization. I am speaking of something eles altogether. And since you have given this clear, experimental evidence of close-mindedness, I will leave you, as I promised, to rehearse your own stale pseudo-arguments to yourself.
So you snatch one pseudo-mistake that was incidental to my overall argument, use it to claim my entire comment is meaningless, and call me less than an idiot (in no uncertain terms)? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more.
Oh God. Your argument is meaningless because it does not answer mine and has nothing to do with what I said. And you keep on talking to yourself. Again, again, again, you never answer anything. This is not a wholesome attitude. For one thing, I did not call you an idiot; I said that even an idiot who had actualy read my article would know that yours was not an answer; and I said you had not read it. So I did not call you an idiot. I did, and do, call you an echo-chamber dweller who only listens to him/herself.
I really, really, really should leave well enough alone, I know. I tried my best to discuss this with you reasonably, even through your continued insults, and failed. But the "someone is wrong on the internet" impulse is still too strong for me.
The argument in your article, from what I understand, is that women have, historically, had more freedoms in Western civilization than they had in other cultures. My response was that women were still historically oppressed--treated as second-class citizens--and that downplaying that oppression is worse than magnifying it.
If you didn't mean to call me an idiot, you wouldn't have added that delightful "and I do mean idiot" tag.
And for you to accuse others of being close-minded echo-chamber dwellers...
You know what? Forget it. Call me whatever the hell you want. I'm finished with this discussion.
I would also like to request that you don't treat me like a 10-year-old, but that's neither here nor there.
I do have a feeling this conversation isn't going to lead anywhere good, but in a spirit of optimism, I'll post my response anyway. I'd appreciate it if you don't reply with insults this time.
I read the first half of your essay, then skimmed the rest (you can be somewhat long-winded, and I got the general idea). I'll just make the following points:
1. Let's stop generalizing with "Western civilization." There is no such thing. There are Western civilizations, and while some general trends can be noticed among them, a specific issue like the treatment of women has varied greatly. Even within one time period, Britain, say, treated women differently from Spain, France, Italy, etc.
2. I don't think you can say that Western cultures were better or worse than other cultures re: treatment of women. In some ways they were better, in some ways they were worse. That said, even if European cultures were better in this regard than their contemporary Arabian cultures, that's irrelevant to our discussion. They were still damn bad.
3. Of course, all women weren't treated like slaves. As I said in my post, poor women always had to work, first at the farm, then in the factories. And, yes, there were some women in the upper classes who held power. However, in the former case, that was out of necessity and not choice; in the latter, they were the exceptions, not the rule. You only ever saw a Queen, for example, if she didn't have any male relatives who might be given the throne instead.
It was certainly not as bad as it could have been. But it is inarguable that Western civilization has always treated women as second-class citizens (if they were considered to be people at all, of course). In Athens, only men could participate in politics. Aristotle openly doubted women had any rationality at all (Plato, on the other hand, was quite progressive in this regard--he thought women probably could be philosopher-kings, they were just less likely to be suitable to the role than men). Even in the late 19th century, most scientists thought women's mental abilities, aside from a few exceptions of course, were little better than that of children. And even today, the only Western country that generally allows female soldiers to fight on the front lines is Israel.
Certainly, sometimes, people make the history seem worse than it was. But I do prefer that to making the history seem better than it was.
-TealTerror
Reply
Reply
Have fun feeling superior to everyone else.
-TealTerror
Reply
Reply
The argument in your article, from what I understand, is that women have, historically, had more freedoms in Western civilization than they had in other cultures. My response was that women were still historically oppressed--treated as second-class citizens--and that downplaying that oppression is worse than magnifying it.
If you didn't mean to call me an idiot, you wouldn't have added that delightful "and I do mean idiot" tag.
And for you to accuse others of being close-minded echo-chamber dwellers...
You know what? Forget it. Call me whatever the hell you want. I'm finished with this discussion.
-TealTerror
Reply
Leave a comment