From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Women Vs Men
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:39:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <memo.750837@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes...
>oispeggy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes..
> 
> 
> 
>Peggy: I want to say one thing very clearly, as an expression of a
>position.
> 
>Firstly, a question.
> 
>What is the optimum role that you consider a medaiaeval woman could
>have held, given that any normal healthy woman with an active sex
>life could expect to be pregnant, or nursing a child, more or less
>continuously from her mid-teens to her mid thirties?

Hmmmmm....the optimum role.... The optimum role for the typical 
exploitative, self-serving, egotistic medieval woman would 
be to have piles of wealth and (somehow) lots of influence so the 
church and politics would leave her alone.  Regarding the 
breeding aspect, she'd select a group of stud-males to service 
her, and nannies to take care of the babies.  Whether or not a 
female could have actually managed to do this is doubtful.  
Realistically, the best a female could do would be to marry 
someone rich and make the best of it.  (I think that would be 
better than entering a convent.)

 >Secondly a statement.
> 
>What irks me mostly about 'feminism' is not that I disagree that
>women have in many senses been disadvantaged by mediaeval culture and
>its descendants, but that there is always a veiled or implicit
>assumption that 'male superiority' or 'Patriarchy' was some sort of
>male organised conspiracy to suppress women and their natural rights.

Take a look at legal and social restrictions on women for the 
past several hundred years.  These were made by men.  I wouldn't 
call it a conspiracy, because the men who did this believed they 
were doing the right thing.  Yet it resulted in keeping women in 
a subservient position.  Glad this stuff is slowly being changed.

IMO a lot of the bad feelings men have toward feminism is because 
they are made to feel at fault for injustices that they had 
nothing to do with.  I don't think that's fair.  If this aspect 
bugs you, I can see why - try not to take it seriously.

>I cannot agree with this. In most agrarian cultures men and women
>work unceasingly. It so happens that because of the facts of
>childbirth, women tend to be more based around the home, and less
>active. I feel that culture reflects this: The shift to what
>feminists see as 'male dominated' I think takes place at a time when
>'civilization' itself - that is the change from the essentially
>peasant farming traditions of the Celtic society, to the more Roman
>pattern, with trade and merchanting becomeing significant.

Agrarian culture is one thing.  As culture evolved, 
discrimination against women was institutionalized in law and 
religion.  Just because it happened that way is to reason to say 
it was OK.

>In this milieu, women adapted to a different role, and although few
>actually achieved active prominence, it is ridiculous to feel that
>their influence was negligible. They worked through men - that's all.
>They had more time to think maybe, whereas the men had more
>opportunity to do. Histories of deeds emphasise men.

Agrarian culture is one thing.  As culture evolved, 
discrimination against women was institutionalized in law and 
religion.  Just because it happened that way is to reason to say 
it was OK.

>In particular history is littered with veiled references of eminent
>men who actually achieved greatness with the assistnace of, or maybe
>entirely because of, the able assistance of a wife or mistress.

Big deal.

>Now all that doesn't mean that I defend the relics of that particular
>life-style as any more 'natural' or 'right' than the hunter gatherer
>or pre-civilized agrarian societies. Societies adapt to conditions
>and select their mores from what is possible and seems desirable.

Nice objective way to look at it.  But little consolation for 
those who happend to be among the underlings.

>The fact that women now are _not_ tied to childbirth any more than

Being tied to childbirth is no reason for women to have 
ever been treated unfairly by legal and religious systems.

>the choose to be is - in my mind - the significant change. This
>*does* allow active participation in all walks of life, and the sort
>of society that simply has never existed before.

Not sure exactly what the point of all this is.  I don't think 
women have been treated fairly.  I don't think that because 
society happened to evolve this way justifies it.  I don't think 
men who had nothing to do with this should feel responsible or 
guilty about it.

>So to summarise, I am all for change and a new order (provided it
>isn't rammed down MY throat) - but please: I don't think it is
>helpful (and I don't think you normally display this trend anyway, or
>were even displaying it this timne!) for feminists to think in terms
>of some vast male conspiracy.

I've read enough of your battles with females on alt.pagan to 
know that feminism bugs you.  Maybe because of the way women often 
personalize it, blame men who are not responsible for injustices, 
and generally behave like asses.  Not my style of feminism.  All 
I can say is don't equate the message with the idiots.

>I think it more constructive to think of it as a response to social
>circumstance.

I think that's a weak justification for people's (males' and 
females') natural tendency to exploit when give the chance to do 
so.  A more enlightened model is needed.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick