4 ms·

The life of women in the upper class were objectively better than the male serfs. The major form of oppression back then was by class, then by gender. It is o

by j7ake 4y ago

The life of women in the upper class were objectively better than the male serfs. The major form of oppression back then was by class, then by gender. It is of course better to be a male aristocrat than a female aristocrat (measured from today’s individualism values ie domestic duties have zero value), but both lived vastly better lives than serfs. Being a lower class woman was an extremely oppressed state, illustrated vividly by books from Victor Hugo.

mxkopy 4y ago
Nobody is arguing that being rich doesn't entail privelege. So why are you pointing that out? What purpose does it serve other than to distract from the original statement? To that point I'll not get distracted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace Did you know that the world's first programmer was a woman? She published the first algorithm for the Analytical Engine.
- ehnto 4y ago
  I think Ada Lovelace is actually the perfect example of what the OP is talking about. There are fewer famous women in history because women were given less opportunity to excel (and sometimes had achievements they did make stifled or their contribution hidden). Ada Lovelace was both an extraordinary person, and in a very privileged position. Had she just been extraordinary, she wouldn't have had the tools to leverage her abilities. Her pedigree and circumstances allowed her access to the private education and social circle that allowed her to apply her abilities and excel. The issue is that so fewer women were ever given the opportunity to excel, and that still remains the case! I felt this was an interesting article about how women were stripped of the opportunities to get into software in the 80s to much the same effect as likely many women were stripped of their opportunities during Ada's time: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
carschno 4y ago
You might want to look into intersectionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality > Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each axis of oppression in isolation. Edit: I am not saying that explains all the complexity, and there has been a lot of criticism, justified or not. However, it is at least a good starting point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
robertlagrant 4y ago
> Being a lower class woman was an extremely oppressed state, illustrated vividly by books from Victor Hugo. This is true, but also read The Road To Wigan Pier to see the lives of lower class men in England. Go to work, crawl 2 miles underground (unpaid) to get to your work site, work for hours in a small space mining coal, crawl back, get home, scrub off as best you can, eat, sleep, repeat. Almost nothing that wasn't either a crime or being sent to war was as bad as that nightmare of a life.

by j7ake 4y ago

mxkopy 4y ago

Nobody is arguing that being rich doesn't entail privelege. So why are you pointing that out? What purpose does it serve other than to distract from the original statement? To that point I'll not get distracted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace Did you know that the world's first programmer was a woman? She published the first algorithm for the Analytical Engine.

ehnto 4y ago
I think Ada Lovelace is actually the perfect example of what the OP is talking about. There are fewer famous women in history because women were given less opportunity to excel (and sometimes had achievements they did make stifled or their contribution hidden). Ada Lovelace was both an extraordinary person, and in a very privileged position. Had she just been extraordinary, she wouldn't have had the tools to leverage her abilities. Her pedigree and circumstances allowed her access to the private education and social circle that allowed her to apply her abilities and excel. The issue is that so fewer women were ever given the opportunity to excel, and that still remains the case! I felt this was an interesting article about how women were stripped of the opportunities to get into software in the 80s to much the same effect as likely many women were stripped of their opportunities during Ada's time: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

carschno 4y ago

You might want to look into intersectionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality > Intersectionality opposes analytical systems that treat each axis of oppression in isolation. Edit: I am not saying that explains all the complexity, and there has been a lot of criticism, justified or not. However, it is at least a good starting point.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Being a lower class woman was an extremely oppressed state, illustrated vividly by books from Victor Hugo. This is true, but also read The Road To Wigan Pier to see the lives of lower class men in England. Go to work, crawl 2 miles underground (unpaid) to get to your work site, work for hours in a small space mining coal, crawl back, get home, scrub off as best you can, eat, sleep, repeat. Almost nothing that wasn't either a crime or being sent to war was as bad as that nightmare of a life.