23 ms·

I suspect she started out with the thesis that women who don't work, do unpaid community service, raise children, try to look attractive, etc, are "oppressed",

I suspect she started out with the thesis that women who don't work, do unpaid community service, raise children, try to look attractive, etc, are "oppressed", and it has nothing to do with table seating. But they really aren't. She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast, but, eh... In some traditional societies, the women do all the work, and the men spend their time in lazy indolence or in fighting with each other. Those are the women who are oppressed. And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain. There's always a mix of both contempt and jealousy in these kinds of articles.

MichaelDickens 11y ago
> In some traditional societies, the women do all the work, and the men spend their time in lazy indolence or in fighting with each other. Can you give an example of such a society? I'm not doubting that they exist, but I've never heard of any and I'm curious.
- allannienhuis 11y ago
  Much of rural Haiti is like this. The stories I've heard from people who have spent time there are heartbreaking.
idlewords 11y ago
Where do you see contempt in this article? The author writes with affection about women who are clearly in her social circle.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
It's not about oppression. It's about honor. The author is a bit humiliated that these rich and educated women chose the path of least resistance and are perfectly happy to lead a parasitic life. It's rather sad to discover that the group who's "liberation" you dedicated your professional life to doesn't really want to be liberated.
- bruceb 11y ago
  How are they leading a "parasitic life"? Their husbands were not forced to marry them.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    Parasitism in general is not completely harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Value nor is it always forced on the host: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy In the case described in the article the males are obviously getting something out of the symbiotic relationship, but it's nowhere near what the females are getting. I'm sticking to my figurative use of "parasitism" to describe the imbalance.
    - bruceb 11y ago
      These are smart, rich, and powerful men, yet some how they are "snookered" in to the short end of the stick? Seems unlikely.
      - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
        Do you know of any other way they could procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability?
        mrrrgn 11y ago
        "procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability" This is the bargain they've made. It's a rather simple exchange. "Parasitic" is a loaded term here, by applying it you're displaying that you have some sort of political axe to grind. This was also the sentiment being expressed above, when someone said that what you said sounded "judgmental" -- an accusation that you dismissed by being, or pretending to be, oblivious to it's true intent: "you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it."
vacri 11y ago
> Those are the women who are oppressed. There is more than one way to be oppressed.
throwaway9324 11y ago
"I suspect she started out with the thesis [...] are "oppressed"" The article wasn't about being oppressed, so much as being disempowered. "But they really aren't." Ok. So why aren't they disempowered in the situation described in the article? "She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast" What she really said was: "women who contribute to the group or family’s well-being are empowered relative to those in societies where women do not". "And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain." So again, why don't they get to be empowered (relative to similar societies)?
facepalm 11y ago
At the very least she lost credibility as an anthropologist when citing a select few tribes and their dealings with women. Surely there are many, many more tribes and situations with different approaches to solving the problems the environment presents to them. As well as birds where the females are not foraging all the time.

MichaelDickens 11y ago

> In some traditional societies, the women do all the work, and the men spend their time in lazy indolence or in fighting with each other. Can you give an example of such a society? I'm not doubting that they exist, but I've never heard of any and I'm curious.

allannienhuis 11y ago
Much of rural Haiti is like this. The stories I've heard from people who have spent time there are heartbreaking.

idlewords 11y ago

Where do you see contempt in this article? The author writes with affection about women who are clearly in her social circle.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

It's not about oppression. It's about honor. The author is a bit humiliated that these rich and educated women chose the path of least resistance and are perfectly happy to lead a parasitic life. It's rather sad to discover that the group who's "liberation" you dedicated your professional life to doesn't really want to be liberated.

bruceb 11y ago
How are they leading a "parasitic life"? Their husbands were not forced to marry them.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  Parasitism in general is not completely harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Value nor is it always forced on the host: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy In the case described in the article the males are obviously getting something out of the symbiotic relationship, but it's nowhere near what the females are getting. I'm sticking to my figurative use of "parasitism" to describe the imbalance.
  - bruceb 11y ago
    These are smart, rich, and powerful men, yet some how they are "snookered" in to the short end of the stick? Seems unlikely.
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      Do you know of any other way they could procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability?
      - mrrrgn 11y ago
        "procreate and provide the best environment for their children to grow in, all the while keeping a high social status and level of respectability" This is the bargain they've made. It's a rather simple exchange. "Parasitic" is a loaded term here, by applying it you're displaying that you have some sort of political axe to grind. This was also the sentiment being expressed above, when someone said that what you said sounded "judgmental" -- an accusation that you dismissed by being, or pretending to be, oblivious to it's true intent: "you're attaching pejorative terms to these women, without enough information to make a fair case for it."

vacri 11y ago

> Those are the women who are oppressed. There is more than one way to be oppressed.

throwaway9324 11y ago

"I suspect she started out with the thesis [...] are "oppressed"" The article wasn't about being oppressed, so much as being disempowered. "But they really aren't." Ok. So why aren't they disempowered in the situation described in the article? "She mentions women foraging for tubers as a contrast" What she really said was: "women who contribute to the group or family’s well-being are empowered relative to those in societies where women do not". "And they don't get to be "empowered" somehow in the bargain." So again, why don't they get to be empowered (relative to similar societies)?

facepalm 11y ago

At the very least she lost credibility as an anthropologist when citing a select few tribes and their dealings with women. Surely there are many, many more tribes and situations with different approaches to solving the problems the environment presents to them. As well as birds where the females are not foraging all the time.