IAP Political Forum

A long time ago, before I was born anyhow, men strode the Earth as the propertied class and a married woman was her husband's chattel, which is a legal term for a specific kind of property. Feminists make much capital of this - to be a man's chattel is clearly a fearful thing, and evidence enough of the evil and tasteless nature of men's attitude toward women for all history.

Oddly enough, there were no public market-places where a man could bring his wife once he had sated his hideous appetites on her, and sell her for whatever price the next man would pay. There were, however, plenty of market places where he could sell all his other property publicly, from his house, to his animals, to the wares that were the product of his labour. And buy and sell these other properties he did, with public records that go back hundreds of years documenting the commerce men made of all manner of things, real as well as abstract. But there is no documentation of the commerce of wives between men.

Clearly women were a very singular kind of property.

At the same time, men were schooled to rise when a lady entered a room. A gentleman was also taught to never contradict a lady, to show her respect at all times, to open doors for her, relieve her of any heavy labour and to protect her reputation. These polite obligations passed from expectation to personal responsibility if a man should marry the lady in question.

These behaviours that a man exhibited for his wife-property bear no resemblance at all to the behaviour shown for his sheep/cattle/slave-property.

Rather, it's the very same way a subordinate defers to his superior in the military, the way defendants and plaintiffs defer to the judge in a courtroom, the way a servant behaved with respect to his employer in a Victorian household and the way slaves submitted before their masters in more antique times.

Gentlemen were also expected to sacrifice their lives to save that of the womenfolk in times of peril, such as the sinking of a cruise-liner. Even the lowest of women on the Titanic enjoyed a greater chance of survival than the very wealthiest of men on board.

Yet these women were mere 'property'.

How many men would have sacrificed their own lives to save that of their sheep, cows and pigs? I would hazard none, and yet there's no doubting that a man's livestock is also his property.

Of course, sinkings like the Titanic are not common, and not the sort of thing to make generalisations about. For common occurrences that one can generalise about, one points to battle-ground cemeteries. For the First World War alone, there are millions of dead men all buried together under the hills of France and Belgium, blown to pieces, shot, gassed, bayonetted and diseased in order to spare their women the horror of defending themselves against aggressors. The miles of little white crosses are of a scale that quite stretches the imagination. Picture everyone at Woodstock, all half million of them, laid out dead or wounded. Then double it. That's the same magnitude as the Battle of the Somme alone. One battle of many in only one war. All of these crosses mark the bones of men - the propertied class. Those unfortunate women, that mass of men's property that Feminists would have us grieve for, are nowhere buried in mass graves, having fallen in the defence of their owners.

How very odd.

To be property in name and law
but in manner and substance proprietor.

Viv , when have you ever been oppressed because of your gender ?

But nowadays, when women can do there are many women that rather prefer getting married than developing her own professional career.

Many of them rather prefer being at home, looking after the kids, than having a job where commitment and responsibility are required. Please, don't make me wrong. I'm only talking about those women with university studies, that do not want to have a job. The old traditional marriage: he is out looking for money to pay the bill and she stays home to rise the kids.

I know some of them.
One of them is a dentist. His wife is an economist but do not want to work as economist. She rather prefer being at home rising the kids.
Why does she prefer to stay home than earn a living working as an economist? Women and men are equals. Women do not have to stay at home nowadays, as they used to. So why are there many women that simply refuse this "new age" of women liberation and do want to go back again to that pre-equality times.

Saludos

I know some of them.
One of them is a dentist. His wife is an economist but do not want to work as economist. She rather prefer being at home rising the kids.
Why does she prefer to stay home than earn a living working as an economist? Women and men are equals. Women do not have to stay at home nowadays, as they used to. So why are there many women that simply refuse this "new age" of women liberation and do want to go back again to that pre-equality times.

Saludos

How were women oppressed then, lefties?

Suggestion seems to be that women had a great time, doing nothing whilst being treated like goddesses, respected and honoured.  In which social strata did that exist?

It's not a question of social strata but how young and pretty she is.
Being young is extremely important for instinctual reasons, much more than being sexy or blond or whatever.
Also because woman young and ugly at the same time are rather rare, rarer than we imagine.

So, the more a woman is young and pretty, the more she will be respected by men and enjoy exceptional priviledges over men or older women.

I don't think a single man on earth (unless he is gay) can resist the seduction of a beautiful woman.
I don't think a single man on earth will ever treat a beautiful woman badly or without respect. That today and in the past.

This respect for young and pretty women is not the fact of men only: Women do respect prety women too.

In general a young woman would be considered are somebody who needs more help than others and therefore more rewarded when they achieve something.
For example a young but brillant scientist woman will astonish everyone, men and women alike, by being not only very intelligent but beautiful at the same time.
Their beauty brings sort of a mystic aura around everything their do or say. An exceptional act or talent will be even more exceptional if it's acompanied with feminity and physical beauty. A huge advanatage over men, older women and anybody else in the society.

When women get older, their social level is lowered. But she has to adapt herself to her new condition.
She has to use more the authority of her function and forget about the physical advantage she once had.

This is valid for private and professional life thought in the private life it's less obvious.
In the past it translated into a higher esteem for mothers and old ladies. Today, social gratification comes from the professional level and women have to work more thier carreer than in the past.
What is hard for them is to do so while losing her physical advantages but here is all the art of human adaptation.

What they do is different from respect

How old are you?  Since when has it impressed anyone that a woman has a brain and ability commensurate with that of any male?

It's expected.  Academically, females have been outperforming males at least in the UK for many years.  It is more surprising to find a man with ability than a female.

As they age, responsibility comes into it and let's face it, if you are not on the hunt for a partner, what is the point of looking really hot?  In fact, it only causes problems,

How were women oppressed then, lefties?

Why does it offend you?

You try to say that men who find a woman sexualy attractive can't, because of that, respect her.
That's not true.

I also said (if it was not clear) that no one excpect beautiful women to be stupid.
Only that beauty + intelligence/carreer/education is impressive socialy because it cumulates the two most regarded social value. But men never enjoy such double quality because only female beauty is regarded as a value. male beauty isn't, unlike in Ancient Greece.

GIRL POWER !!!!!!!!!!

Sigh....I will address your previous post when I feel...more...

Well...

Men never enjoy such double quality...only female beauty is valued...?

I disagree (as usual) ;D. 

There is a huge difference IMO between physically beautiful and attractive.  As there is a difference between a person who is attractive and one who is sexy.

Many times there are people who are beautiful and that is attractive, but the one who grabs male attention is the one with the wit and the intellect to do so.

It is a combination of qualities.  It is not enough to be beautiful, that may attract initially, but within seconds the vacuum in the brain is detected and if there is an intelligent alternative a man will take it.

Even men prefer something more...

On Friday, my girlfriend called me just as a discussion was under way between the same females about who is the sexiest man in the building...turned out to be the guy who works with me, sadly he does nothing for me but I can see where they're coming from, he at least has hair and teeth and all his parts are still pretty much in the right place...

Fred...women really do care how men look...