women are male-controlled technologies of production and reproduction

[niyad]

I am rereading "the chalice and the blade" and came across this line, discussing the destruction of the indigenous peoples by the indo-european invaders. nothing much has changed in several thousand years, has it?

[stevenleser]

1. Arguably, in some places its a little better and in some regions, getting worse. nt

[niyad]

3. getting worse, like in this country, and everywhere the damned woman-hating crowd has any

sort of power.

see the vote in wisconsin.

[niyad]

5. check out this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023000466

[stevenleser]

10. Men who engage in Reproductive coercion have to be mentally ill

It's not only a crime against the women, it's self destructive as well. I was talking about a related issue with Amanda Marcotte during my recent show http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2013/06/09/making-sense-with-steve-leser--nsa-spying-war-on-women during discussion of her recent article 10 bizarre sex tips from the Christian right, specifically one of those tips about men who complain about women who have aborted their babies.

In both cases, these men don't think about how its a really bad idea to have children with women who do not want to be with them. In terms of the reproductive coercion, it's not just criminal and a crime against women, it's stupid too.

[niyad]

11. thank you for the link--will have to listen later.

yes, this mentality is short-sighted and stupid, but that doesn't seem to matter to the woman-haters.

the idea of sex tips from the xian reich is too much before sufficient quantities of caffeine.

[cali]

2. depends where you are, but yes, a lot has changed in several thousand years just as

some things have not changed.

[niyad]

4. yes, it is getting worse by the minute here, for example

[cali]

6. what is getting worse here?

are you referring to reproductive rights? In that case, I agree with you. It is getting worse. Are you referring to other things as well?

[niyad]

8. reproductive rights was the point of the quote, so, yes, that is what I meant.

[datasuspect]

7. how often do you get out of the house?

human interaction (OFFLINE/IRL) can work wonders.

[niyad]

9. oh, thank you so much for that helpful advice. perhaps you have something equally helpful to say

about the war on women? will be waiting.

[Romulus Quirinus]

14. Is this one of those deals where you say something unexpected in order

to be funny, but it falls flat because everyone else lacks the context of your internal conversation?

*awkward silence*

edit: because I know that feel, bro.

[datasuspect]

16. no, it's a serious question

because the topic of discussion comes off as unhinged, bro.

[niyad]

18. perhaps you should trying paying a little more attention to the war on women--THAT is what

is unhinged, as is people's casual dismissal of it as though an attack on over half the population is NOT a big deal.

[LanternWaste]

21. What precisely leads you to imagine the topic is unhinged?

What precisely leads you to imagine that the topic is unhinged?

[geek tragedy]

23. see the transparency page.

here's a hint what that poster thinks of feminist issues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2917801

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2525865

[Trailrider1951]

37. Unhinged? Seriously? I was married to a man who thought that he owned me.

Right down to dictating what I wore, what I thought, and whether or not I would use contraceptives. This issue is real, whether or not you choose to understand that fact. And, if you have other issues with the OP, ignore is a wonderful thing.

[niyad]

19. no, any time there is a discussion of issues affecting women, the war on women, the fight for

women's rights, anywhere in the world, a certain mindset comes out. we are, alas, quite used to it.

[Squinch]

52. Dude, your head is COVERED in sand! How'd that happen?

How often do you read a newspaper? Pay attention to what Congress is doing? It can work wonders with that head in sand problem.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Some misguided soul feels that they can control women?

I need to read the users manual again.

[niyad]

13. I know you pay more attention than that comment indicates

[Buzz Clik]

17. You are correct. And, I agree with the OP

[redqueen]

15. How else to explain that in 2013, our right to control our own reproductive systems

is still in jeopardy... and that is where it exists at all!

[niyad]

20. but, according to some, even discussing this indicates that WE are crazy.

[Trailrider1951]

44. I believe the time-honored word is "hysterical".

Look up that word's derivation. Here, this might help those who are unfamiliar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

[niyad]

46. you are correct, and thanks for posting the link. I do know the origin of the word, but I imagine

it might come as a surprise to some.

[TeeYiYi]

80. Thanks for the link...

”Wandering womb syndrome.” Good gawd.

TYY

[redqueen]

62. Whining about prose they dislike while our right to control our own bodies is slowly chipped away.

Nice priorities.

[niyad]

64. and totally dismissing evidence of that chipping away of what few rights we do have. the fact

that that mindset is present on a supposedly progressive board is disheartening, to say the least.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. Women are not allowed to possess identities independent of men.

[niyad]

24. see this discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023000466

[galileoreloaded]

25. if you are walking around in 2013 still thinking this is true

then you are not experiencing the mainstream America the rest of us are.

we have hit defacto gender parity in this country, almost to the point where the 3rd wave is rejecting said parity for more traditional gender roles.

the suggestion to get out of the house was an apt one.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Absolutely unfettered absurdity. We have barely scratched the surface of gender inequity.

[galileoreloaded]

31. considering i believe you and I stomp around the same hood, ASU

that statement is proven false every time you step outside.

look around you. women have everything that a men have. probably more.

whole groups advocating not for equal protection but special protection. better educations, better pay. better opportunities.

its so good that many of them are rejecting what they could have for what they want, families and kids and to be a SAHM.

its so equal, they are able to choose how equal they want to be.

i know you are kinda young, but this is the golden age for females.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. You are confused. Women never left the role of servant.

It is not a matter of return. It is a matter of never leaving. We have so barely advanced gender equity that women are still suffering under the oppressive regime of male dominated society.

[galileoreloaded]

35. maybe you should ask around some. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

36. The incorrect assumption you make is that I don't interact with the world around me.

[Abq_Sarah]

73. Huh?

I didn't get married until I was 40.

My husband and I are equal partners in everything, including our business.

I am no servant, I am not oppressed.

It's insulting to me and every woman who has lived life on her own terms to describe us as perpetual victims.

[Gravitycollapse]

75. Please do not confuse my social commentary with probability...

I am commenting on the social order, not you personally. There are always exceptions to rules and even the rules themselves have the potential to evolve.

[niyad]

29. no, the suggestion was the same level of attack that ANY discussion of women's issues seems

to trigger around here. if you have not been paying attention to the outright, blatant attacks on women's rights and reproductive health, then I suggest (as so many of us have to you in the past) try actually reading up on the issue.

but keep trying. there are some who actually believe the bs you posted.

[galileoreloaded]

32. attack?

asking to balance your extreme ideology with real world experience is an attack?

only on the internet

[nomorenomore08]

48. I don't know about that... "Mainstream America" ain't looking so good these days...

Just look at the news if you need examples. And when terrible things happen so frequently, I don't see how you can consider them aberrations.

And the mere fact that many are "rejecting (relative) parity for more traditional gender roles" suggests that the changes in society have been rather weak and superficial to begin with.

*Edit: added a word.

[Squinch]

53. Did you read the paper today? You seem to have missed... a lot.

[uppityperson]

54. You mean passing bills further restricting abortion rights and the continuing salary discrepancies?

Neither of which is "gender parity". Do you mean the continuation of job differences where some are primarily male, some female? Or that the males get promoted faster and paid better? None of which is "gender parity". Not sure what you mean.

[LondonReign2]

27. I'd like to point that out to my wife

but I value my skin

[southerncrone]

28. No, it hasn't.

Now they are basically responsible for 90% of all "real" work that makes the world go 'round in the US.
Indentured servants in chains.

[niyad]

30. but, to hear the whining, you would think the statement in the op was some horrific piece

of nonsense. ssdd.

[HiPointDem]

33. what crap. women aren't 'technologies' nor are they or were they ever simplistically

'male-controlled'.

[niyad]

38. perhaps you ought to study your history a bit more carefully, because, clearly, you haven't got a

clue about the reality of the war on women.

[HiPointDem]

39. i've studied plenty of history, as opposed to ideological polemics.

[niyad]

40. if you had, you wouldn't make the absurd statement you did. but, nice try.

[HiPointDem]

60. the only absurb statement is the unqualified nonsense quoted from 'chalice'

eisler has degrees in sociology and law. not history, not anthropology, not archeology.

she writes "popular" books based on ideology and superficial scholarship.

[Gravitycollapse]

43. It is not simplistic. It is immeasurably complex and retroactively invisible.

[HiPointDem]

51. it's not retroactively invisible and the statement is not complex.

[niyad]

56. keep trying.

[HiPointDem]

57. no reason to 'try,' the facts are straightforward. women are not technologies. women have

not been universally dominated by men in the simplistic way claimed. it's just a stupid statement, made from a modern ideological stance that falsifies the past & the present.

[niyad]

58. like I said, keep trying, I really need the laughs today

[HiPointDem]

61. laugh away, dixie lamb.

[niyad]

63. if anything you are saying were true, it would not have been necessary for me to spend the last

50 years of my life (and that is just me, not counting everyone else all around the world, throughout patriarchal his/story) fighting for women's rights, fighting for full reproductive autonomy.

please explain, if the pukes and reichwing fundies DON'T see women as technologies of production and reproduction, WHY they are so determined to keep us in precisely those roles?

nice try at insult, too. as I said, keep it up, I really need the laughs.

[nomorenomore08]

41. "Change" and "progress" (culturally speaking) are always very relative.

And people's way of thinking always lags behind technology, and behind changes in law, for that matter.

[niyad]

42. so where do you see women around the world with regard to the statement in the op?

[nomorenomore08]

45. That's an extremely broad question. Difficult to answer.

We in Western countries may seem "enlightened" relative to much of the world, but we also have our share of serious problems. In the U.S. particularly, Christian fundamentalism a la Todd Akin - which isn't the whole problem, but a large chunk of it certainly - has a frighteningly strong foothold in our political and social discourse.

Like I said, it's all very relative. And "better than it used to be" doesn't mean "good."

[niyad]

47. as witness the senate vote in wisconsin on abortion this week.

[nomorenomore08]

50. Yes, exactly. We're not as advanced as we (generally) think we are.

Far too many of us are still beholden to Medieval superstition and religion-based pseudoscience. Which skews our entire discourse in harmful ways.

[Kath1]

49. Sadly, it has not.

I am certainly not (now) a male-controlled technology of production and reproduction but I understand. Too many women are.

Just look at Wisconsin.

[niyad]

55. check out this depressing thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023000466

[One_Life_To_Give]

65. Or everything will be reshaped within a hundred years

Seems to me alot has changed in two millennium. The path hasn't been straight and there continues to be significant regional disparities. But in general the path has been positive and particularly so within the last century. Recent trends may seem like a regression. But the developing educational gap favoring women may make the end of the Patriarchy inevitable. Although it certainly won't go without a fight. Which is perhaps what we are already witnessing.

Or maybe I am just a hopeless optimist.

[niyad]

66. perhaps a hopeful optimist? I wish I could share your optimism, but, seeing what we see on a

daily basis, even the screaming denials that there IS this problem, makes me somewhat less so than you.

[dogknob]

67. Where were you when I had a pack of folks calling this "stupid?"

[niyad]

68. I LOVE IT. too bad I didn't see this when you first posted it--would have been there for you.

[niyad]

69. . . .

[niyad]

70. thinking about just the last few days--the three anti-choice bills in WI, the house bill banning

abortions nationwide after 20 weeks--that is just THIS WEEK. the war goes on, and on.

[niyad]

71. . . .

[yawnmaster]

72. Hyperbole. And much has changed in several thousand years. eom

[niyad]

74. really? exactly what do you call the puke war on women, the endless new laws and regulations

designed TO CONTROL WOMEN"S REPRODUCTIVE ABILITIES? if you don't know about any of this, start paying attention. and pay particular attention to the reichwing fundie nutjobs, who talk about the death penalty for women who have had abortions, or have committed adultery, or "been uppity". no hyperbole, this is daily fare in the daily news, well, at least for those of us who are paying attention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. You shouldn't let your life be defined by Republicans

Just because a Republican says something, that doesn't mean it is.

[niyad]

83. are you serious? are you NOT payig attention to what they are DOING? I repeat, what part of

the endless number of LAWS (not TALK, LAWS) these woman-hating cretins are passing do you not understand? these assholes ARE trying to define my life, in case you have not noticed.

[yawnmaster]

82. you have blinders on as to progress in the last "thousands of years"...

or else you are hyperbolating.

[niyad]

84. sorry, YOU are being totally oblivious. try answering the question about the woman-hating laws

these pukes are passing at every level, and THEN tell me how much better we have it. by the way, "hyperbolate" does not seem to be in the dictionary. would you be good enough to define it for us?

[yawnmaster]

88. hyperbolate - to bloat a discussion with hyperbole. eom

[niyad]

89. as I said, the dictionary does not recognize your word. and, again, you have failed to answer

the question. but then, a truthful answer to the question would render your previous statement inaccurate, to say the least. remdi95

[yawnmaster]

90. I guess that sucks for the dictionary. eom

[DirkGently]

76. The womb is a potentially hugely threatening power.

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

The entire power structure in Europe had to do with sons inheriting lands from their fathers. What if the father doesn't know whether his sons are his? Or if some possible son ends in utero? A woman could stop or subvert or control all of that.

Women could have conceivably wielded the womb the way men wield their fists and weaponry.

I don't mean to say it's a real threat, or that even if it conceivably could be, that it's reasonable to act upon it. But those in power can see other avenues of control, and despise them, automatically.

They banned the female gods. Wiped god's wife from the Bible. Made the priesthood an all-male club. Put the entire onus of sexual "misdeeds" on women. Qualities associated with the feminine were derided as weak or foolish.

It may not have been a conscious act, and certainly wasn't a single event.

But women and their entire physicality and biology and the feminine itself have been stripped and shamed so as to be less dangerous.

[niyad]

77. . . .

[OneGrassRoot]

78. Holy shit...

RANT ON

First, niyad, I'm a huge fan of Riane Eisler (actually, I just became certified as a Conversation Leader regarding her Caring Economics program). So, yes, I agree with you.


Second, I can't believe a lot of the ignorant comments above!!!!

Has the Internet been taken over completely by 20- and 30-something Ron Paul acolytes? So much of the BS spewed here lately, including gender-related comments, sound like they're coming from that set of callous, narrow-minded, immature, naive individuals.


After just seeing the (hopefully now tombstoned) new DUer post a video suggesting all women past menopause be euthanized, and seeing perhaps well-intentioned DUers suggest that there is now complete equality between men and women in the US if not the world economically, I may become the rabid, militaristic feminist type Limbaugh & Company have tried to paint us as for decades.

[redqueen]

86. "a video suggesting all women past menopause be euthanized"

The world needs many more militant feminists.

[niyad]

87. sadly, I am not in the least surprised by the usual suspects and their drivel. they are so

boringly predictable.

Have been fighting this same damned battle for decades, have been called every name under the sun, as though I give a **** what cretins like that think.

Sister Militant
A-i-C, P.H.D. remdi95
Blessed order of the sisters of perpetual outrage

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. No. Everything has changed in the last thousand years.

To the extent that your subject has a kernel of truth, the below is its most tangible manifestation.


Men die to protect the means of reproduction.

[niyad]

85. what are we supposed to be looking at?

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. This is an artifact with which you are unfamiliar?

Hint: It's a big marble monument with the names of 57,939 people, of whom 57,931 are men.

Why don't the men in control of the women-bots send them to wars instead?

[niyad]

92. nice try. men create the wars, men get killed in wars (not too bright, yes?) but guess what--

the majority of those killed in these men-made wars are civilians, women and children. but, again, nice try.

as for your question, they are not going to lose their breeding machines, that simple. remdi85

[galileoreloaded]

94. so you disagree that men are meatshields for women.

what is their purpose then, biologically?

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. What possible rationale exists to die for "their breeding machines" or machines of any sort?

Even the most perfunctory, simple, rudimentary, cursory, superficial, crude and tentative application of logic shows that the people which war leaves at home hold more value than that of "breeding machines" or even, as Galileoreloaded notes downthread, their meat shields.

The main manifestation of the patriarchy is that your life is more valuable than mine, or those of my sons.

[niyad]

93. . . .

[niyad]

96. . . .

[niyad]

97. . . .

[niyad]

98. . . .