Europe submits voluntarily

[Trausti]

More benefits of cultural vibrancy for Europe.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=Yesjd5AqAJc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

EXxon-MOBil

Iraq got stomped on because having too much of the oil in the hands of one country would have made the oil weapon far more powerful.

Iraq was attacked because it has too much oil? A weapon for what? We were buying oil from Iraq in the first place at a reasonable price.

Why would our Big Oil Owned Government want us to get a reasonable price from one of the American petrocrats' competitors? Saddam was a renegade from the global price-fixing cartel. Behind closed doors, the totally owned Pentagon and CIA preached that he had to be punished for producing beyond his quotas and driving down Big Oil's profit margins.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Appease Porridge Hot

Allah Is All About Oil

Our destruction of Arab countries is about oil. We removed governments bad as they were and by destroying the infrastructures of these companies created a vacuum for all these Jihadists. Of course those in the West who predicted this were idiots until their forecasts came true.

You can preach that because nobody predicted that self-determination for savages with a 1300-year history of being determined to conquer the world was idiotic.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's Not About Words, It's About Swords

Even if what you say is correct about Islam always being Jihadist, it has has a long time on the world stage and shows no possibility of actually conquering the world. It is dated and anachronistic. By dwelling on this, you too bring anachronisms to the table...the same Jihadism as they bring, the same violence and the same idiocy that you can somehow kill those who oppose you and they will just vanish from the scene. That is part of your blindness and as long as we have dealt with this issue, you never move too far from recommending military style violence and totalitarian repression of those who oppose your own neo liberal industrialization concept of social development.

Jihadis like evolution moves very slowly, hardly perceivable. It was Gaddafi who said: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot, by mass migration.
I do wish more people would read what to Moslems is their life, namely, the Koran!

It is the genetic predatory nature of natural-born killers who are attracted to Islam that is the problem, not some book that has a supposed magical effect of turning normal people into monsters.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Muzziphile Talking Heads Headed for a Beheading

More benefits of cultural vibrancy for Europe.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=Yesjd5AqAJc[/YOUTUBE]

I myself feel left out at Kumbaya parties because I never had the cultural experience of witnessing mass executions of infidels!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because that's your fantasy of the cause. Islam has always been Jihadist. The amount of Jihad we see from them is related to their ability to commit Jihad.

Even if what you say is correct about Islam always being Jihadist, it has has a long time on the world stage and shows no possibility of actually conquering the world. It is dated and anachronistic. By dwelling on this, you too bring anachronisms to the table...the same Jihadism as they bring, the same violence and the same idiocy that you can somehow kill those who oppose you and they will just vanish from the scene. That is part of your blindness and as long as we have dealt with this issue, you never move too far from recommending military style violence and totalitarian repression of those who oppose your own neo liberal industrialization concept of social development.

They can't conquer the world because eventually the world will wake up and stomp them hard. The longer it is before the world wakes up the harder that stomping will be.

- - - Updated - - -

Iraq was attacked because it has too much oil? A weapon for what? We were buying oil from Iraq in the first place at a reasonable price.

I think Loren is referring to Iraq overrunning Kuwait to take their oil fields and trying to annex Saudi oil fields. We fought them in Saudi Arabia after they crossed the border from Kuwait which they had already taken. We then pushed them from Kuwait then proceeded to eliminate the regime in Baghdad.

If Iraq had been able to keep the Kuwaiti oil fields and taken the Saudi oil fields added to the Iraqi oil then Saddam would, indeed, have had control of a large percentage of the world oil supply.

Exactly. The oil weapon is bad enough as it stands with it being controlled by a bunch of bickering powers. United it would be far stronger.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, heartbreak.

The Human Relief Foundation (HRF) has been giving aid to the migrant camp with the belief that its occupants are fleeing war-torn countries like Syria.

However, the charity decided to pull the plug after its deputy chief executive Kassim Tokan recently paid a visit to Calais.

The shocked deputy claimed he discovered unwanted clothing and food "being dumped and burnt" by migrants.

Mr Tokan said: "I thought they have valid reason, but most of them they haven't any valid reason... they want to go [to the UK] to get money, a better economic situation."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/610898/Human-Relief-Foundation-Calais-Migrant-Jungle-Kassim-Tokan

 

[angelo]

So, you're admitting that your $2 per year figure was wrong?

You still haven't figured out the difference between:

A) The cost of paying Centrelink to settled refugees. This costs less than $2 per taxpayer.

and

B) The cost of detaining asylum seekers in offshore camps. This costs way, way more than $2 per taxpayer.

For some reason, you support the more-expensive policy of holding people in camps but then complain that settling refugees is too expensive.

It should be obvious: processing refugees' claims onshore (by issuing bridging visas) and processing them quickly is by far the cheapest option we have. Yet the xenophobes on the right (including the right faction of the ALP) would rather waste incredible amounts of taxpayer money to prevent boat people from ever setting foot in Australia.

It is the best option economically; it is the best option for Australia's foreign relations; and it is the most humanitarian option.

Bilby has vastly overestimated the cost of paying Centrelink to refugees. For the sake of his calculation he assumed that 100% of refugees are paid the full Newstart allowance, which would require that 100% of refugees be unemployed. In reality, about 40% of refugees are employed by the time they have been here for five years, and many others are not entitled to Newstart since they are not 'unemployed' but are instead students, carers, retirees etc. So the costs is actually much less than $2 per person.

Sadly, you are still unable to tell the difference between the costs of settling refugees and the costs of imprisoning asylum seekers.

The vast majority are not refugees, they are economic illegal migrants. The proof is their country shopping and aiming for countries with the most generous welfare.
And your $2 per year for each "migrant" is more like $400.000 each. 2.9 billion is a conservative figure likely to skyrocket with the addition of another 12.000 of them in the coming months.
I suppose housing them will take away locals housing needs, but who cares about Aussie homeless when housing the freeloaders gives the pc brigades a warm and fuzzy feeling!

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. These are the result of other stuff. Women's lib for instance was the result of industrialisation. More effective means of production meant that a home didn't need a full-time caretaker to function.

The home didn't need a full-time caretaker before the industrial revolution, either. In fact it has never needed a full-time caretaker.

Prior to the industrial revolution, Working-class women divided their time between running the domestic economy and doing work that earned money for the household. In the cottage textile industry in England, it was women who made the textiles to be sold at market, and in subsistence farmers around the world, women worked in the fields (and still do).

The industrial revolution enriched a portion of the populace and created a middle class. Middle-class women in England adopted the lifestyle that we now stereotype as the 'Victorian lady", and became the domestic servants of their husbands. Meanwhile, working-class women worked in the factories and agricultural combines because they didn't have any other choice. It was a luxury for a man to have a housewife, not a necessity.

In the twentieth century, this attitude that (middle-class) women should stay in the home persisted. However, technology improved dramatically, and the amount of time required to maintain a household continued to decrease. Housewives were stuck in the house with relatively little housework to do.

Women's Lib gave women personal freedom of choice with respect to their occupation. They could choose to spend their lives doing something more productive than dusting behind cupboards. Women's Lib could have happened centuries ago, although it has always been a problem limited to upper-class women, and more recently, middle-class women. For working-class women it simply increased their options for earning a an income.

Thanks for the long version. But don't agree women's lib could have happened centuries ago. It's a fact that it didn't anywhere on the planet before industrialisation. Nowhere. Societies could be more or less egalitarian. But until industrialisation it never took off seriously anywhere.

Here's a few things that need to pre-exist for women's lib to gain any traction:

1. There has to be a substantial caloric surplus in the society. Any society living on the edge of starvation for any period during the year will be highly patriarchal. It's actually a sliding scale. You can easily calculate the degree of freedom from women by how well fed people are in any region or social strata. But women's lib requires a constant access to food all year round for everybody in the society.

2. Countries and regions that are physically dangerous will never allow women's lib to take hold. Regions with warlike neighbours will be highly patriarchal. Or regions where there's a shortage of some critical resource that needs to be protected from others. Or simply that the job of gathering the food is dangerous. Hunter-gatherer societies that rely more on hunting than gathering for food will be more patriarchal than hunter-gatherers who get more calories from gathering.

 

[dystopian]

Thanks for the long version. But don't agree women's lib could have happened centuries ago. It's a fact that it didn't anywhere on the planet before industrialisation.

A fact? No, that is not a fact; it's a baseless assertion that one can only make by being familiar with only a narrow band of humanity's history. For example, in ancient Egypt women had the same legal rights as men; they could own property, land, had full inheritance rights, could sue others and initiate divorce without male representation, and could hold important government positions. Moving up to more 'recent' times, women had extensive rights and freedoms in Spain and Acquitania from the 7th century onward, including the ability to inherit lands and titles and manage these on their own, representing themselves in legal matters, and arrange their own marriages. Then there are many examples of matrilineal societies elsewhere; such as the Iroquois, where wealth and property was passed down through the female line and where there were female chieftains who held deciding votes in councils.

It is not correct to claim that it didn't happen anywhere on the planet before industrialisation; and one shouldn't make these sort of absolute statements.

Here's a few things that need to pre-exist for women's lib to gain any traction:

1. There has to be a substantial caloric surplus in the society. Any society living on the edge of starvation for any period during the year will be highly patriarchal. It's actually a sliding scale. You can easily calculate the degree of freedom from women by how well fed people are in any region or social strata. But women's lib requires a constant access to food all year round for everybody in the society.

Except this simply isn't universally true. There are plenty of tribal societies where food is not always readily available that have near total gender egalitarianism. Consider the central african Aka people, for instance.

2. Countries and regions that are physically dangerous will never allow women's lib to take hold. Regions with warlike neighbours will be highly patriarchal.

Except again, this simply isn't universally true. In ancient Sparta for instance (which was constantly under threat from its neighbours), women held large amounts of power, status, and influence. 40% of all Spartan property was privately owned by women, and many of the wealthiest Spartans were in fact women.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The reformation was *not* about moving power into the hands of regional kings, and describing it that way is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize popular movements hundreds of years after the fact and ascribe intent to it that was never actually the intent but rather the natural outcome. You're putting the cart before the horse by doing so.

The early reformists whose writings kicked things off didn't want to move power away from Rome and into the hands of regional kings; they wanted to *reform* the church, to get rid of 'heretical' doctrine and to get rid of corruption and materialism. The central conflict was most certainly a religious one; relating to doctrine. But you can't galvanize a population of peasants and burghers with theology alone. The reformation sparked into viability because the early leaders were skilled at using biblical prophecies to convince people of their cause; but it was successful not because it was about religion; or about the power of kings versus the church. It was successful because the people were poor and the church was rich; this is what allowed it to spread.

Ehe... what? I never claimed that was the intent. That's not how analysing history works. Yes, I'm doing an analysis of the history of social change. There are causations and correlations. I'm just talking patterns. If there's a constant pattern of development in every case I'm going to claim that it is an inevitable event, and I'm going to trace back the chain of events to whatever thingy seems the most likely to have kick-started it. Why did A happen and not B?

You're also wrong about it being about moving power into the hands of the individual, and the printing press/reformation causing priests to have only an advisory function in society. Exceptionally wrong, in fact. Protestant churches held tremendous power and political influence until well into the 19th century. Priests were by no means a mere advisory function in society. They could often wield power to greater extents than Catholic priests could; as protestant populations of the 17th and 18th centuries were often far more tied up in fundamentalist faith than catholic populations were. In the Catholic world, the Church wielded power because of traditional inertia. In the protestant world, the church wielded power because people were far more personally invested in religion and thus easier to sweep up into a frenzy of fervor.

Yes. Which is what I said. Yes, they were more militant and more fundamentalistic in the in of the 19'th century and beginning of the 20'th. Doesn't disprove anything I said.

The priests of that time had an ever increasingly fracturing power base. People were ever increasingly comfortable about switching faiths. Power over an other is about making people do things that they don't want to do and wouldn't do unless you twist their arm to do it. If you tell a highly motivated person to do something and they do it, doesn't make you powerful.

An Imam with 100 000 fundamentalist devotees who would do anything the Imam says is powerful, because of their ability to use his followers to influence the behaviour of people outside his sect. But he doesn't necessarily have any power over his followers. The power stems from his ability to follow the Quran. If that Imam would decide to deviate from the Quran and do his own thing, his followers would of course piss off and follow some other dude who says what they want to hear. That's not power over the devotee. That's just the illusion of power. The individual devotees still maintain all the power.

In order for a priest to be able to claim power over his flock they need to be part of the flock, not by choice, but by force. Could be something as mundane as social pressure and fear of being shunned. But there has to be an urge in the follower to leave the congregation if he has the possibility.

No. These are the result of other stuff. Women's lib for instance was the result of industrialisation. More effective means of production meant that a home didn't need a full-time caretaker to function.

Incorrect. Women's rights movements became a thing well *before* industrializiation. For instance, in 1707 the Palatinate was the first state to abolish the practice whereby a woman cedes her legal rights and obligations were transferred to her husband upon marriage, thanks to Dorothea von Velen, who could be seen as one of the first modern feminists.

An isolated event does not a movement make. There has to be something that links the reforms together other than just being good for women.

Industrialization did not kick off women's liberation. Women's rights movements did accellerate during industralization, but this had nothing to do with the silly claim that homes didn't need a full-time caretake to function because of more effective means of production. More effective means of production have no relation whatsoever to whether a home needs or has a full-time caretaker; the ability of a factory to produce pottery faster and cheaper has no bearing on the function of an individual household.

Yet that's the pattern.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A fact? No, that is not a fact; it's a baseless assertion that one can only make by being familiar with only a narrow band of humanity's history. For example, in ancient Egypt women had the same legal rights as men; they could own property, land, had full inheritance rights, could sue others and initiate divorce without male representation, and could hold important government positions. Moving up to more 'recent' times, women had extensive rights and freedoms in Spain and Acquitania from the 7th century onward, including the ability to inherit lands and titles and manage these on their own, representing themselves in legal matters, and arrange their own marriages. Then there are many examples of matrilineal societies elsewhere; such as the Iroquois, where wealth and property was passed down through the female line and where there were female chieftains who held deciding votes in councils.

It is not correct to claim that it didn't happen anywhere on the planet before industrialisation; and one shouldn't make these sort of absolute statements.

What has any of that got to do with women's lib? I think you are abusing the terminology. There is no correlation between matrilineality and greater gender equality. None.

Here's a few things that need to pre-exist for women's lib to gain any traction:

1. There has to be a substantial caloric surplus in the society. Any society living on the edge of starvation for any period during the year will be highly patriarchal. It's actually a sliding scale. You can easily calculate the degree of freedom from women by how well fed people are in any region or social strata. But women's lib requires a constant access to food all year round for everybody in the society.

Except this simply isn't universally true. There are plenty of tribal societies where food is not always readily available that have near total gender egalitarianism. Consider the central african Aka people, for instance.

2. Countries and regions that are physically dangerous will never allow women's lib to take hold. Regions with warlike neighbours will be highly patriarchal.

Except again, this simply isn't universally true. In ancient Sparta for instance (which was constantly under threat from its neighbours), women held large amounts of power, status, and influence. 40% of all Spartan property was privately owned by women, and many of the wealthiest Spartans were in fact women.

I'm not sure wtf you are talking about? Sparta is one of the most patriarchal societies humanity has produced. The fact that Spartan property was officially in the hands of women prove nothing. These women still had no or little say in anything. This just goes to show that you have no understanding of how Spartan society was organised.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Our destruction of Arab countries is about oil. We removed governments bad as they were and by destroying the infrastructures of these companies created a vacuum for all these Jihadists. Of course those in the West who predicted this were idiots until their forecasts came true.

You can preach that because nobody predicted that self-determination for savages with a 1300-year history of being determined to conquer the world was idiotic.

You say it was not predicted, but in fact what we see now was predicted. It doesn't take rocket science to see that once you remove the control of an oppressive or strong government you will see these mad Jihadist fill the vacuum and acting like Rottweilers who have been let off their leash. What we replaced the Middle East with is something worse than was there in the first place.

 

[whichphilosophy]

More benefits of cultural vibrancy for Europe.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=Yesjd5AqAJc[/YOUTUBE]

Great comedy. Hard to believe he's serious.

 

[dystopian]

What has any of that got to do with women's lib? I think you are abusing the terminology.

You *genuinely* can't understand how the liberation of women has anything to do with them having equal legal rights? You don't see what that has to do with anything? Really?

There is no correlation between matrilineality and greater gender equality. None.

Oh please. We were talking about women's liberation here, weren't we? One of the ways in which women have been opressed in history is through not being allowed to control wealth by themselves; being forced to have their husbands assume control over it instead; or having their brothers inherit everything while they get sold to other families as brides. Matrilineal societies, in which wealth gets passed down the female line (and where women tend to control the family estates) are obviously superior in terms of women's rights over those societies where this is not the case.

I'm not sure wtf you are talking about? Sparta is one of the most patriarchal societies humanity has produced. The fact that Spartan property was officially in the hands of women prove nothing. These women still had no or little say in anything. This just goes to show that you have no understanding of how Spartan society was organised.

No, it goes to show that *you* don't know much about Sparta. Sparta was far less patriarchal than its other Greek neighbours; it was also the only Greek state were women were given formal education, an education that was almost identical to that men received albeit with less focus on martial aspects. Unlike everywhere else, Spartan women were commonly literate, and could speak their mind freely (Which was certainly not the case in the other city states). Spartan women had freedoms no other Greek women enjoyed; while an Athenian woman was not allowed to leave their father's house for example, Spartan women could go where they'd please and dress as they'd like. They could even take part in sports, which was considered utterly scandalous by the other Greek city-states. Furthermore, it wasn't just the case that the property was 'officially' in their hands... it *actually* was in their hands, they controlled it themselves. It wasn't just in name only, it was the women themselves who made the decisions, and controlled the finances of the properties and estates they owned, they after all not only had the legal right to, but the formal education to manage it as well. In addition, they'd manage their husbands estates while they were off at war, which afforded them considerable political and economic power despite not being formally part of the political process.

The idea of Sparta as an extremely patriarchal society is an historic fiction. In reality, its women enjoyed the highest standard of living and freedom in the classical world.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You *genuinely* can't understand how the liberation of women has anything to do with them having equal legal rights? You don't see what that has to do with anything? Really?

Women being granted various legal rights is not evidence of a women's rights movement. The odd woman here and there managing to push through reforms does not a movement make.

Eurpean medieval property laws were centred around keeping property within a family. In that family the man wielded all power. It didn't matter that the property was officially in her name. Her husband could do wtf with it he wanted.

There is no correlation between matrilineality and greater gender equality. None.

Oh please. We were talking about women's liberation here, weren't we? One of the ways in which women have been opressed in history is through not being allowed to control wealth by themselves; being forced to have their husbands assume control over it instead; or having their brothers inherit everything while they get sold to other families as brides. Matrilineal societies, in which wealth gets passed down the female line (and where women tend to control the family estates) are obviously superior in terms of women's rights over those societies where this is not the case.

You're completely off in fantasy land. Why would it follow that property being in the name of a woman, that she would have any control over it? For example, Jews is a matrilineal society. They have a system to keep track of which man in her life gets to decide what is to be done with her money. According to Jewish tradition she has zero say in what happens with her own money. Never any.

I'm not sure wtf you are talking about? Sparta is one of the most patriarchal societies humanity has produced. The fact that Spartan property was officially in the hands of women prove nothing. These women still had no or little say in anything. This just goes to show that you have no understanding of how Spartan society was organised.

No, it goes to show that *you* don't know much about Sparta. Sparta was far less patriarchal than its other Greek neighbours; it was also the only Greek state were women were given formal education, an education that was almost identical to that men received albeit with less focus on martial aspects. Unlike everywhere else, Spartan women were commonly literate, and could speak their mind freely (Which was certainly not the case in the other city states). Spartan women had freedoms no other Greek women enjoyed; while an Athenian woman was not allowed to leave their father's house for example, Spartan women could go where they'd please and dress as they'd like. They could even take part in sports, which was considered utterly scandalous by the other Greek city-states. Furthermore, it wasn't just the case that the property was 'officially' in their hands... it *actually* was in their hands, they controlled it themselves. It wasn't just in name only, it was the women themselves who made the decisions, and controlled the finances of the properties and estates they owned, they after all not only had the legal right to, but the formal education to manage it as well. In addition, they'd manage their husbands estates while they were off at war, which afforded them considerable political and economic power despite not being formally part of the political process.

The idea of Sparta as an extremely patriarchal society is an historic fiction. In reality, its women enjoyed the highest standard of living and freedom in the classical world.

And on the topic of historical fiction... You have no sense of proportion. Spartan women had more freedom than their other Greek counterparts because they were forbidden from living with their husbands. They needed that freedom for the society to function at all. But they still had no power nor rights. And whenever her husband were in her vicinity those freedoms were gone.

I get the feeling that you've read a bit much of Carl Gustav Jung? Your ideas certainly do sound influenced by him? He was wrong btw. Basically... he just made shit up. He chose to interpret any culture with prominent goddesses as matriarchal, and the further back we went we see less and less male dominated societies. The evidence does not back this up. Jung's theories has been extremely popular and done a lot of damage, especially among feminists. But it was always bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More benefits of cultural vibrancy for Europe.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=Yesjd5AqAJc[/YOUTUBE]

He should know--he's an agent of the devil.

 

[repoman]

It is like Footloose or Pastor Steven Anderson.

Imagine this happening in your cities, despicable...



http://www.onislam.net/english/news/asia-pacific/473179-india-muslims-censure-calls-to-ban-adhan.html

NEW DELHI – Days after Narendra Modi’s ascension to power, Muslims in India are facing a threat to their religious freedom with some Hindu organizations pitching for a ban on use of loudspeakers during Fajr adhan (prayer call from mosque at dawn).

“This is something unacceptable to us. How can you take away our fundamental right to follow our religion?” Maulvi Shees, a Muslim scholar based in central India, told OnIslam.net.

 

[dystopian]

Women being granted various legal rights is not evidence of a women's rights movement. The odd woman here and there managing to push through reforms does not a movement make.

But we weren't talking about movements.

You're completely off in fantasy land. Why would it follow that property being in the name of a woman, that she would have any control over it?

Why does it follow that the opposite is true? We have a number of historical matrilineal societies where we know for a fact women held power and control; claiming that it was 'just in name only' is historical revisionism and transposing a western lens onto the rest of the world.

For example, Jews is a matrilineal society. They have a system to keep track of which man in her life gets to decide what is to be done with her money. According to Jewish tradition she has zero say in what happens with her own money. Never any.

Judaism is not a good example of the kind of society I'm talking about, because while there's some provisions that benefit women in Jewish laws, these laws are very restricted compared to the examples I gave. For instance, in the examples I gave, women were allowed to initiate divorce, and to represent themselves in legal matters. This is not true in old Jewish society; and while women were technically allowed to own property, they almost never did; which is obviously very different from a society where women owned as much as 40% of the land.

And on the topic of historical fiction... You have no sense of proportion.

Ah, that classic zoidberg irony again.

Spartan women had more freedom than their other Greek counterparts because they were forbidden from living with their husbands.

This simply isn't true. Men were required to actively serve in the military until the age of 30; and therefore required to live in the barracks. After finishing active service, they could live wherever they wanted, including with their wives. Spartan men not living with their wives wasn't because of some sort of law against it, but because of circumstance. Not that this was generally a particularly big issue, since many Spartan men married at 30 to begin with, as the state encouraged.

they needed that freedom for the society to function at all. But they still had no power nor rights. And whenever her husband were in her vicinity those freedoms were gone.

And you again demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Spartan women's freedoms did not disappear when their husbands were near. In fact, it was a common view at the time that Spartan husbands obeyed their wives, not the other way around. Spartan women were expected to have a say not only in who they married, but everything that followed (Spartan custom also dictated that women were allowed to marry only when they'd reached an age where they could enjoy sex... in stark contrast to the rest of Greece where girls could be forced into marriage as young as 12). They were expected to hold and voice their opinions... and were actually listened to. They did not have to moderate this just because their husband was around.

I get the feeling that you've read a bit much of Carl Gustav Jung? Your ideas certainly do sound influenced by him?

No.

He was wrong btw. Basically... he just made shit up.

Everyone does.

He chose to interpret any culture with prominent goddesses as matriarchal, and the further back we went we see less and less male dominated societies. The evidence does not back this up. Jung's theories has been extremely popular and done a lot of damage, especially among feminists. But it was always bullshit.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said or the reasons why I've said them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But we weren't talking about movements.

he he. What do you think women's lib is? It wasn't a question.

You're completely off in fantasy land. Why would it follow that property being in the name of a woman, that she would have any control over it?

Why does it follow that the opposite is true? We have a number of historical matrilineal societies where we know for a fact women held power and control; claiming that it was 'just in name only' is historical revisionism and transposing a western lens onto the rest of the world.

You are completely and absolutely wrong. We don't know that for a fact. What we know for a fact is the opposite. I think it's you who are revising history. It's just racist exotism IMHO. Which the Western liberals have been way too good at doing the entire 20th history. Doesn't make it less bullshit. The reality is that in every society before the advent of women's lib women were little more than property... everywhere. There's been plenty of rose tinted attempts to try to find ancient egalitarian societies. There's just no evidence for it. And our research on contemporary hunter/gathers do not lift our hopes. As far as women's rights are concerned. they're all awful.

But I think we've come as far as we can on this. I don't know wtf you've been reading. But I've clearly read a different history than you. Our views on history just differ too much to continue this discussion.