One classic bad argument against feminism is the disingenuous claim that “we don’t need it any more.” In the bad old days, proponents of this argument would concede, women may have faced some pesky little obstacles, but now that they can vote, and own property, and briefly work as the executive editor of The New York Times, there’s just no need for feminism any more. Problem solved!
But these days the great minds of the Men’s Rights movement have moved beyond this bad argument to a worse one: feminism was never really necessary in the first place, because women have never been oppressed.
The other day a Redditor by the name of cefarix earned himself a couple of dozen upvotes by posting a version of this argument to the Men’s Rights Subreddit.
I often see feminists make the claim that women have been oppressed for thousands of years. What evidence is there to back up this claim?
Personally, I don’t think this could be the case. Men and women are both integral parts of human society, and the social bonds between close relatives of either gender are stronger than bonds with members of the same gender but unrelated. So it seems to me the idea that men would oppress their own close female relatives and women would just roll over and accept this oppression from their fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, etc, for thousands of years across all/most cultures across all of humanity – and not have that society disintegrate over the course of a couple generations – is ridiculous.
This is so packed with such sheer and obvious wrongness that it’s tempting to just point and laugh and move on. But I’ve seen variations on this argument presented seriously by assorted MRAs again and again so I think it’s worth dealing with in some detail.
Before we even get to the facts of the case, let’s deal with the form of his argument: He’s arguing that history cannot have happened the way feminists say it happened because he doesn’t think that could be the case.
Trouble is, you can’t simply decide what did or did not happen in history based on what makes sense to you. History is history. It’s not a thread on Reddit. You can’t downvote historical facts out of existence the way, say, Men’s Rights Redditors downvote those pointing out facts they don’t like.
Cefarix follows this with an assertion that’s become rather common amongst MRAs: men can’t have oppressed women because no man is going to oppress his wife or his daughter or his mother, and besides, they wouldn’t have put up with it and it wouldn’t have worked anyway.
It seems to me that if the core of your argument is the notion that men would never harm members of their own family then you’ve pretty much lost the argument before it’s even begun. Husbands batter wives, fathers abuse children, boyfriends rape their girlfriends, and so on and so on; all this is not only possible, but it happens quite regularly. And only quite recently, historically speaking, has any of this been regarded as a serious social problem worthy of public discussion.
And so the idea that men might “oppress their own close female relatives” is hardly beyond the pale.
Of course. history isn’t about what could have happened; it’s about what did happen. But the evidence that the oppression of women did happen — and is still happening — is everywhere. Indeed, it takes a certain willful blindness not to see it.
History, of course, is a complicated thing, and the ways in which women have been oppressed have been many and varied over the years. Nor, of course, has the oppression of women been the only form of oppression in history, which is not only, as Marx would have it, a story of “class warfare” but also of ethnic warfare, racial oppression, and many other forms of oppression, some of which are only now beginning to be fully understood.
So if cefarix is genuinely interested in evidence, let me make some suggestions for places to start.
For a history of patriarchy that looks in detail at how it developed, whose interests it served, and the various complicated ways it was intertwined with class and other oppressions, a good place to start would be Gerda Lerner’s classic The Creation of Patriarchy, and her followup volume The Creation of Feminist Consciousness. Here’s an interview in which she goes over some of the points she makes in these books.
To understand some of the hatred of women that has been baked into Western culture from the beginning, I’d suggest taking a look at Jack Holland’s highly readable Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice. Meanwhile, David D. Gilmore’s Misogyny: The Male Malady offers an anthropological take on the same subject.
Alas, after going through his commenting history, I’m not sure that cefarix will be open to changing his mind on any of this, given how wedded he seems to be to a number of other rather appalling opinions — like his contention that homosexuality is a “disease” and his belief that “the whole age of consent thing is a modern Western aberration from what is considered normal for our species.”
Of course, if you look at the discussion inspired by cefarix’ post on Reddit, you’ll see that most of the Men’s Rights Redditors posting there don’t seem much interested in looking at facts that challenge their beliefs either. Most of those dissenters who pointed out the various ways women have been oppressed throughout history found their comments downvoted and dismissed.
Consider this amazing exchange — and notice which of the two comments is the one with net downvotes.
That last bit, about men being “forced” into having power, is quite something. But I’m still stuck on the whole cat thing. I mean, I like cats and all, but cats are not people, and it really wouldn’t be appropriate for me to lock a woman in my apartment, feed her on the floor out of a can, and make her poop in a box, even though my cats seem quite content with this arrangement for themselves.
Meanwhile, here are a couple of the comments that won upvotes.
Someone named goodfoobar suggesting that men have always been the slaves of women, because women live longer:
And our old friend TyphonBlue. who turns not only history but logic itself on its head by arguing that men are “disenfranchised” by … having power over women.
Yep. The most badly oppressed creatures in history are the ones wearing crowns on their heads.
I’m really not quite sure how Typhon manages to avoid injuring herself with all of her twists of logic.
Really. Where is your research published? I have institutional access to a lot of journals. I’d like to look it up.
You can just give me a journal name, volume, issue, and page numbers.
Really.
I can’t imagine where I might have gotten the idea that you were scapegoating her exactly the same way the people of the time did! I mean, you just said right there that it was her public excesses that caused the French Revolution! Totes different!
I’m very confused by why we are discussing these historical figures anyway. I mean, a few examples of women in power are good to highlight for empowerment, sure. But, this post is about the general state of women in history, a few exceptions to the rule doesn’t change anything and you pointing out the few powerful women simply comes across as a red herring.
Boudica is so obscure she’s on the cover of my favorite gamebook.
http://meeples.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/hail_ceasar-oc-50.jpg
Boodica? I know it’s almost Halloween, but come on, son.
Gosh, I was just looking for an interesting discussion about how women in history were evil bitches, just like they are now, and you’re being so mean to me! Just like Marie Antoinette!
Is the Worst of the Web still going? If so, I nominate christopher allman’s site for it.
“I’ve studied the French revolution in depth” = we had one lesson on it in school.
Yes, but it’s so interesting, the red herrings this fool has decided to pull out. Marie Antoinette of all the people. And Jane Austin. Not Mary Wollstonecraft. Not Caroline Herschel. Not even Mary Shelley. Surely this moron has heard of Mary Shelley. Nope, the choice is a lady whose main claim to being a woman of power is that she was recently in the news because of that currency thing.
The depth of research here astounds me.
Shit, 1998 called and wants its website back. I’m surprised I didn’t hear dial-up noises.
Her name is now spelled Boodica in recognition of how terrifying little Chris finds women with power. Run away, Chris, before she gets you.
Boodica can join zombie Solanas and Dworkin in the pantheon of MRA boogeywomen.
Boudica, of the Iceni, was… German?
Are you going to stick the flounce dude? What website do you think this is – education men about women in history?
Since when were the Britons Germanic tribes, dumbass? You don’t even know your Celts from your Saxons.
You’re a fucking liar, or incredibly stupid, or both. You have the hide to trot out Victoria’s name as if she were remotely representative of women’s situations just in her own country. Here’s a quick primer: women owned nothing once they were married. Everything belonged to the man. They had no claim over their children; any money they earned was legally his; they did not even own clothes they made for themselves. Divorce had to be by Act of Parliament until late in the century. It took a trial for theft in which a woman’s purse – that she’d made herself – was referred to as the property of her husband, to start the agitation that led to the Married Woman’s Property Act. Women prostitutes, apart from having no recourse to the law if a man attacked them, were rounded up, imprisoned and subjected to forcible internal examinations under so-called health acts. Women were barred from higher education, and in many cases any education. Working class women and girls ate last, after the men and boys, and were often chronically malnourished, again, moreso than the men because they were eating men’s scraps.
No wonder you bring up Marie Antoinette, who was slandered by her enemies and eventually murdered by them, and whose name has been blackened by their lies ever since. MRAs must froth at the mouth at the thought of being able to do that.
Coming in mansplaining and pretending the tiny number of genuinely powerful women in history somehow balances the fact that women have been owned by men for millennia is not “having an interesting discussion,” it’s talking the same bullshit we’ve heard time without number. You come to a feminist blog that is specifically for mocking misogyny for your “interesting discussion” – all that shows is that you don’t even bother to read the title of the site before you start telling us all How It Really Is.
Fuck off, you pretentious little loser.
Coincidently, I started reading The Gender Knot while I was at lunch. It deals with this very thing in the first chapter. Perhaps Christopher could read it and actually educate himself.
The essence of it is – a few powerful women don’t negate patriachy. Every system has some give in it, to make it seem like things are changing when nothing really is. And that’s exactly the way people like Chris are using these powerful women – as a distraction in their sleight of hand.
Hmm, Victoria had the whole Victorian period named after her. Gee, how strange that there was no Georgian period, or Edwardian period. Nope, it must be all because queens are so much more powerful than kings.
“Regency Period” is misandry.
No Napoleonic period, either.
Well, we all know that periods are misandry, so even one that happened more than a century ago is enough to spell woe and despair for men to this very day.
What about Eleanor of Aquitaine? She was pretty cool! She misandered by selfishly being queen of two different countries during her life.
You moron, the Nazis most certainly did NOT. She was a Briton, as was pointed out above. Plus, the Nazis were heavily invested in the whole women-at-home-in-the-kitchen schtick. The reason I know this? I’m GERMAN. And I learned my history lesson. As you clearly did not.
And we won’t mention that twenty years of Victoria’s reign were the period of Albert as defacto king, informally recognised as such internationally, whose death was a serious blow for many members of government. They didn’t think Victoria would be able to cope at all without him, and they knew they would miss his great breadth of knowledge and poliltical insight, things Victoria largely lacked at that period. Hell, they were afraid she would go insane with grief for him, or possibly not survive him long at all. Yet even with all this, it was a period of declining monarchical power in Britain, something else trOOlly boy ignores when he talks about how powerful Victoria was, as if it were a matter of actual legal political power and not a matter of influence.
http://i.imgur.com/V0usQrB.png
I’m British, and a Celt, and lol look at this dumbass mangling my country’s history.
Also, if you want Germans who walloped the Roman legions, you’re thinking of Hermann, who clobbered them in the Teutoburger Wald. Don’t be conflating him with Boudicca/Boadicea. Especially if you can’t spell her name.
You have been schooled…
Also, gobshite, everyone on this thread knows who Boudica is. We’re laughing at your inability to spell it and your woeful ignorance of the Celts.