It's always been a point of irony for me that women, the only beings that are truly MOTHERS, and I make no apologies for my views about THAT (yet another distraction!), have been and are STILL considered PROPERTY of men. That a group of MEN have been making decisions about what women are "allowed" to do for the past at least two or three thousand years is clear proof of that. It's NOT a "man's world," except that men seem to wish it. Might does NOT make right, except that men seem to enforce it. The chicken, OBVIOUSLY, came first. Men have long claimed a greater "stake" in the realm of offspring, because it has to do with THEIR mantle being passed on, as it were, but generally, only for MALE offspring. It is scandously recent that women were even able to control their own wages, or own their own property. This is STILL TRUE in many places in the world today. This superiority complex men claim, surely a defensive posture engendered by their FEAR that they are actually INferior because they cannot produce life, has never been granted by women, but again, by men themselves. To be honest, I'm a little weary of men feeling they should RULE-- look where that's brought us...
That said, I agree this is planned distraction. It is one more attempt to DIVIDE AND CONQUER, another tactic of MEN. Women are not toys, nor pawns, and women should not allow this kind of manipulation to continue. It's time that women took their rightful place, which is alongside, not behind, and not under the boot of, men.
All human beings belong to themselves, and themselves alone. Men making decisions about and for women is a form of slavery; it is the worst side of Patriarchy, after the impulse to declare war.
Really well put, Jaan. I was thinking along the same lines this morning. The anti-abortion argument sees women as baby farms, essentially, commodifying the "product" in the lucrative adoption market to baby buyers. It's not really about treasuring and honoring life because there's a myriad of ways we could be doing that, including the life of the woman, and are not. Subjecting the baby and mother to the most traumatic emotional crises humans can go through, by separating them, is cruel to both. But the crux of the argument is what you name, which is women as property.
It is disputed among anthropologists if women had much real equality before 3,000 years ago (in pre-Axial, pre-agrarian cultures).
A classic references is Napoleon Chagnon's study of gender in the pre-literate hunting/gathering Yanomamo culture, where Chagnon observed appalling levels of vicarious, unnecessary brutality toward women, especially by alpha males against beta females.
You don't appear to understand science or more generally objective, systematic analysis of facts and evidence (not to mention meta-narrative analysis).
What you DO appear to understand are subjective, emotive narratives that are propagated via memetic replication.
I really don't know about the times that far back, and I'm not convinced anyone else does, either... Most of the "history" books are written by men, and we've all heard the phrase "History is written by the winner." I am not really all that concerned about proving something about ancient times, particularly; I'm far more interested in what is happening now, and maybe in the immediate past, relatively speaking. But what does seem to be the case is that there have indeed been women in positions of power, individually and in groups (for example the Amazons), and much of these women have been "left out" of the history books. Even in modern times, as if those times are any different, really, women and their successes are simply ignored.
Oh no! Intellectual alpha male competition over the term alpha male! It had to happen sooner or later ... ;-) I remember reading a book of fiction that was based on Margaret Mead and another woman anthropologist who studied cultures that seemed very male-dominant but under the surface, women ran everything and made the real decisions. I suspect there's more of that in all cultures than is obvious.
Oh no again! Showing my ignorance of names. Now I need to reread everything you wrote. I often see men, here in CA, defending women's rights in a way that's very patriarchal. I didn't have the sense that you were doing that, but I'm glad that you're a woman speaking for herself rather than a man speaking for women, as if they can't speak for themselves ;-)
You are entitled to think anything you want. From what I've said on this post, I find it difficult to believe you know much about what I understand or don't understand. I never claimed to be a scientist, but that doesn't mean I don't understand whatever. Perhaps you don't understand civility. Perhaps you don't understand patriarchy, or history, or any number of things. Your "standard concepts" are CONCEPTS, not absolute truth... Are you someone who believes science is a religion... and that it's "all settled"? Because I can question anything I please, doncha know. ^_^
So far you have provided ZERO actual evidence or facts. That in itself is a very strong indicator that you are just a memetic replication bot that has taken over a piece of meatspace to propagate MORAL PANICS and subjective narratives.
What you "question" is irrelevant.
What is relevant are facts and evidence (and objective, systematic analysis), which you appear to have no knowledge or awareness of.
e., I don't understand why you're engaging in insults here. The only time I disagree with someone's ideas is because I respect them. If I can't respect someone, I walk away. I value the knowledge you bring from all your reading but I've lost track of what the question even was. The internet is vast--find the people having the discussion you want to have.
Jaan's point that history is subjective is irrefutable. Are we missing the POV of women? There's no denying that. It's hard to bring data points when all we know is that 50% of people are missing. I don't see why that's propagating moral panics. But I think you owe Jaan an apology.
Many years ago I read, or heard in a documentary, that the anti-abortion "right" was able to shut down about 90% of the abortion clinics/facilities in the USA. There are a number of "red" (Republican/conservative) states that had very small numbers of abortion facilities, if any, in some cases, one abortion facility in an entire state.
The "right" could have called that a "win" politically and gone home, but abortion is as much of a propaganda (and funding raising and political organizing) narrative for them as it is the "left".
It seems like a relatively sane solution would be to allow for local legislation, and generally prohibit the use of taxpayer money for abortions (to semi-satisfy the 'right") and only ban abortions (with exceptions for rape/abuse/medical problems) in local situations were the vast majority of women themselves want abortion banned (to semi-satisfy the "right").
But instead of some kind of same solution, extremists on the far left and far right just want to use the issue for political purposes.
To people on the "right", if you don't like abortions, don't get one.
To people on the "left", stop insisting on federal/state tax money to fund abortion clinics.
IMO planned distraction. And life begins at the moment of conception based upon millions of humans who's lives' behaviors were shaped by their mothers' inner thoughts, feeling and environment.
It's easy to recognize 1st born child issues personality behaviors. Even child-to-mother relationship issues.
Hi, Stan. I don't think there's any debate that babies are conscious and influenced by their mothers before birth. But are you giving a scientific definition--i.e. a fertilized egg is a chicken whether or not it's in your fridge--or is there a moral connotation you're meaning?
So continue to elaborate, what responsibility is owed to a fertilized egg and by whom? BTW, I'm going to use your Pfizer data in my next episode: Nina Jankowicz the Warbling Warmonger ;-)
Wow, great data, especially on no trials of pregnant women. I read CHD daily, they do great work. My episodes on Covid pre-date my Substack, but here are some links you might like:
It's always been a point of irony for me that women, the only beings that are truly MOTHERS, and I make no apologies for my views about THAT (yet another distraction!), have been and are STILL considered PROPERTY of men. That a group of MEN have been making decisions about what women are "allowed" to do for the past at least two or three thousand years is clear proof of that. It's NOT a "man's world," except that men seem to wish it. Might does NOT make right, except that men seem to enforce it. The chicken, OBVIOUSLY, came first. Men have long claimed a greater "stake" in the realm of offspring, because it has to do with THEIR mantle being passed on, as it were, but generally, only for MALE offspring. It is scandously recent that women were even able to control their own wages, or own their own property. This is STILL TRUE in many places in the world today. This superiority complex men claim, surely a defensive posture engendered by their FEAR that they are actually INferior because they cannot produce life, has never been granted by women, but again, by men themselves. To be honest, I'm a little weary of men feeling they should RULE-- look where that's brought us...
That said, I agree this is planned distraction. It is one more attempt to DIVIDE AND CONQUER, another tactic of MEN. Women are not toys, nor pawns, and women should not allow this kind of manipulation to continue. It's time that women took their rightful place, which is alongside, not behind, and not under the boot of, men.
All human beings belong to themselves, and themselves alone. Men making decisions about and for women is a form of slavery; it is the worst side of Patriarchy, after the impulse to declare war.
Really well put, Jaan. I was thinking along the same lines this morning. The anti-abortion argument sees women as baby farms, essentially, commodifying the "product" in the lucrative adoption market to baby buyers. It's not really about treasuring and honoring life because there's a myriad of ways we could be doing that, including the life of the woman, and are not. Subjecting the baby and mother to the most traumatic emotional crises humans can go through, by separating them, is cruel to both. But the crux of the argument is what you name, which is women as property.
Thanks so much for joining and responding!
It is disputed among anthropologists if women had much real equality before 3,000 years ago (in pre-Axial, pre-agrarian cultures).
A classic references is Napoleon Chagnon's study of gender in the pre-literate hunting/gathering Yanomamo culture, where Chagnon observed appalling levels of vicarious, unnecessary brutality toward women, especially by alpha males against beta females.
And who thought up the titles "Alpha males" and "Beta females," I wonder? Maybe... men?
Your comment is blatantly, grossly SEXIST. And hypocritical. And scientifically illiterate.
Standard concept in biology and anthropology. Do you want to talk about ideology or actual science?
^_^
You don't appear to understand science or more generally objective, systematic analysis of facts and evidence (not to mention meta-narrative analysis).
What you DO appear to understand are subjective, emotive narratives that are propagated via memetic replication.
Are you lost little boy?
I really don't know about the times that far back, and I'm not convinced anyone else does, either... Most of the "history" books are written by men, and we've all heard the phrase "History is written by the winner." I am not really all that concerned about proving something about ancient times, particularly; I'm far more interested in what is happening now, and maybe in the immediate past, relatively speaking. But what does seem to be the case is that there have indeed been women in positions of power, individually and in groups (for example the Amazons), and much of these women have been "left out" of the history books. Even in modern times, as if those times are any different, really, women and their successes are simply ignored.
You don't seem to understand science.
Oh no! Intellectual alpha male competition over the term alpha male! It had to happen sooner or later ... ;-) I remember reading a book of fiction that was based on Margaret Mead and another woman anthropologist who studied cultures that seemed very male-dominant but under the surface, women ran everything and made the real decisions. I suspect there's more of that in all cultures than is obvious.
FYI, I'm not MALE by any means. ;)
Oh no again! Showing my ignorance of names. Now I need to reread everything you wrote. I often see men, here in CA, defending women's rights in a way that's very patriarchal. I didn't have the sense that you were doing that, but I'm glad that you're a woman speaking for herself rather than a man speaking for women, as if they can't speak for themselves ;-)
Science: facts, evidence, objective analysis.
Non-science: ideology, subjectivity. If facts are present, they are typically cherry picked or distorted to fit a subjective narrative.
And this statement proves nothing.
Nobody understands science. That's why they call it science.
*** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL *** PSYCHOTIC *** ASSHOLE *** TROLL ***
You are entitled to think anything you want. From what I've said on this post, I find it difficult to believe you know much about what I understand or don't understand. I never claimed to be a scientist, but that doesn't mean I don't understand whatever. Perhaps you don't understand civility. Perhaps you don't understand patriarchy, or history, or any number of things. Your "standard concepts" are CONCEPTS, not absolute truth... Are you someone who believes science is a religion... and that it's "all settled"? Because I can question anything I please, doncha know. ^_^
So far you have provided ZERO actual evidence or facts. That in itself is a very strong indicator that you are just a memetic replication bot that has taken over a piece of meatspace to propagate MORAL PANICS and subjective narratives.
What you "question" is irrelevant.
What is relevant are facts and evidence (and objective, systematic analysis), which you appear to have no knowledge or awareness of.
e., I don't understand why you're engaging in insults here. The only time I disagree with someone's ideas is because I respect them. If I can't respect someone, I walk away. I value the knowledge you bring from all your reading but I've lost track of what the question even was. The internet is vast--find the people having the discussion you want to have.
Jaan's point that history is subjective is irrefutable. Are we missing the POV of women? There's no denying that. It's hard to bring data points when all we know is that 50% of people are missing. I don't see why that's propagating moral panics. But I think you owe Jaan an apology.
Many years ago I read, or heard in a documentary, that the anti-abortion "right" was able to shut down about 90% of the abortion clinics/facilities in the USA. There are a number of "red" (Republican/conservative) states that had very small numbers of abortion facilities, if any, in some cases, one abortion facility in an entire state.
The "right" could have called that a "win" politically and gone home, but abortion is as much of a propaganda (and funding raising and political organizing) narrative for them as it is the "left".
It seems like a relatively sane solution would be to allow for local legislation, and generally prohibit the use of taxpayer money for abortions (to semi-satisfy the 'right") and only ban abortions (with exceptions for rape/abuse/medical problems) in local situations were the vast majority of women themselves want abortion banned (to semi-satisfy the "right").
But instead of some kind of same solution, extremists on the far left and far right just want to use the issue for political purposes.
To people on the "right", if you don't like abortions, don't get one.
To people on the "left", stop insisting on federal/state tax money to fund abortion clinics.
IMO planned distraction. And life begins at the moment of conception based upon millions of humans who's lives' behaviors were shaped by their mothers' inner thoughts, feeling and environment.
It's easy to recognize 1st born child issues personality behaviors. Even child-to-mother relationship issues.
Look at adoptees for example.
Hi, Stan. I don't think there's any debate that babies are conscious and influenced by their mothers before birth. But are you giving a scientific definition--i.e. a fertilized egg is a chicken whether or not it's in your fridge--or is there a moral connotation you're meaning?
Um? I think there is a moral meaning, i.e. developing fetus is a human being.
So continue to elaborate, what responsibility is owed to a fertilized egg and by whom? BTW, I'm going to use your Pfizer data in my next episode: Nina Jankowicz the Warbling Warmonger ;-)
PFIZER’S NEW 80,000-PAGE DATA DUMP IS A NIGHTMARE – AND CAME AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ROE v WADE LEAK – Notable issues include:
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2022/05/10/pfizers-new-80000-page-data-dump-is-a-nightmare/
Wow, great data, especially on no trials of pregnant women. I read CHD daily, they do great work. My episodes on Covid pre-date my Substack, but here are some links you might like:
Digging Into the Data: https://youtu.be/CsA5cf04t40
Domestic Truth Agents Unite!: https://youtu.be/kOIVjqS2-ms
Calming the Fears of the Tyranny-Hesitant: https://youtu.be/nEa9Vv0Jc6M
Virus, Vaccine, Veritas: https://youtu.be/Oznky5gD4uk
Infodemic: RFK & the RAF: https://youtu.be/ifRlBglQvXA
Cui Bono Covid?: https://youtu.be/jSF7O2FI0S4
Conspiracy Theorist as the New Heretic: https://youtu.be/UJI1X7l48vM
Thanks for watching and engaging!