4 ms·

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when

> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny. If you want to be true to the statements made in historical sources (e.g., the bible), try to put yourself in their shoes -- in this case, imagine that you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people. The reason for the law is thus completely justified to such a person: to them, menstrual fluid is gross and just another example of why women clearly do not have the full rights of a "real person".

speeder 7y ago
Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.
- mcv 7y ago
  They probably didn't want you spewing that near the water source in the center of the camp either. You know the type exists.
- Trombone12 7y ago
  An obvious difference is that it's the semen that makes things unclean, while for menstruation it's the woman herself that is the unclean agent. For semen, there is a clear distinction that it is anything it touches becomes dirty and needs washing. But for menstruation its whatever the woman touches that becomes unclean (and for seven days it seems!), not merely what the blood touches. The original comment thus provides an explanation for why these two cases are treated separately, which is basically what you asked for.
pazimzadeh 7y ago
I think it's a little bit of both. Scientific-type thinking is not restricted to modern times and a lot can be deduced simply from observation, given a large enough sample size. On the other hand, a broken clock is right twice a day.
diryawish 7y ago
Calling reasonable inference pseudoscience while assuming to read the minds of men 2000 years ago and claim misogynic inspiration for their actions is such a fucking joke.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It's hardly "mind reading" when their actions are visible. Misogyny is not only a state of mind, can consist in a set of actions. From what we know about these ancient societies, they were heavily misogynistic. If you were to look at American in the 1950s, what would it take for me to convice you that society was a racist one? Would you say that any such claim means I am reading the minds of the people who enforced the Jim Crow laws? Let's say there were a civilization of which we have no written records other than the list of the rules by which that society was governed. The rules state that women are unclean and inferior to men, they must keep silent in places of worship, and they are not allowed to hold public offices or own houses. Would interpreting that as a misogynistic society be a "fucking joke"? If we knew that the Romans had slaves, but we didn't know why slavery existed, would it be a "fucking joke" to call that society classist?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
vertig0h 7y ago
Menstrual blood is pretty gross though. It's not misogynistic to recognize that. Plenty of gender neutral bodily fluids are gross too. Another person's bodily fluids in general are gross.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  However that was regularly used to prove that women are more wicked than men.
blackearl 7y ago
I generally don't want anyone's bodily fluids near me, regardless of gender.
reggieband 7y ago
> you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people It is interesting that we hate cynicism when expressed by others yet we feel entitled to express it ourselves. Sometimes it is a good idea, when judging the behaviour of others, to consider options other than malice.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

speeder 7y ago

Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.

mcv 7y ago
They probably didn't want you spewing that near the water source in the center of the camp either. You know the type exists.
Trombone12 7y ago
An obvious difference is that it's the semen that makes things unclean, while for menstruation it's the woman herself that is the unclean agent. For semen, there is a clear distinction that it is anything it touches becomes dirty and needs washing. But for menstruation its whatever the woman touches that becomes unclean (and for seven days it seems!), not merely what the blood touches. The original comment thus provides an explanation for why these two cases are treated separately, which is basically what you asked for.

pazimzadeh 7y ago

I think it's a little bit of both. Scientific-type thinking is not restricted to modern times and a lot can be deduced simply from observation, given a large enough sample size. On the other hand, a broken clock is right twice a day.

diryawish 7y ago

Calling reasonable inference pseudoscience while assuming to read the minds of men 2000 years ago and claim misogynic inspiration for their actions is such a fucking joke.

claudiawerner 7y ago
It's hardly "mind reading" when their actions are visible. Misogyny is not only a state of mind, can consist in a set of actions. From what we know about these ancient societies, they were heavily misogynistic. If you were to look at American in the 1950s, what would it take for me to convice you that society was a racist one? Would you say that any such claim means I am reading the minds of the people who enforced the Jim Crow laws? Let's say there were a civilization of which we have no written records other than the list of the rules by which that society was governed. The rules state that women are unclean and inferior to men, they must keep silent in places of worship, and they are not allowed to hold public offices or own houses. Would interpreting that as a misogynistic society be a "fucking joke"? If we knew that the Romans had slaves, but we didn't know why slavery existed, would it be a "fucking joke" to call that society classist?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

vertig0h 7y ago

Menstrual blood is pretty gross though. It's not misogynistic to recognize that. Plenty of gender neutral bodily fluids are gross too. Another person's bodily fluids in general are gross.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
However that was regularly used to prove that women are more wicked than men.

blackearl 7y ago

I generally don't want anyone's bodily fluids near me, regardless of gender.

reggieband 7y ago

> you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people It is interesting that we hate cynicism when expressed by others yet we feel entitled to express it ourselves. Sometimes it is a good idea, when judging the behaviour of others, to consider options other than malice.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]