5 ms·

(and gender plays role in determining the qualities of power relationships) Nope.

by seiji 13y ago

einhverfr 13y ago
It does in most of the world. For example here in Indonesia, Chinese-Indonesians prefer to retire with their daughters because the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship is more complex and problematic than the mother-in-law/son-in-law relationship or the father-in-law/son-in-law relationship. This means that over here same-sex couples are not similarly situated to the duties of marriage to the elderly.
icelancer 13y ago
You are confusing whether it should or not with whether it does or not.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I am not sure it is necessarily a bad thing. The problem is we have an extraordinarily male-centric look at society and history. In this view, men do all the important things in history and women are more or less repressed bystanders. This is a natural consequence of the fact that men were writing the history books. But there are reasons to question this. Chris Faraone recently wrote an impressive survey of gender in ancient Greece looking not at the Aristotelian view, but rather at a demotic view through thins like references to love magic. His book is "Ancient Greek Love Magic." What Faraone showed was that while the misogynous view was alive and well, it was coupled with a nearly opposite misandrous view as well. In other words, women were portrayed both as dangerously sexually insatiable and seductive during some parts of their lives but virtuous against the insatiable male in others. In my view Faraone stops short of the logical conclusions of his work, namely that the idea that women had no rights and that men were in control was largely a convenient fiction, and that the women had at least as much power as men did in ancient Athens. To my mind this represents the first crack in the modernist women's rights narrative. I actually think that's we can show long-standing patterns regarding what is missing from a populace when women aren't there, and what is missing is basically what we would call society. In particular things like rule of law do not apply to areas where women are absent. But if this is true, then it seems like the norm is for women, far from oppressed onlookers, are likely to have been major actors and decision-makers throughout most of western history, but largely ignored because the decisions are made while beating flax, weaving using a warp-weighted loom, or carding wool instead of official institutions. I think there are reasons to think there may be essential differences between the sexes regarding types of power relationships formed. Women even in Western cultures, I think, form power relationships of greater nuance, variety, and complexity than men do and this may be a key reason why society doesn't seem to really exist in times and places where women don't.
  - icelancer 13y ago
    I strongly disagree with your argument but I highly dislike the fact that you are getting a drive-by downvoting. I countered by upvoting.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      I downvoted him (and you, as well as everyone else in this thread) for continuing to post off-topic comments. The article is about the no-fly list, and people are insisting on posting paragraphs of text about gay marriage. Please stop upvoting them.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        I think the fundamental question and why these are closely tied is it comes down to the question of "what is a right?" The arguments here regarding same-sex marriage and due process get to that. My argument is it is a functional question, and that rights arise from the functions that they fill, not the other way around. I don't think we can answer a question regarding whether the no-fly list violates rights unless we can come up with some sense of what the basis for rights theory is. Calling into question things regarding gender I think is relevant to that larger discussion. My complaint is that all too often "rights" become articles of faith, and so we can't debate whether a given right exists. The concerns over same-sex marriage underscore that point, but it is no different than when we look at whether the Verizon warrant and the NSA violates the 4th Amendment, and whether the no-fly list violates the 5th Amendment. I don't think "I strongly feel" or "we culturally assume" is a basis for long-standing rights. I think there has to be something more.

(and gender plays role in determining the qualities of power relationships) Nope.

by seiji 13y ago

(and gender plays role in determining the qualities of power relationships) Nope.

It does in most of the world. For example here in Indonesia, Chinese-Indonesians prefer to retire with their daughters because the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship is more complex and problematic than the mother-in-law/son-in-law relationship or the father-in-law/son-in-law relationship. This means that over here same-sex couples are not similarly situated to the duties of marriage to the elderly.

icelancer 13y ago

You are confusing whether it should or not with whether it does or not.

einhverfr 13y ago
I am not sure it is necessarily a bad thing. The problem is we have an extraordinarily male-centric look at society and history. In this view, men do all the important things in history and women are more or less repressed bystanders. This is a natural consequence of the fact that men were writing the history books. But there are reasons to question this. Chris Faraone recently wrote an impressive survey of gender in ancient Greece looking not at the Aristotelian view, but rather at a demotic view through thins like references to love magic. His book is "Ancient Greek Love Magic." What Faraone showed was that while the misogynous view was alive and well, it was coupled with a nearly opposite misandrous view as well. In other words, women were portrayed both as dangerously sexually insatiable and seductive during some parts of their lives but virtuous against the insatiable male in others. In my view Faraone stops short of the logical conclusions of his work, namely that the idea that women had no rights and that men were in control was largely a convenient fiction, and that the women had at least as much power as men did in ancient Athens. To my mind this represents the first crack in the modernist women's rights narrative. I actually think that's we can show long-standing patterns regarding what is missing from a populace when women aren't there, and what is missing is basically what we would call society. In particular things like rule of law do not apply to areas where women are absent. But if this is true, then it seems like the norm is for women, far from oppressed onlookers, are likely to have been major actors and decision-makers throughout most of western history, but largely ignored because the decisions are made while beating flax, weaving using a warp-weighted loom, or carding wool instead of official institutions. I think there are reasons to think there may be essential differences between the sexes regarding types of power relationships formed. Women even in Western cultures, I think, form power relationships of greater nuance, variety, and complexity than men do and this may be a key reason why society doesn't seem to really exist in times and places where women don't.
- icelancer 13y ago
  I strongly disagree with your argument but I highly dislike the fact that you are getting a drive-by downvoting. I countered by upvoting.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    I downvoted him (and you, as well as everyone else in this thread) for continuing to post off-topic comments. The article is about the no-fly list, and people are insisting on posting paragraphs of text about gay marriage. Please stop upvoting them.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      I think the fundamental question and why these are closely tied is it comes down to the question of "what is a right?" The arguments here regarding same-sex marriage and due process get to that. My argument is it is a functional question, and that rights arise from the functions that they fill, not the other way around. I don't think we can answer a question regarding whether the no-fly list violates rights unless we can come up with some sense of what the basis for rights theory is. Calling into question things regarding gender I think is relevant to that larger discussion. My complaint is that all too often "rights" become articles of faith, and so we can't debate whether a given right exists. The concerns over same-sex marriage underscore that point, but it is no different than when we look at whether the Verizon warrant and the NSA violates the 4th Amendment, and whether the no-fly list violates the 5th Amendment. I don't think "I strongly feel" or "we culturally assume" is a basis for long-standing rights. I think there has to be something more.