The Obedient Wives Club

[Deva]

Well the way you said it sounded more like apathy than cynicism. I can even understand both, but making a point to publicly declare yourself apathetic or that it's all hopeless just seems counter productive, especially for an issue that obviously effects people personally. Feel free to be cynical and/or apathetic, from a place where you obviously have the right to do so when so many aren't because of their home lives or even countries where they are censored, but don't bring others down with you. Just because it's going on doesn't mean we should all accept it.

 

Not what I said, but perhaps you are right. Now that you are telling me how I must be thinking and feeling... gee, I find myself most apathetic in the sense that I really don't much care what else you have to say.

 

If so many are forced into either abuse or poverty then maybe we should also do something about a society which has no other means of support.

 

Then go do it. I bid adieu to this thread.

[OpheliaGinger]

If I were to join an obedient wives club, it would wives who were obedient to themselves.

[paul34]

At orthodox weddings they read the "wives, submit to your husbands" bible reading as part of the service.

[LivingLife]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

Emotionally, women tend to be more empathetic than men and as such make the better nurturing parent. Men tend to be aggressive and territorial concerning wife and offspring, women too to a lesser extent.

 

Something a woman can do that a man cannot (mostly) is find a suitor and become "submissive" (offer of sex for care if you will). The way laws are enacted clearly shows (in most cases of divorce) that the man is obligated to support not only children but the ex spouse too. In most cases women will not object to this obvious benefit of a patriarchal society.

 

The modern world has tried to make gender roles equal but they still tend to be the way they were "designed" Stuff like BC has made it possible for women to compete for the same modern jobs and as such the walking incubator meme diminished somewhat.

 

The relationship between man and woman tends to work best when both parties cohabit and "share" responsibilities. The only time a man is put to a challenge is when the woman dies and there are still young to be cared for. This challenges the male to adopt the role of both and some pull it off very well. A male with offspring does not make an attractive option for a single female in modern times as she may simply be expected to adopt the role of the missing mother while denying/accepting that her reproductive role is diminished as wife 2.0. In the case of the man dying where young are involved, the situation is different and the male may have no qualms of supporting and the potential for a kid of his own is not such a big issue and typically one or two new kiddies may be accommodated leading to bigger than normal family. In the female version, the natural care provider is still there, they are all her offspring.

 

The problem with these roles, is that the church and the religious have taken it to the extreme and made women to feel inferior to men. They are still in a way made to feel like "property" belonging to the male. They still take on the surname of the male and as such lose their individual identity they are born with.

 

Even with the equal rights meme, women are still seen as unequal when it comes to reproduction. Thankfully society has moved forward and no longer designates women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen sex slaves to the men. Women at least are offered a longer tenure in the marketplace as equals before they elect to reproduce/get married.

 

I really cannot understand how any woman in modern times will willfully submit (in the biblical sense) to a husband, hell how does a guy even get a wife if he is overbearing? The only answer is that girls are already either pre-wired for this or influenced by society to adopt/accept this "lesser" role.

 

The reality is, the woman brings a lot more to the table as nurturer of offspring than the man does. For that we men should be grateful, not domineering assholes.

[Darklady]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

 

 

Im sorry i have to object strongly to that statement, I am so tired of hearing it. How does differences in physical strenght mean that people are not equal? Are all men not equal then? Some are strong, some are weak, some are in wheelchairs,some are ill and couldn't lift their own arms ... what the fuck does physical strenght mean in the debate that men and women are equal!!!

[LivingLife]

Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read my entire post.

 

You posing exceptions to the rule does not waiver the obvious.

 

Women are physically weaker than men, that is a fact of life.

 

Every girl I ever dated was shorter and more petite than me, I am 6'2" and there are not many woman that are that tall.

 

If men and women had equal physical stature on average, I would not have mentioned it.

[Darklady]

Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read my entire post.

 

You posing exceptions to the rule does not waiver the obvious.

 

Women are physically weaker than men, that is a fact of life.

 

Every girl I ever dated was shorter and more petite than me, I am 6'2" and there are not many woman that are that tall.

 

If men and women had equal physical stature on average, I would not have mentioned it.

 

WTF is your problem, why does strength matter? and I did read your entire post, but I felt that your statement had to be challenged, as it is meanlingless in the debate on equality. I don't care that men and women may have differences, it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with equality.

[LivingLife]

Then you obviously missed the point that the male dominated society "allows" women a longer tenure in the marketplace, there are measures of maternal leave et al. The lot of women is not so frigging bad in the western society. Religion abuses the obvious and makes women to feel inferior.

 

I understand your argument but when I offer a male perspective with respect for the female gender, you only see what you want to see.

 

How about you take my post and rebut the other points?

 

I would not want my wife to be a submissive whimp and I certainly do not treat her as such. I have never once in my life hit a women so perhaps you should be grateful that men like me do put our women on a pedestal and will do anything to protect them.

 

You are obviously too emotionally invested in this; I tend to remove emotion from the equation and try and look at the matter objectively.

 

If you as a NZ came out of Africa perhaps, you may know the black culture here operates pretty much the same as all other cultures where women are seen as vulnerable, to be cared for, and they typically accept their "god given" roles in marriage and nurturing.

 

I never talk down to women or see them as mentally inferior however something in me is hardwired to care for and protect them. If for example I saw another male abusing a woman viz beating her up, I would step in and knock seven colors of shit out of him.

 

Taking this example, why do you think there are laws that deal with abuse of women? Laws recognize that women are in fact not able to defend themselves against men in an assault. Yes women can take self defense classes and protect themselves to a degree. Seldom do we find laws that protect men from abuse by women.

 

It is only in the backward muslim countries that women are degraded to property and in xian cases they are duped into accepting a lesser role in society. When women marry they lose the identity they were born with, they take on the husband's name and basically fulfill the traditional role of providing offspring for him, the kids all get his surname.

 

It is in the context of this reality that women are many times given favor over men in society and yet the extreme feminists see this as somehow derogatory.

 

Would you prefer that the laws were such that women were treated equal in all respects? Take divorce. The woman fools around and is divorced and put out. The man is not obliged to care for the joint offspring as she was unfaithful OR the man is by default given custody as the kids carry his surname.

 

Sucks eh?

 

Spousal abuse (that generally is male on female) laws rescinded and where a man beats up his wife, is seen no more evil than a fight between two men. I am sure all feminists would love such laws eh?

 

All of these things that exist, except muslim countries, are there for the protection of the "weaker" of the species.

 

Most men do not beat up their wives and most men treat their women folk decently and as equals in a relationship.

 

Society is still geared such that girls are prepared for roles of motherhood and boys for roles of care providers to women and offspring. My daughter gets a different form of "protection" from me than my son does. Fathers generally are more protective of daughters than they are of sons (talking teens here)

 

Where men have a physical advantage, women tend to have a better emotional advantage.

[Darklady]

 

see above post

 

I have spent some time reading your posts trying to see where you are coming from. My final impression is that you do not understand what gender equality is.

 

Statements like 'so perhaps you should be grateful that men like me do put our women on a pedestal and will do anything to protect them' and 'Most men do not beat up their wives and most men treat their women' show a lack of understanding.

Women do NOT belong to men, so saying THEIR women or OUR women is highly offensive.

 

Then you say "where women are seen as vulnerable, to be cared for, and they typically accept their "god given" roles in marriage and nurturing". WTF is that about? god given roles? Women are vulnerable, TO BE CARE FOR?

That and the rest of your post show me that, regardless of your stated position, you do not act on your belief that women are equal to men.

[LivingLife]

Whatever, enjoy your misery

[Noumena]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

Emotionally, women tend to be more empathetic than men and as such make the better nurturing parent. Men tend to be aggressive and territorial concerning wife and offspring, women too to a lesser extent.

 

Something a woman can do that a man cannot (mostly) is find a suitor and become "submissive" (offer of sex for care if you will). The way laws are enacted clearly shows (in most cases of divorce) that the man is obligated to support not only children but the ex spouse too. In most cases women will not object to this obvious benefit of a patriarchal society.

 

The modern world has tried to make gender roles equal but they still tend to be the way they were "designed" Stuff like BC has made it possible for women to compete for the same modern jobs and as such the walking incubator meme diminished somewhat.

 

The relationship between man and woman tends to work best when both parties cohabit and "share" responsibilities. The only time a man is put to a challenge is when the woman dies and there are still young to be cared for. This challenges the male to adopt the role of both and some pull it off very well. A male with offspring does not make an attractive option for a single female in modern times as she may simply be expected to adopt the role of the missing mother while denying/accepting that her reproductive role is diminished as wife 2.0. In the case of the man dying where young are involved, the situation is different and the male may have no qualms of supporting and the potential for a kid of his own is not such a big issue and typically one or two new kiddies may be accommodated leading to bigger than normal family. In the female version, the natural care provider is still there, they are all her offspring.

 

The problem with these roles, is that the church and the religious have taken it to the extreme and made women to feel inferior to men. They are still in a way made to feel like "property" belonging to the male. They still take on the surname of the male and as such lose their individual identity they are born with.

 

Even with the equal rights meme, women are still seen as unequal when it comes to reproduction. Thankfully society has moved forward and no longer designates women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen sex slaves to the men. Women at least are offered a longer tenure in the marketplace as equals before they elect to reproduce/get married.

 

I really cannot understand how any woman in modern times will willfully submit (in the biblical sense) to a husband, hell how does a guy even get a wife if he is overbearing? The only answer is that girls are already either pre-wired for this or influenced by society to adopt/accept this "lesser" role.

 

The reality is, the woman brings a lot more to the table as nurturer of offspring than the man does. For that we men should be grateful, not domineering assholes.

 

I'm totally with you, LivingLife. My husband and I have talked about this before. We both have undeniably different roles in our relationship, but that doesn't mean one role is dominate and one submissive. It's a "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" kind of understanding that we have about each other. I think they're complementary roles.

[Noumena]

Thought this was an interesting read.

 

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/

[LivingLife]

I'm totally with you, LivingLife. My husband and I have talked about this before. We both have undeniably different roles in our relationship, but that doesn't mean one role is dominate and one submissive. It's a "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" kind of understanding that we have about each other. I think they're complementary roles.

Thanks

 

Let me correct you a wee bit, they ARE complimentary roles and neither is a submissive nor domineering role.

 

My whole premise is of course based on observations and facts as the world operates.

 

The equal rights meme for women I support wholeheartedly but be that as it may, there are still some very good "protections" for women in western society and apart from the religious woos, I do think most women are OK with it.

 

Interfering with the status quo of what each party brings to the table IMO does more harm than good.

 

By way of example, in SA there is a major gender equality drive and this is in the same train of thought as affirmative action. We regularly now see on road crews, women that work there and the percentages are relatively high. The type of work they do is marginal like traffic control, warning etc. In the corporate world, a black woman has the best chance of a managerial position over a male counterpart. That is not a bad way to redress inequalities of the past but what we find is that these women "forced" into these roles fail as they are culturally not prepared for the roles.

 

These positions become mere window dressing to serve a quota laid down by govt and the heavy lifters, the one's still making things happen are majority male. IOW, the "equality" is not real but merely a placebo, a position is created to serve the quota. In a repressed economy, this does more harm than good.

 

Looking back to WW2 when the womenfolk came to the factories and managed to keep the wheels of industry turning was proof they can do a man's job. The men were the ones that went away to fight.

 

Back here in SA during the Boer War, the Brits interned the Boers wives and kids in concentration camps to bring them (the Boers) to their knees. The wives were keeping the farms going in their husband's absence.

 

Cases like these put paid to the walking incubator meme but when society reverts to peacetime, the natural order defaults to that of the male "dominance."

 

Exceptions like Margarete Thatcher who stood out as a female leader, when the Brit men had no balls to lead, are there.

[Ro-bear]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

 

 

Im sorry i have to object strongly to that statement, I am so tired of hearing it. How does differences in physical strenght mean that people are not equal? Are all men not equal then? Some are strong, some are weak, some are in wheelchairs,some are ill and couldn't lift their own arms ... what the fuck does physical strenght mean in the debate that men and women are equal!!!

 

 

Perhaps your passion for this issue has blinded you to nuance. I don't think LL is questioning equal rights or equality under the law. Acknowledging differences is not denying equality. Perhaps LL could have put it better, but your objections are a little over the top. Is it O.K. for me to say "my" wife? She says "my husband". How is that different from "my woman" or "my man"? Really, possessive pronouns are not the villains you make them out to be.

[VacuumFlux]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

 

 

Im sorry i have to object strongly to that statement, I am so tired of hearing it. How does differences in physical strenght mean that people are not equal? Are all men not equal then? Some are strong, some are weak, some are in wheelchairs,some are ill and couldn't lift their own arms ... what the fuck does physical strenght mean in the debate that men and women are equal!!!

 

 

Perhaps your passion for this issue has blinded you to nuance. I don't think LL is questioning equal rights or equality under the law. Acknowledging differences is not denying equality. Perhaps LL could have put it better, but your objections are a little over the top. Is it O.K. for me to say "my" wife? She says "my husband". How is that different from "my woman" or "my man"? Really, possessive pronouns are not the villains you make them out to be.

 

I was dealing with this question recently, because I found myself reacting negatively to possessive pronouns, and realized that my reaction didn't seem to make sense given the context I heard it in. What I eventually decided is that it's a combination of context and personal history.

 

To me, saying "my woman" or "my man" or "my spouse" is referencing a role someone fills, not referencing them as an individual. I have known waaaaaay too many couples, dating and married, who want someone to fill the partner role in their life but never get to know the other person as an individual. In fact, one of my early dating relationships went poorly because he spend more time talking about "what girlfriends do" and "what boyfriends do" than about what either of us as unique individuals wanted to be doing. For another example, if I was at a party, and there was a guy who came in with a woman on his arm and introduced her to everyone as "my date", "my wife", or "my girlfriend" without ever telling anyone her name or mentioning any other trait about her, I'd be justified in feeling nervous about him.

 

I do find myself feeling very possessive of my partners after they have expressed interest in me, and have seen happy couple express mutual possessiveness. In those contexts, it's rather romantic. I have also had guys act possessive of me without ever asking my opinion on the matter, or worse, using possessive terms towards me after I told them I wasn't interested, and that's very unsettling. I think it's mostly that the negative situations have imprinted on me more strongly than the positive ones, so when I hear someone using the possessive terms I tend to think of "stalker" instead of "lover". Hopefully as I see more of my friends in healthy relationships being possessive of each other it'll be easier for me to be an accurate judge of the intent behind the phrases.

[florduh]

IDK, to me calling someone "my woman" says that I have chosen this woman above all others and she is therefore held in the highest esteem. I guess how we hear things depends on our predisposition.

[LivingLife]

I do find myself feeling very possessive of my partners after they have expressed interest in me, and have seen happy couple express mutual possessiveness. In those contexts, it's rather romantic. I have also had guys act possessive of me without ever asking my opinion on the matter, or worse, using possessive terms towards me after I told them I wasn't interested, and that's very unsettling. I think it's mostly that the negative situations have imprinted on me more strongly than the positive ones, so when I hear someone using the possessive terms I tend to think of "stalker" instead of "lover". Hopefully as I see more of my friends in healthy relationships being possessive of each other it'll be easier for me to be an accurate judge of the intent behind the phrases.

Just to comment on the bold parts, this probably has to do with the peer pressure thing and right of passage males tend to or pretend to have. A platonic "date" or friendship is seen as no win situation for young males and they BS each other a lot so if someone introduced you as their GF to their friends, it was probably to save face in light of pre-boasted expectations/fantasies.

 

I know it does not excuse the behavior but just so you understand where it could emanate from. I doubt dating courtship trends differ much today than when I was in my late teens/early 20's.

[Ro-bear]

[...] if I was at a party, and there was a guy who came in with a woman on his arm and introduced her to everyone as "my date", "my wife", or "my girlfriend" without ever telling anyone her name or mentioning any other trait about her, I'd be justified in feeling nervous about him.

 

I agree. It's just common courtesy to provide at least a name, to acknowledge the personhood of the person you are with.

Lack of such courtesy (respect?) could be indicative of a deeper problem than a lack of manners. But not always.

[Darklady]

Whatever, enjoy your misery

 

 

Replying to me ‘to enjoy my misery’ is a strange rejoinder to the discussion.

 

I was respectful enough of your post to give it due consideration, however I did not agree with it, and I stand by my remarks that your post showed considerable lack of understanding of the debate on equality. I repeat, equality has nothing to do with the differences in physical strength between men and women.

I also find the way you talk about women to be offensive, perhaps that’s your cultural background, and based on other men from south Africa that I know, I suspect it is a cultural attitude. Which is not to say it is a good or decent manner to talk about women.

 

Is this how you treat people who do not agree with you?

 

I am actually a very happy and contented person, however I do not let women’s subjection go unchallenged. Does this make me miserable? I would say it makes me passionate about issues, but not miserable.

[LivingLife]

Replying to me ‘to enjoy my misery’ is a strange rejoinder to the discussion.

You should have taken my exit.

I was respectful enough of your post to give it due consideration, however I did not agree with it, and I stand by my remarks that your post showed considerable lack of understanding of the debate on equality. I repeat, equality has nothing to do with the differences in physical strength between men and women.

No you did not. All you saw was one paragraph and like a twit reacted on that one alone.

I also find the way you talk about women to be offensive, perhaps that’s your cultural background, and based on other men from south Africa that I know, I suspect it is a cultural attitude. Which is not to say it is a good or decent manner to talk about women.

Err.. I thought you were all for equal rights. Why the fuck should I give you special treatment? Because you are a woman? Aren't you all for equal rights? Don't pretend that your NZ men are any better than SA men, you live in a fools paradise if that is your take. Both have minority subsets of assholes.

 

You have me all wrong. Married 26 years and no I do not speak to my wife or treat her like shit. I do not treat other women any different.

Is this how you treat people who do not agree with you?

No only idiots.

I am actually a very happy and contented person, however I do not let women’s subjection go unchallenged. Does this make me miserable? I would say it makes me passionate about issues, but not miserable.

You do not come across as passionate to me. Sorry if you think you do.

 

Based on more recent comments, it appears you stand alone.

 

Not that it matters as it appears you are looking for female support in your martyrdom of defending the rights of women.

 

What you fail to see is that the western world does in fact "favor" women and that is what I was pointing out. You have to be incredibly obtuse not to see that.

 

It is b/c women are physically weaker that these modern laws exist.

 

In your quest for full equality, get these beneficial laws rescinded and see how many women will stand alongside you. You could start with the obvious one concerning rape.

 

You claim you read my posts and when I ended off with I cannot understand how any women would enter into a partnership with an overbearing man which fully supports your passion, all you see is the physical part of that post.

 

I do not need to back down as what I stated is fact.

[DeGaul]

I stopped in to take a look at this thread because my wife mentioned it

 

 

In all of this discussion, what I have the most issue with is the way in which the term "equality" is used, but is not really clearly defined. What do you mean by "equality"? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm genuinely asking. There seems to be a lot of confusion over whether "equality" should include biological differences or not, or whether it is simply a very abstract way of saying men and women are both morally valuable beings.

 

It is because of this ambiguity and lack of clear definition that I find "equality" to be a dubious foundation for a moral argument. Are any of us "equal", practically speaking? I think not. But we want to believe that we are all morally valuable. We would like to believe that no matter how powerful someone else is, that person is not more valuable than we are. We would like to believe that if someone more powerful than us forces us to obey, then that is wrong, no matter how great the difference in power between us.

 

This sense of moral "equality" in the face of overwhelming power is very deep seated in our culture. We are a culture of rebels and underdogs. We must be sensitive to our own cultural history in order to better understand what we mean when we talk about equality.

 

That being said, we should also recognize that we are making an argument from the framework of our own culture. There is no "morality" out there in the cold, senselessness of the universe, just the morality we create as individuals and as cultures. Another culture (Islamic culture for example) will not share our interest in power relations and moral value. Their own cultural standards may favor other concepts, like solidarity and order, perhaps.

 

What is fundamentally going on is a battle between cultures and a battle between the separate histories of two different sets of morality. It is not a battle that can be avoided, and both sides wish to win....without question. It is a battle fought right down to the blood and bone......to the very structures which provide sense in a person's life.

 

I think it is important to keep this in mind, so that we are less inclined to appeal to abstract concepts like equality and instead focus on the realities of how we live our lives and the concrete differences between ourselves and other human communities.

 

Of course, in the end, all human communities are simply human created methods of coping with the meaningless machinations of an uncaring universe, but that is a different issue entirely.....

[LivingLife]

Western laws that favor women

 

Rape laws

 

Women's property rights - varies by incidence. Women have the right to prenuptial agreements concerning their property. Generally, joint acquisition of property after marriage should be split 50-50. Stats show that where no prenup is in place, women tend to get a better deal. Women tend to get custody more than men of offspring.

Gender equality in the job market - Although not there yet, there is a concerted effort afoot to address past inequalities. Many countries already have non discriminatory laws in place. Employers are required to pay maternal leave of absence. Some employers have day care for infants but that is elective.

 

Spousal abuse laws - there seems to be only assault as a law that will prosecute on a woman's behalf. The main problem here appears to be proof of abuse. Emotional abuse and sexual abuse are even harder to prove. Divorce seems to be the only avenue out. Not much the law can do when the wife chooses to remain is such a abusive relationship.

 

In divorce, women are generally afforded property rights and where no prenup was in place, community property laws generally are applied.

 

Assault laws favoring women Laws exist in most western countries for the protection of male on female violence. Essentially these laws are enacted to protect women from spousal abuse. A man cannot hide under the pretenses of "disciplining his woman" or any religious or cultural sub text.

 

These are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

The laws are discriminatory in a sense that they actually offer protection for the fairer sex where there does not seem to be equal laws of female on male "abuse". I have no problem with that probably because I was raised not to lift a hand to any woman nor force myself on her even though I have the physical ability to do so. It is called being a gentleman, chivalry is not dead.

 

Sadly some women overplay this norm of society and expect the man to open doors for her, etc.

 

I was taught simple chivalry things like walking downstairs in front of women in case they slip and fall, behind them going upstairs for the same reason, letting women go in first through an open door, offering up your seat on a full bus to a woman, helping a woman carry her groceries to her car and really came down to a simple rule of Ladies First.

 

We cannot simply walk up to you ladies and ask you do you wanna f**k. There is a whole mating ritual and host of courtship tricks we have to adhere to. We generally pay for the movies and dinner even though the woman may be earning equal pay, we pay for your drinks at the bars and clubs but all men ultimately want is to get into your knickers, it is our natural instinct.

 

Just like the peacock and peahen, the peacock has the pretty plumage yet the bland looking hen still gets to choose the mate. So we shower you with flowers and chocolates, and do all this usually b/c we must, we do not have pretty plumage and the only appendage we can display is frowned upon if presented in public. It is all part of the game.

 

The females do what is needed to attract by applying makeup, dressing to the nines to differentiate themselves from the competition and where there are many suitors, her choice is better in securing a potential mate.

 

All of this is good clean fun and is a better than simply the caveman approach of bopping you on the head and dragging you to our cave for coitus. We males stopped that practice too late as women have now evolved with that pesky "no tonight hon' I have a headache"

[DeGaul]

LivingLife, I love a little evolutionary psychology, but I'd be careful about running too wild with it. It isn't saying much to say that we do thing "b/c we must". Everything that every living thing does is "b/c [it] must". That is tautologous. However, you are correct in that many laws "favor" women, but that is mostly because, as I pointed out, our culture is obsessed with eliminating differences in power, as power seems to be what is most morally threatening to us as a people. (Although there is certainly some diversity even in our own culture. Conservatives, for example, seem to fear liberty more than power and identify too much liberty as a corrupting influence, whereas far left radicals identify any form of authority as entirely morally corrupt.)

 

 

[LivingLife]

LivingLife, I love a little evolutionary psychology, but I'd be careful about running too wild with it. It isn't saying much to say that we do thing "b/c we must". Everything that every living thing does is "b/c [it] must". That is tautologous. However, you are correct in that many laws "favor" women, but that is mostly because, as I pointed out, our culture is obsessed with eliminating differences in power, as power seems to be what is most morally threatening to us as a people. (Although there is certainly some diversity even in our own culture. Conservatives, for example, seem to fear liberty more than power and identify too much liberty as a corrupting influence, whereas far left radicals identify any form of authority as entirely morally corrupt.)

I hear you deGaul but when I entered this thread it was not to be in opposition.

 

Many women have done fine things in the past to redress inequalities deemed OK perhaps b/c the xian/patriarchal norms saw women as having a specific role of only copulation and childbearing. That was archaic.

 

But by the same token, broad brushing all males as domineering pricks is also not on.

 

As for the muslims, their women's lib will need to come from within and in Saudi, it appears they are starting to get small stuff like the right to drive. They have a long way to go.

 

As for the xian woos that choose to be subservient to men, that meek and mild approach flies out the window when DH goes and tries to find himself a concubine.

 

We had a sect here in SA called the blourokkies (blue dresses) where the women all wore blue uniform like dresses when in public and they were not allowed to drive, had buns and hats.

 

My folk's church was a similar cult but dropped the hats in the 70's and they were allowed to dress conservatively (dresses all below the knee) but hair-in-bun was the way, no cutting of hair or short hairstyles allowed. No jewelry except wedding band (no engagement ring with diamonds) and men generally did not wear wedding bands.

 

I remember when I worked for a company that was engaging a Saudi based company, when they came to do due diligence on the business, the women were asked to dress very modestly (no jeans) while the fucking rag heads walked around in their white PJ's and man dresses. The women complied wearing their Sunday bests but were very pissed off. In spite of the modesty, these rag heads were drooling and could not take their eyes off the womenfolk who were mostly married. They still made inquiries of where to get prostitutes at a male only dinner outing.

 

They got the contract, but I had moved onto other pastures.

[Legion]

.... far left radicals identify any form of authority as entirely morally corrupt.

Um... you sure about that? It seems to me that many far Left radicals embrace the use of the State as the highest expression of the collective will.