Re: Making The Male Birth Control Pill


knoxy wrote:
> In article <1130589551.581407.22070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> rdubose@xxxxxxx says...
> >
> > knoxy wrote:
> > > In article <1130442801.211973.227570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > rdubose@xxxxxxx says...
> > > >
> > > > knoxy wrote:
> > > > > In article <mark_sobolewski-9A9677.22203117102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > mark_sobolewski@xxxxxxxxx says...
> > > > > > This is a good opportunity to pause and reflect that
> > > > > > you, more than anyone, should know how trustworthy men are:
> > > > > > They gave you the right to vote, they support their spouses,
> > > > > > they engage in chivalry that you continue to crave and
> > > > > > rationalize. It's simply amazing that you can hate your
> > > > > > benefactors. Even a cat knows not to shit in her
> > > > > > own food bowl.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Should I get down on my knees and thank you for giving me the right to
> > > > > vote? Should I lick your boots while I'm down there?
> > > > > You are an arrogant SOB Mark, do you really think we should be greatful
> > > > > for men 'giving' us the right to do something that should rightfully
> > > > > have been ours all along?
> > > >
> > > > Should all men have been allowed to vote regardless of property
> > > > holding?
> > > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > From the beginning of the Republic?
> > > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > They were not, of course.
> > > >
> > > Which was wrong IMO.
> >
> >
> > My point was that the right to have ones vote counted (in those few
> > places that even tried democracy) was gradually expanded from the core
> > of property ownership out onto other critical actors in the economy in
> > a fashion that had little to do with gender. In Britain and the US, all
> > women were voting very soon after all men could.
> > Modern feminists who speak of rights which were stolen or "denied"
> > in regard to women are mistaking history. Such rights are really only
> > ever created by carefully crafted social organization to have meaning
> > or force.
> > When all social order breaks down completely and the only law is
> > that which is enforced by private violence then I suppose that
> > feminists should say that women finally have equal rights because no
> > rights are deliberately being "denied" or stolen from them. To be
> > coherent and consistent, they should affirm this notion. But of course
> > they would not. They would be screaming for men to make them feel safe
> > again before they would come out of their hiding places.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Should people living in this country who are not citisens; should
> > > > they have the vote?
> > > >
> > > No, just as I can't vote in this country (England) since I'm not a
> > > citizen here.
> > >
> > > > Should women have been given the responsibility to maintain land
> > > > ownership if there were no police to help them??
> > > >
> > > They've had that right. The women during the Viking era had that right,
> > > and as far as I'm aware, there weren't that many police officers around
> > > to help them. Those rights disappeared with christianity.
> >
> >
> > There are two problems with all such theories about the existence
> > of a golden age of female autonomy or the ancient primeval matriarchy.
> > First of all, there is the problem with evidence. Everyone loves
> > talking about the status of Celtic or Norse womenfolk but the Celts and
> > Norse peoples had no written language of their own. The
> > Romanized-Christainized world did have this, at least in the hands of
> > the clergy, and it is these people who wrote down most of what is
> > nowadays quoted about the Norse/Celts. In other words, what you are
> > taking as history started out as wartime propaganda from their sworn
> > enemies.
> > The second problem is that there is no reason given for why, if men
> > are naturally greedy and rapacious of womens "rights", they would need
> > an excuse like "christianity" to seize them. I mean, why should
> > Vikings (of all people) not have treated their women however the hell
> > seemed right to them? Why would they need permission to do something
> > they might have wanted to do?
> > In the same way, all of these theories about a primeval matriarchy
> > have these same issues. There is no reliable evidence for it and there
> > is no sensible answer to the question," Why didn't the guys chop their
> > heads off when they gave an order?"- since they very well could have.
> > As if these primeval guys would spend their days together in a gang
> > stabbing mastadons and then come home to be bossed by a person who was
> > not part of that gang? Anyone who believes that has never been in a
> > gang (or in the army).
> >
> > Actually, there are some things that can be confidently said about
> > the role of Norse women. It all depended on class. For the high born,
> > there was an abundance of slaves so they had no domestic chores. She
> > was in a very safe environment in that the Norse were in no fear,
> > whatsoever, of being invaded. At home, Vikings were not Vikings; just
> > law-abiding farmers and fisherman.
> > Put all together and one sees the pre-requisits for womens
> > participation in wider society. Rather like America/the West after WW2.
> > The coming of christianity to norse/celtic societies did pretty
> > much end slavery however in those societies. And THAT is what reduced
> > the independence of a few high born women. Exactly like what happened
> > with the fall of Roman civilization.
> > But for the vast majority of women or men who WERE slaves, this all
> > meant nothing at all.
> >
> The Vikings did have a written language and quite a lot of the Vikings
> laws and customs are documented, among them the inheritence laws,
> divorce laws etc.

I think that one is on safe ground in saying that virtually
everything we believe we know about pre-christian nordic society was
mediated thru the church. The Vikings did have a written language -
sort of. But there are some big issues. First, their writing was based
on a runic system that was designed to be carved on wood or stone.
Every symbol was a word; it was not an alphabet system. Lastly, the
society as a whole did not use written language. Runic was used by a
very few people for specialized poetic purposes, not for detailed
record keeping. As a written system, it was almost useless for
recording their social history because it did not correspond to the
spoken language of the time. No one spoke "runic". They spoke old
norse.
With increased contact with the christian world, this began to
change. An alphabetic system was slowly adapted, and a written version
of their spoken language began to be developed. But this was in the
context of an era in which literacy and the ability to translate from
one language to another was virtually exclusively a skill possesed by
christian clerics. The church did this work, by default. All of the
Icelandic Sagas - that so much is based on, were written down by
christian clerics in the middle ages, for example.
So I stand by my point regarding the key role of the church as
chronicler and editor of norse history.

> Daughters had the right to inherite their fathers, altough not as much
> land as their brothers, if they had any.


But when one speaks of the "right to inherit(own) land, one has to
envision a society with enough order and safety for land possession to
be unrelated to the ability of its owner to personally defend it. I
mean, in a state of raw chaos, everyone could be said to possess every
right and priviledge that one can grab and hold but that is hardly what
you meant. Our modern notion of land ownership implies that someone
else is charged with protecting ones interest even if the "owner" left
the country. This is exactly the sort of society that seems to have
existed in old norse lands.
My general point is that the role of women in the wider society
outside of the safety of the home is determined mainly by how safe and
orderly things are outside the home. Men have not been the ones keeping
women inside. It has been the womans choice, by and large.

If there were many siblings and
> not enough land, one of the sons would often get a ship and crew to find
> land to settle.


Indeed, because he had little hope of a good marriage without some
land. I think that a good guess as to the meaning of the daughters
inheritance of land was that it fit into the general concept of a
dowery. I mean, she was not going to farm it herself, right? When she
married, I bet the assumption was that the new family would have more
lands in common than either seperately. And she got to take it with her
to another marriage, for the same reason. But she still was not going
to plow it herself.
Wealthy families have always put inheritance into the control of
their daughters when they felt like it regardless of the customary
de-fault arrangements. The pre-nuptial agreement is an ancient idea.

The reason christianity ended womens rights to own land
> and get divorced had little to do with the end of slavery, it had more
> to do with the bibles claim that women are the property of their fathers
> or husbands.

Oh, who knows. Christianity spread gradually into Norse lands. The
bible does not really say that women have different divorce/property
rights than men - that is if one includes the new testament. Besides,
we are critically dependent on christian clerics for this story.

The end of slavery didn't really change anything for rich
> men or women. The high born women still had others to do their chores.


It is a matter of degree. When Vikings practiced slavery they had
large numbers of them. They were slave catchers and slave traders.
Without the constant importation of new servants/slaves, it is
difficult for a society -especially one without much poverty- to supply
enough low paid servants to a significant slice of the upper classes to
make total freedom from domestic chores the rule.
In later Roman times, women in the upper classes came to have a
great deal of freedom and rights under the law - to own things, marry,
divorce, etc. This all corresponded with the expansion of the use of
slavery in Roman society, as well as the prevalence of pax romani..


>
> --
> knoxy
> mhm34x10
> smeeter #6
> #6 on mimus wanted poster list
>
>
> "The Internet is a gateway to get on the net."
> Bob Dole

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dr. Laura Debates Feminists on Men and Violence
    ... And marriage itself has been around a long time, ... responsibility to defend the borders of the family land. ... For the period of Roman history and Norse ... of the time said about womens rights if slavery were eliminated because ...
    (soc.men)
  • The Decline of Morality in Our Society
    ... The Decline of Morality in Our Society ... Womens Movement called it took hold. ... And the Conservative Voice must be heard again in this nation. ... We have seen to roots of Liberalism take a strong hold, ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Re: Technology vs instincts in the rise of feminism
    ... structure of control that perists throughout history, ... believe in the organic evolution of society as much as you do. ... womens' lives. ... >> because of mens' and social instincts. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Male domination of discoveries
    ... > womens' intellects are significantly higher or lower than men. ... > chastised American secular culture for encouraging its women to do ... I challenged you to show that any large society is ... But success is not "great ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dr. Laura Debates Feminists on Men and Violence
    ... The common law of inheritance has been with us a long....long ... And marriage itself has been around a long time, ... responsibility to defend the borders of the family land. ... reasons people got married and womens right to own property? ...
    (soc.men)