(01-25-2014 10:30 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote: (01-25-2014 08:46 PM)Vroom Wrote: I wonder how many peoples responses would change after reading this:
6 ridiculous myths about the middle ages everyone believes
Cool article. I suspected a lot of this was the case. Cracked comes out with some interesting pieces, actually.
Anybody got some more online or print resources about dispelling myths about the Middle Ages? All I have is a book on marriage in the Middle Ages.
EDIT: Been combing the comments, found this gem:
Quote:i'm not sure on 'people were working in the mud together and had no time for misogyny': just look at f.i. afghanistan if you want to have an example of an 'agricultural country' that is not big on women's rights.
i'm not saying women were terribly repressed in the european middle ages: just that the reasons for their kinda-equal status were more about cultural habits than about wealth.
Boom. This women just admitted my long-time gut feeling that feminism is about consumerism.
Like any good feminist or American woman, she has internalized the idea the liberation = income (implicitly free of male interference). This is why child support orders will never be met with any serious oversight. Liberation = not having males (authority figures) tell them how to spend the money. Sure, appointing only women in government to deal with child support spending issues might ameliorate the situation, but women reflexively feel that anybody telling them how to spend money is male.
A feminist might smugly respond that is because that men decided how money was spent in a family. Really? That's bullshit, but it simultaneously distances women from the past (making them insecure) and leaving them wide open for marketers to prey on them. No man to counteract advertisements targeted at women? Sounds good to a capitalist. Remind me again why any site targeted at lesbians is so horrifically mindless. Or narcissistic. Seriously, go read some lesbian sites. "Everybody hates us....err, they are afraid they are us!" Except that homophobic analysis usually only applies against men. Which is why these types have no ability to deal with women who are not pro- gay marriage or abortion.
Tangent aside, feminism is the daughter of consumerism. In a society where the individual feels they have little value and nothing of value to contribute to society, they indulge in the vices of unabashed materialism. Schools and society do their utmost to prime women for these roles. This is why women and feminists are screeching about oppression - they know their current states are a social construction, but only have the flaccid cultural analysis tools of "misogyny" and "sexism" to lamely try to stem the unavoidable tide of forced socialization.
In this woman's mind, the only way to true "liberation" is America's approach to women's rights, but that is fatally drenched in American nihilism and extreme historical revisionism. The nihilism is inherently narcissistic, while the latter has both roots in narcissism and obsessive-compulsive issues. OC issues were America's original personality disorder and continues to this day as political correctness, stomping out sexuality and the like, as those forces truly believe that ignoring natural human impulses makes humans better.
Finally, her comment about "kinda-equal status" is interesting. She admits she still thinks women had all sorts of nasty plusbad in the past. Yet, she implicitly admits this is a reflexive reaction on her part. The idea that she isn't a part of "We Are The One's We Have Been Waiting For" is ego-crushing. Liberals like her see life in starkly bottom-to-the-top thinking.
Human civilizations have failed starts and sputtering endings. Some civilizations have happy equilibriums and prosper. Some don't. To assume humanity is some inevitable arc towards "justice" (the world she
wishes she lived in) is childish. Technology aside, have we progressed? Yes. In other ways? Hell no. Every civilization shall rise and fall - most likely in ways that we can't predict now.
Before I make another comment too long, this comment is emblematic of how American's are socialized to see issues in certain ways. Access to disposable funds to spend without male interference is a high priority in a female's life. To them, in order to value any female's life, she needs a state provided "education" by which she is passed on into paid employment. Notice how modern housewives have to prove their "education" to other women. It is never to men. It is to show off to other women.
Further, they don't understand the concept of labor relating directly to the existence of the self. Why is the female commenter talking about wages? When you live on a farm, who cares about your wages? You are churning butter not to sell, but to use. You are not grooming chickens to sell, but to primarily eat. Your own survival comes before selling your excess production (literally econ 101). The commenter doesn't understand this.
Regardless, this sort of idiocy is common in modern America. Honestly, this is the sort of woman who needed to be told "too late" and "not enough" as a child. She needed to learn that life isn't necessarily about limitations, but that a grown adult needs to navigate around the necessary limitations life and our own choices put on us.
Odds are, she was praised for being so "smart" and "clever." She never learned to tie her self-image to her actual acts, but responses her acts engender. Praise for her stick figure painting at 5 becomes tepid approval at 8 and outright ignoring at 13. Like most American women, she is fumbling towards an identity she will never completely resolve, so she consoles herself that women in the past had it so much worse than her.
Nothing terrifies the modern women than realizing that women of the past -- in any culture -- might be happier than them.