The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Duvniask]

I'm honestly not seeing the problem with what I believe to be Grave_n_idle's point, although I think they could have worded it better.

One can (and I must underscore the word can, it is a hypothesis) trace the origins of patriarchy to sexual divisions of labor arising in tribal society, where infant mortality was high and women would be preoccupied with bearing and nursing children constantly for the tribe to survive - a division of labor along sexual lines would initially serve a utilitarian purpose, i.e. that of survival. As women are the ones to bear children, and take ~3/4th of a year to do so and can generally only carry the children of one male at a time, I therefore do not find it hard to see why women would end up being viewed as the tribe's "prized possessions" so to speak, as things that men must secure access to. Why would men be the ones who would have to secure access to women, as the active element, and not vice versa? Well, I think one could chalk that up to men being the ones doing the majority of the hunting, fighting and so on under the previously described sexual division of labor - it puts them in a position to dictate.

See, what you said actually makes sense and is likely what really happened - it was a division of labor thing. But that doesn't necessarily imply that "more valuable as a commodity" means "less valuable as people", which is what Grave n Idle was pushing (without source). Data suggests we currently view men as a more valuable commodity than women and less valuable as people.

I think that using the word "commodity" has only served to confuse the discussion.

As for the part about women's feelings being empathized with to a greater degree, I would be careful if I were you to avoid taking this to mean that women's agency or will is prized more than that of men or that patriarchy does not exist anymore - power is not always kindest to those who wield it. I think part of the confusion here stems from Grave's criteria of being "valued as people" is different from your own. We can for example empathize with kids while not treating them as adults capable of making rational decisions, which is in a sense not fully "valuing" them as people. Similarly, we may occasionally give women the "pussy pass" as Reddit likes to call it, but that by itself does not tell us the whole story of who wields the most influence in society.

But that doesn't mean those two are linked, nor does it mean that's what gave rise to the patriarchal society. Your explanation - an outgrowth of division of labor - is of course more nuanced and makes more sense than Grave-n-Idle's, which was completely different.

My argument isn't that much different. I'm in effect also saying that women having a greater role (and burden) in reproduction led to an incentive to divide labor along sexual lines, which eventually led to the unintended consequence of patriarchal society where men hold most of the power - it wasn't strictly speaking inevitable, but it might well have been incentivized. I did paraphrase this argument from Gerda Lerner, which I suspect Grave might also have done.

I think this is a case of you confusing the use value (utility) of something with its exchange value.

He said value as a commodity. Commodities are things you buy/sell/trade. By definition, something with a higher value as a commodity will trade at a higher value (in free markets) or mostly so (in mostly free markets).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_value

We of course don't trade people this way anymore, but there was a time and place we did (seriously, how fucked up is THAT), and when it comes to determining commodity value of a person to society, going to look at the actual trading price of a slave is the most accurate possible measure of doing so.

Again, I think using "commodity" has only confused the discussion, even if it is not strictly speaking inaccurate. The simple viewing of women as something prized and sought after is a sort of objectification, i.e. they are seen as an object to be desired and used for the purposes of reproduction and continuation of the tribe, and less as a person with their own will and decisions to make. That is their "utility" as an object, their use value. In that way, them being a "good" is very much related to their personhood being reduced in significance.

[Galloism]

See, what you said actually makes sense and is likely what really happened - it was a division of labor thing. But that doesn't necessarily imply that "more valuable as a commodity" means "less valuable as people", which is what Grave n Idle was pushing (without source). Data suggests we currently view men as a more valuable commodity than women and less valuable as people.

I think that using the word "commodity" has only served to confuse the discussion.

Well, as Grave_n_idle once said:

Communication is a two-way street. There's no such thing as a good communicator who is not understood by his audience.

As for the part about women's feelings being empathized with to a greater degree, I would be careful if I were you to avoid taking this to mean that women's agency or will is prized more than that of men or that patriarchy does not exist anymore - power is not always kindest to those who wield it. I think part of the confusion here stems from Grave's criteria of being "valued as people" is different from your own. We can for example empathize with kids while not treating them as adults capable of making rational decisions, which is in a sense not fully "valuing" them as people. Similarly, we may occasionally give women the "pussy pass" as Reddit likes to call it, but that by itself does not tell us the whole story of who wields the most influence in society.

"agency" and "will" are completely separate from "valued as people". I'll be the very first to argue that women's agency is diminished very often - especially when it comes to things that they should be held to account for. I don't like the term "pussy pass" (which probably comes as no surprise to you), but there is a very real tendency to downplay women's failures in particular as not their fault and diminish their agency and responsibility for them. This is true. And it diminishes their agency. It does nothing regarding our valuing of them as people.

But to your point, I guess we need to determine what "valued as people" means. Us sending half a million men to die in the meat grinder of World War 2 (and a bunch more in a whole bunch of wars since) doesn't exactly strike me as actions you take regarding someone you valued as a person. And we did that against their will - something we did not do to women. I value my mother as a person, so I wouldn't send her off to die in war against her will.

But, because I value her as a person, I'd likely also try to protect her if someone tried to hurt her. Not because I value her reproductive capacity, but because I value her as a person.

So who's got value as a person here? I guess we need to define what that means, but I'd say defining it as "agency" is false, bad communication, and leads most reasonable readers to the wrong conclusion. To use an example, almost no one valued Ted Bundy as a person after it came out what he did, but we all wanted him held accountable for his actions.

But that doesn't mean those two are linked, nor does it mean that's what gave rise to the patriarchal society. Your explanation - an outgrowth of division of labor - is of course more nuanced and makes more sense than Grave-n-Idle's, which was completely different.

My argument isn't that much different. I'm in effect also saying that women having a greater role (and burden) in reproduction led to an incentive to divide labor along sexual lines, which eventually led to the unintended consequence of patriarchal society where men hold most of the power - it wasn't strictly speaking inevitable, but it might well have been incentivized. I did paraphrase this argument from Gerda Lerner, which I suspect Grave might also have done.

But none of that implies women were less valued as people because of a higher "commoditized value" (which I'm not even sure that's true, but I'm taking it as read for this discussion).

He said value as a commodity. Commodities are things you buy/sell/trade. By definition, something with a higher value as a commodity will trade at a higher value (in free markets) or mostly so (in mostly free markets).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_value

We of course don't trade people this way anymore, but there was a time and place we did (seriously, how fucked up is THAT), and when it comes to determining commodity value of a person to society, going to look at the actual trading price of a slave is the most accurate possible measure of doing so.

Again, I think using "commodity" has only confused the discussion, even if it is not strictly speaking inaccurate. The simple viewing of women as something prized and sought after is a sort of objectification, i.e. they are seen as an object to be desired and used for the purposes of reproduction and continuation of the tribe, and less as a person with their own will and decisions to make. That is their "utility" as an object, their use value. In that way, them being a "good" is very much related to their personhood being reduced in significance.

Except that this is also true of men in the same way in the same societies. Keep in mind - this is all comparative. A commodity to pay for and throw at the enemy (in the civil war, quite literally - you could pay a person off to take your place in the draft line) to survive til tomorrow is literally no different than one that produces the next generation.

History kind of sucks for everyone involved really, and there's little evidence that 'commoditized value' is indicative of or a sign of reduced "personhood value". Otherwise you'd have to say that every time a war came up, women were valued as people more than men, and every time peace came about men were valued more as women. Also female slaves were valued as persons more than male slaves for some reason, and their lower commodity value reflects that somehow.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, as Grave_n_idle once said:

Communication is a two-way street. There's no such thing as a good communicator who is not understood by his audience.

Absolutely. And I stand by it. And I'm not claiming to be a particularly good communicator, here - and I've gone back to my post to see whether I can work out why it isn't being understood.

In this particular case, while I could probably communicate better - and am about to try to in my next post - I think the actual problem here is that one or two people are trying to find something in my post they can object to. There's really nothing controversial in it.

[Galloism]

Well, as Grave_n_idle once said:

Absolutely. And I stand by it. And I'm not claiming to be a particularly good communicator, here - and I've gone back to my post to see whether I can work out why it isn't being understood.

In this particular case, while I could probably communicate better - and am about to try to in my next post - I think the actual problem here is that one or two people are trying to find something in my post they can object to. There's really nothing controversial in it.

I mean, it is fairly controversial, but I think Duvniask hit on that it's because you are using an economics term - commodity - in a fashion that nobody else uses it. You then use that to argue broad strokes of it being a higher commodifiable value being an indicator of lower value as a person (when, as Fahran suggested, it is probably not related at all).

Which is super weird, and comes to really odd conclusions when you look both at current society and history, not to mention when you try to work through a class lens it gets even weirder (IE, the peasants had higher value as persons than the king - people would pay ransom for a king, showing his higher commodity value to the kingdom, but not for peasants).

EDIT: I'll also point out it comes out really odd by profession. Well paid and skilled doctors have a higher commodity value than the homeless for instance - particularly in a pandemic - does that indicate we value the homeless as people more than we do doctors? This comes out really odd on almost every line.

[Grave_n_idle]

Try to argue less and think more.

Read back over my post (the one you and Saiwania are both apparently confused by) - this stuff about male an female slaves is an irrelevance you two dreamed up.

Try again, this time think first.

I am doing what is called addressing a key plank of your argument. To reiterate the whole post for all -

It's not 'just how our species is' - there's a very real cultural and evolutionary reason why non-nomadic cultures tend to trend towards patriarchal structures - the female of the species is the reproductive rate determining step. Which means women are a more valuable commodity for a society, which unfortunately means they are less valuable as people.

The strongest identifier of whether or not a culture is likely to be patriarchal or matriarchal or a more balanced approach is whether or not they have a cultural history of slavery. If a culture has historically justified owning people, women have probably been a commodity.

This is it - the entire post.

You are arguing there's a cultural and evolutionary reason why non-nomadic cultures tend to trend towards patriarchal structures.

This reason, as you've stated, is because the female of the species is the reproductive rate determining step. This means, IE, signifies or indicates, women, as a gender, are a more valuable commodity for a society, and THAT means, or signifies or indicates, that they are less valuable as people.

This plank or basis of your argument for WHY societies tend to trend towards patriarchal structures is based entirely on the notion that women are more valuable commodities based entirely on their gender due to reproductive reasons, and that when a particular gender is a more valuable commodity that that signifies or indicates that gender is less valuable as people.

Now, we can get into later whether your very very basic and simplistic attempt at evolutionary sociology has any merit, but this is a key plank that your argument is based on. You can't defend that plank, so you low key try to attack my intelligence.

You know what happens if you can't support your planks in you argument?

The argument falls down.

I'm talking about the single supporting plank in your argument for why you think non-nomadic societies tend to trend this way. Now:

To remind you of your statement:



(Underlining mine)

You have stated that women (as a gender, mind you) are more valuable as commodities to a society (an interesting claim in of itself which you tied to reproduction, but we'll put that aside for now) and that this "means" - as in, to convey, show or indicate, IE signify - that they are less valuable as people.

As an example sentence where "means" is used as a transitive verb the way you did:



This doesn't imply that a red sky causes rain, but that a red sky is indicative of rain. You said women having greater commoditized value is indicative of or signifies their lower value as people.

With that being the case, what does the greater commoditized value of male slaves over female slaves indicate? Does that indicate male slaves at the time were valued less as people than female slaves? IE, does that mean female slaves were valued more as people than male slaves?

Addressing this in a slightly disordered order:

1) "With that being the case, what does the greater commoditized value of male slaves over female slaves indicate? " Nothing. It's not something I discussed, and it's irrelevant to the point.
2) It seems like you're rehashing Saiwania's argument, so I'll rephrase that response again as well, when Saiwania says "Here you go trying to blame slavery for the plight..." - I'm not blaming slavery for it. At all Not even slavery of men versus slavery of women. That's a red herring, and one you seem to have picked up too, for some reason.
3) You seem to be objecting to me saying that these cultures treat women as commodities - I object to the FACT that they do, but I don't see any way to object to just admitting that it happens. Marriage is historically the transfer of ownership of females from father to husband - sometimes for a financial price. Is this something you're trying to say has NOT happened?
4) If women are treated as though they are commodities, they are - and this is not controversial - not being given full agency as people.
5) Cultures that have histories of slaveholding, have a cultural legacy of treating people like commodities. These overlap with cultures that also treat women as lesser agents. Again, I'm not sure this point is controversial.
6) I'm saying that that's not just 'how our species is' - I'm saying that there have historically been advantages to us as a species, and as cultures, in tightly controlling childbearing. Again, not controversial.

Which leaves us with the last point, and the one I think you are hinging this all on as controversial or not evident.

7) you SEEM to be objecting specifically to me arguing that women are treated as more valuable commodities, in those societies that have historically treated women as commodities. This is not a valuation of whether boys or girls are better, it is simple fact that the REASON cultures have historically treated women as something you can own is math - you can get 265 babies a year out of a boy, you can get 1 out of a girl. If you want your culture to grow, it's the abundance of women that determine reproductive rate, not men.

[Galloism]

Addressing this in a slightly disordered order:

1) "With that being the case, what does the greater commoditized value of male slaves over female slaves indicate? " Nothing. It's not something I discussed, and it's irrelevant to the point.
2) It seems like you're rehashing Saiwania's argument, so I'll rephrase that response again as well, when Saiwania says "Here you go trying to blame slavery for the plight..." - I'm not blaming slavery for it. At all Not even slavery of men versus slavery of women. That's a red herring, and one you seem to have picked up too, for some reason.
3) You seem to be objecting to me saying that these cultures treat women as commodities - I object to the FACT that they do, but I don't see any way to object to just admitting that it happens. Marriage is historically the transfer of ownership of females from father to husband - sometimes for a financial price. Is this something you're trying to say has NOT happened?
4) If women are treated as though they are commodities, they are - and this is not controversial - not being given full agency as people.
5) Cultures that have histories of slaveholding, have a cultural legacy of treating people like commodities. These overlap with cultures that also treat women as lesser agents. Again, I'm not sure this point is controversial.
6) I'm saying that that's not just 'how our species is' - I'm saying that there have historically been advantages to us as a species, and as cultures, in tightly controlling childbearing. Again, not controversial.

Which leaves us with the last point, and the one I think you are hinging this all on as controversial or not evident.

7) you SEEM to be objecting specifically to me arguing that women are treated as more valuable commodities, in those societies that have historically treated women as commodities. This is not a valuation of whether boys or girls are better, it is simple fact that the REASON cultures have historically treated women as something you can own is math - you can get 265 babies a year out of a boy, you can get 1 out of a girl. If you want your culture to grow, it's the abundance of women that determine reproductive rate, not men.

1) Then you can't say that greater commodity value is indicative of or signifies lower value as a person. It's not a maxim that can be used. It doesn't mean you can apply it to this situation. It means your argument is based on a plank that has no basis and you won't even use. Thank you for admitting your basis cannot be used as a rule or generally, as it was a special pleading.

2) Not rehashing Saiwania's argument. I would never rehash Saiwania's argument. He makes lots of bad arguments. I'm talking about your specific plank statement that, pursuant to 1, you don't seem to think is true.
3) "Ownership" is weird when viewing through our history, although it certainly applies in some societies. "Guardianship" is more applicable to our history (other histories would be different). Women were treated less like historical historical slaves and more like historical children when it comes to western history. They even kept their own property and income, although it was managed by her husband (as a guardian). This is particularly unjust, women aren't children after all, but in the event of death or divorce she carried her property afterward with her.
4) I agree with this. Both men and women were treated as commodities in history, and neither were treated as full people as a general rule. Some women were and some men were treated as full people, but they were a minority of society throughout much of history.
5) Most societies have such a history. It wouldn't surprise me if slaveholding societies had moreso.
6) This is true.
7) Again, both men and women were treated as commodities throughout history. This is something not limited to women - it's just men and women were treated as commodities towards different ends and in different paths depending on the circumstance (likely, to your point which is correct, surrounding childrearing - division of labor and all that). I'm not really sure if men or women were treated as commodities more often - we don't really have much history of peasant society and what it was like and the vast majority of people were peasants. This is a giant black hole in our history books.

But, nonetheless, you admitted you can't use your supporting plank to support your point, as even you do not believe your maxim to be generally true, so I'm happy with the result of this post.

[Ostroeuropa]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

At best it can only be defended by pointing to the "Principal-Agent" problem, arguing that women act through other peoples agency as principals, but this immediately makes it extremely difficult to argue women are oppressed by the situation rather than an exploiter class. As Duvinask said, power is not always kind to those who wield it.

If women act as principals using men as agents then any disparity between womens "will" and mens "action" is a result of the principal-agent problem. Not the exploitation of women, but rather, the futility of trying to force other people to act as agents on your behalf rather than doing something yourself.

Consider also that "Poor people work" was and still is to a large extent disparaged for people with power to engage in, because they are told they are supposed to be "Principals", often in the form of business leaders and so on. Does this mean we oppress the billionaire in the same way we oppress women?

"A billionaire who shovels his own compost will be sneered at by his neighbors" is not oppression unless he's forced to live in a pile of shit. It's a demand that he live up to the expectation that he exploit other people and act as principle rather than agent.

So in order to argue that women in a society are oppressed by a situation you don't only need to point to a lack of agency. You'd need to point to a lack of principality. Do the women in these societies uphold the status quo and attempt to inform and influence their agents of how to act on their behalf by maintaining gender roles and standards.

If your answer is yes, congratulations, women are not oppressed and never were. on the other hand, men can be argued to be oppressed and exploited by the dynamic through a number of analyses. (The best rhetorically being the master-slave dialectic, which may explain the hate movement of feminism and its emergence as women scramble in society to have some meaning and input beyond being superfluous to civilization as the master is to the slave, or the capitalist to the worker, and then DARVO and gaslight to try and claim victimhood while denying and downplaying their role as principal rather than agent that they willingly upheld and endorsed for thousands of years).

The billionaires, feeling insecure and realizing their worthlessness and how the workers have made the world they live in while they have acted as parasites, storm into the factories, shout at the workers that the workers have kept the billionaires from making cars for too long, and seethe about their own uselessness, projecting that self-hatred outward onto the workers, telling themselves that it must have been the workers fault that billionaires didn't make any cars. They engage in vulgar celebration of the cars they make, each time taking the opportunity to vent their own feelings of emptiness, uselessness, their superfluous nature, and their hatred for the worker, on and on, forever, until they decide that they are "Satisfied" and now feel "Worthwhile", and go back home for the day.

Then, the workers continue to make cars, because that is what they need to do to survive, not merely treat their own existential anxiety at being exploitative and oppressive towards others while contributing little of value.

[Fahran]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

At best it can only be defended by pointing to the "Principal-Agent" problem, arguing that women act through other peoples agency as principals, but this immediately makes it extremely difficult to argue women are oppressed by the situation rather than an exploiter class. As Duvinask said, power is not always kind to those who wield it.

An inability to exercise agency on your own can be a serious detriment within the context of an individualistic society. Additionally, even outside that context, a reliance on exerting indirect influence on a class of people who can exercise agency, in this case men, can effectively ensure the almost complete subjugation of a person if the parameters of the relationship are such that the male partner can wield a hard veto.

If women act as principals using men as agents then any disparity between womens "will" and mens "action" is a result of the principal-agent problem. Not the exploitation of women, but rather, the futility of trying to force other people to act as agents on your behalf rather than doing something yourself.

The issue is that women are often culturally denied their own agency. For instance, women often struggle to have their voices heard and contributions noted in corporate workplaces. On the flip side, men are treated as always having agency and as drawing their value in society based on their ability to exercise such agency. It's part of why homeless men tend to receive less compassion than homeless women or children. This isn't something that personal behavior alone can really address. It's hard for women who want to succeed and hard for men who fall through the cracks.

So in order to argue that women in a society are oppressed by a situation you don't only need to point to a lack of agency. You'd need to point to a lack of principality. Do the women in these societies uphold the status quo and attempt to inform and influence their agents of how to act on their behalf.

I don't think so. If you're confined only to exercising principality effectively, you're severely limited already, especially in individualistic societies.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

At best it can only be defended by pointing to the "Principal-Agent" problem, arguing that women act through other peoples agency as principals, but this immediately makes it extremely difficult to argue women are oppressed by the situation rather than an exploiter class. As Duvinask said, power is not always kind to those who wield it.

If women act as principals using men as agents then any disparity between womens "will" and mens "action" is a result of the principal-agent problem. Not the exploitation of women, but rather, the futility of trying to force other people to act as agents on your behalf rather than doing something yourself.

Consider also that "Poor people work" was and still is to a large extent disparaged for people with power to engage in, because they are told they are supposed to be "Principals", often in the form of business leaders and so on. Does this mean we oppress the billionaire in the same way we oppress women?

"A billionaire who shovels his own compost will be sneered at by his neighbors" is not oppression unless he's forced to live in a pile of shit. It's a demand that he live up to the expectation that he exploit other people and act as principle rather than agent.

So in order to argue that women in a society are oppressed by a situation you don't only need to point to a lack of agency. You'd need to point to a lack of principality. Do the women in these societies uphold the status quo and attempt to inform and influence their agents of how to act on their behalf by maintaining gender roles and standards.

If your answer is yes, congratulations, women are not oppressed and never were. on the other hand, men can be argued to be oppressed and exploited by the dynamic through a number of analyses. (The best rhetorically being the master-slave dialectic, which may explain the hate movement of feminism and its emergence as women scramble in society to have some meaning beyond being superfluous to civilization as the master is to the slave, and then DARVO and gaslight to try and claim victimhood.).

Your conceptualization misses the matter of degree. Even in authoritarian regimes, public opinion can influence government policy. Are therefore people in authoritarian regimes not oppressed, because they have non-zero influence? Without considering degree, this conceptualization is useless, since it suggests only people who have absolutely no influence in the slightest are oppressed, which has never happened ever, even in chattel slavery.

[Ostroeuropa]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

At best it can only be defended by pointing to the "Principal-Agent" problem, arguing that women act through other peoples agency as principals, but this immediately makes it extremely difficult to argue women are oppressed by the situation rather than an exploiter class. As Duvinask said, power is not always kind to those who wield it.

An inability to exercise agency on your own can be a serious detriment within the context of an individualistic society. Additionally, even outside that context, a reliance on exerting indirect influence on a class of people who can exercise agency, in this case men, can effectively ensure the almost complete subjugation of a person if the parameters of the relationship are such that the male partner can wield a hard veto.

If women act as principals using men as agents then any disparity between womens "will" and mens "action" is a result of the principal-agent problem. Not the exploitation of women, but rather, the futility of trying to force other people to act as agents on your behalf rather than doing something yourself.

The issue is that women are often culturally denied their own agency. For instance, women often struggle to have their voices heard and contributions noted in corporate workplaces. On the flip side, men are treated as always having agency and as drawing their value in society based on their ability to exercise such agency. It's part of why homeless men tend to receive less compassion than homeless women or children. This isn't something that personal behavior alone can really address. It's hard for women who want to succeed and hard for men who fall through the cracks.

So in order to argue that women in a society are oppressed by a situation you don't only need to point to a lack of agency. You'd need to point to a lack of principality. Do the women in these societies uphold the status quo and attempt to inform and influence their agents of how to act on their behalf.

I don't think so. If you're confined only to exercising principality effectively, you're severely limited already, especially in individualistic societies.

The higher up the chain of power you go, the less agents and the more principals you find. The nature of hierarchy is to become more principal and less agent as you climb that hierarchy. In order to buy into what you're trying to argue here we need to completely invert our understanding of what power and oppression are to the point it becomes patently absurd.

Women are culturally forced into a role of principal and men into the role of agent. Women also uphold this dynamic, as do men to be fair.

Workers have a hard veto. Are billionaires oppressed?

[Grave_n_idle]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

Humans are individuals, and if a person has their agency limited it is irrelevant if an-other person has their agency slightly less limited.

You're basically employing the exact same 'logic' people arguing against white privilege use. If ONE white person lives in a shitty situation, there's no such thing as white privilege' - that's what you're doing.

[Ostroeuropa]

The crass individualism by which "Womens agency is limited" is argued ignores the possibility of women acting through proxies.

Humans are individuals, and if a person has their agency limited it is irrelevant if an-other person has their agency slightly less limited.

You're basically employing the exact same 'logic' people arguing against white privilege use. If ONE white person lives in a shitty situation, there's no such thing as white privilege' - that's what you're doing.

That isn't what i'm doing and I'm not going to bother explaining why to you, instead i'll deal with Fahran who actually understands the post.
Fahran is rebutting the argument on the basis that "Well, communism is possible, therefore billionaires are oppressed". But at least she's understanding the argument enough to make such a questionable rebuttal.

[Sundiata]

The higher up the chain of power you go, the less agents and the more principals you find. The nature of hierarchy is to become more principal and less agent as you climb that hierarchy.

That's the way things are supposed to be, human beings are made for service.

[Ostroeuropa]

The higher up the chain of power you go, the less agents and the more principals you find. The nature of hierarchy is to become more principal and less agent as you climb that hierarchy.

That's the way things are supposed to be, human beings are made for service.

I'm not denying it is the way things are or are meant to be. It's an observation on the nature of hierarchy that the more powerful you are, the less of an agent and the more of a principal you are, which is why whining about women having no agency and therefore being oppressed misses the point about as much as one can possibly miss the point and demonstrates an extremely dubious understanding of what oppression is.

Instead, when we examine principality, only the most ... Exceptional Individuals... would deny women have a hand in shaping gender roles in society and deciding which gender does what. I.E, they have enforced and upheld a system that sees them as principals, and men as agents.

[Sundiata]

That's the way things are supposed to be, human beings are made for service.

I'm not denying it is the way things are or are meant to be. It's an observation on the nature of hierarchy that the more powerful you are, the less of an agent and the more of a principal you are, which is why whining about women having no agency and therefore being oppressed misses the point about as much as one can possibly miss the point and demonstrates an extremely dubious understanding of what oppression is.

I think we need to be more careful with our language here because, yes, human relationships are hierarchical but the people on the top of those hierarchies exist to serve the people at the bottom of them. The head that wears the crown is supposed to be heaviest.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not denying it is the way things are or are meant to be. It's an observation on the nature of hierarchy that the more powerful you are, the less of an agent and the more of a principal you are, which is why whining about women having no agency and therefore being oppressed misses the point about as much as one can possibly miss the point and demonstrates an extremely dubious understanding of what oppression is.

I think we need to be more careful with our language here because, yes, human relationships are hierarchical but the people on the top of those hierarchies exist to serve the people at the bottom of them. The head that wears the crown is supposed to be heaviest.

Ideally yes.

Now then.

What would you say about a "head wearing the crown" that spent all its time screeching about how its agents were ungrateful, hated the principal, and needed to give up more to them and so on? That built an argument around how the people they were meant to be good principals to all hated them and this needed to change, not by changing the nature of their principality, but by badgering their agents? Not for the agents benefit, not even pretending, but purely and explicitly because it would make life better for the principal and agents were evil if they objected to this?

Off with their head, right?

[Saiwania]

I think we need to be more careful with our language here because, yes, human relationships are hierarchical but the people on the top of those hierarchies exist to serve the people at the bottom of them. The head that wears the crown is supposed to be heaviest.

This can just as easily be flipped on its head to say that those at the bottom of hierachies exist to serve the people above them in rank/authority. This is the typical structure of a multinational corporation or Amazon factory for example. The company itself doesn't care about whoever is actually doing the producing or hard work, because the business model is to expect higher turnover and to have people be easily replaceable.

Certain places expect for those at the top or for shareholders to reap all the benefits/rewards whilst those that really make it all possible don't share as much in the spoils and suffer in silence or cave in to demands from the top because of the perception that they have weak or no leverage to resist.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think we need to be more careful with our language here because, yes, human relationships are hierarchical but the people on the top of those hierarchies exist to serve the people at the bottom of them. The head that wears the crown is supposed to be heaviest.

This can just as easily be flipped on its head to say that those at the bottom of hierachies exist to serve the people above them in rank/authority. This is the typical structure of a multinational corporation or Amazon factory for example. The company itself doesn't care about whoever is actually doing the producing or hard work, because the business model is to expect higher turnover and to have people be easily replaceable.

Certain places expect for those at the top or for shareholders to reap all the benefits/rewards whilst those that really make it all possible don't share as much in the spoils and suffer in silence or cave in to demands from the top because of the perception that they have weak or no leverage to resist.

An astute observation surprisingly enough.

This is in fact the real reason behind the lack of empathy for men. It's the same reason that billionaires lack empathy for workers when they can get away with it.

[Fahran]

The higher up the chain of power you go, the less agents and the more principals you find. The nature of hierarchy is to become more principal and less agent as you climb that hierarchy. In order to buy into what you're trying to argue here we need to completely invert our understanding of what power and oppression are to the point it becomes patently absurd.

Women are culturally forced into a role of principal and men into the role of agent. Women also uphold this dynamic, as do men to be fair.

Workers have a hard veto. Are billionaires oppressed?

Does a principal operating in the same role as an agent, without the benefit of other agents to enact their will, wield any actual power? I think the answer is rather self-evident. You're essentially arguing that because a strong woman may stand behind a strong man that this necessitates a society wherein all women enjoy power over and privilege compared to men. That's a simplification that doesn't hold up to our observations of society at present.

[Sundiata]

I think we need to be more careful with our language here because, yes, human relationships are hierarchical but the people on the top of those hierarchies exist to serve the people at the bottom of them. The head that wears the crown is supposed to be heaviest.

Ideally yes.

Now then.

What would you say about a "head wearing the crown" that spent all its time screeching about how its agents were ungrateful, hated the principal, and needed to give up more to them and so on? That built an argument around how the people they were meant to be good principals to all hated them and this needed to change, not by changing the nature of their principality, but by badgering their agents? Not for the agents benefit, not even pretending, but purely and explicitly because it would make life better for the principal and agents were evil if they objected to this?

Off with their head, right?

A tyrant can legitimately be deposed without being executed for the good of the state, and naturally, the good of God. However, I don't believe that women inherently behave in an evil manner at the individual level, especially when they've been taught to serve others in their way, as men should be too.

[Ostroeuropa]

The higher up the chain of power you go, the less agents and the more principals you find. The nature of hierarchy is to become more principal and less agent as you climb that hierarchy. In order to buy into what you're trying to argue here we need to completely invert our understanding of what power and oppression are to the point it becomes patently absurd.

Women are culturally forced into a role of principal and men into the role of agent. Women also uphold this dynamic, as do men to be fair.

Workers have a hard veto. Are billionaires oppressed?

Does a principal operating in the same role as an agent, without the benefit of other agents to enact their will, wield any actual power? I think the answer is rather self-evident. You're essentially arguing that because a strong woman may stand behind a strong man that this necessitates a society wherein all women enjoy power over and privilege compared to men. That's a simplification that doesn't hold up to our observations of society at present.

This is the same argument that can be made against the notion of male privilege or female oppression. You have essentially argued against the notion of patriarchy theory, and a similar rebuttal for that could be applied here.

[Grave_n_idle]

Addressing this in a slightly disordered order:

1) "With that being the case, what does the greater commoditized value of male slaves over female slaves indicate? " Nothing. It's not something I discussed, and it's irrelevant to the point.
2) It seems like you're rehashing Saiwania's argument, so I'll rephrase that response again as well, when Saiwania says "Here you go trying to blame slavery for the plight..." - I'm not blaming slavery for it. At all Not even slavery of men versus slavery of women. That's a red herring, and one you seem to have picked up too, for some reason.
3) You seem to be objecting to me saying that these cultures treat women as commodities - I object to the FACT that they do, but I don't see any way to object to just admitting that it happens. Marriage is historically the transfer of ownership of females from father to husband - sometimes for a financial price. Is this something you're trying to say has NOT happened?
4) If women are treated as though they are commodities, they are - and this is not controversial - not being given full agency as people.
5) Cultures that have histories of slaveholding, have a cultural legacy of treating people like commodities. These overlap with cultures that also treat women as lesser agents. Again, I'm not sure this point is controversial.
6) I'm saying that that's not just 'how our species is' - I'm saying that there have historically been advantages to us as a species, and as cultures, in tightly controlling childbearing. Again, not controversial.

Which leaves us with the last point, and the one I think you are hinging this all on as controversial or not evident.

7) you SEEM to be objecting specifically to me arguing that women are treated as more valuable commodities, in those societies that have historically treated women as commodities. This is not a valuation of whether boys or girls are better, it is simple fact that the REASON cultures have historically treated women as something you can own is math - you can get 265 babies a year out of a boy, you can get 1 out of a girl. If you want your culture to grow, it's the abundance of women that determine reproductive rate, not men.

1) Then you can't say that greater commodity value is indicative of or signifies lower value as a person. It's not a maxim that can be used. It doesn't mean you can apply it to this situation. It means your argument is based on a plank that has no basis and you won't even use. Thank you for admitting your basis cannot be used as a rule or generally, as it was a special pleading.

2) Not rehashing Saiwania's argument. I would never rehash Saiwania's argument. He makes lots of bad arguments. I'm talking about your specific plank statement that, pursuant to 1, you don't seem to think is true.
3) "Ownership" is weird when viewing through our history, although it certainly applies in some societies. "Guardianship" is more applicable to our history (other histories would be different). Women were treated less like historical historical slaves and more like historical children when it comes to western history. They even kept their own property and income, although it was managed by her husband (as a guardian). This is particularly unjust, women aren't children after all, but in the event of death or divorce she carried her property afterward with her.
4) I agree with this. Both men and women were treated as commodities in history, and neither were treated as full people as a general rule. Some women were and some men were treated as full people, but they were a minority of society throughout much of history.
5) Most societies have such a history. It wouldn't surprise me if slaveholding societies had moreso.
6) This is true.
7) Again, both men and women were treated as commodities throughout history. This is something not limited to women - it's just men and women were treated as commodities towards different ends and in different paths depending on the circumstance (likely, to your point which is correct, surrounding childrearing - division of labor and all that). I'm not really sure if men or women were treated as commodities more often - we don't really have much history of peasant society and what it was like and the vast majority of people were peasants. This is a giant black hole in our history books.

But, nonetheless, you admitted you can't use your supporting plank to support your point, as even you do not believe your maxim to be generally true, so I'm happy with the result of this post.

1) you're wrong. If you are treated as a 'thing' more than another person, you are 100% definitely being treated less as a 'person' than that other person. Again, this is not controversial.
2) you keep restating what you think my 'plank' is, but your flat denial of an obvuious truth doesn't make that obvious truth any less obvious.
3) I've been trying to be general, but you seem to be referring to a specific case of property transfer, where you think women were used more as a 'title' to give access to property and less as part OF a property bundle. That might be true in some cases, but the distinction seems fairly trivial and specific.

7) we do have historical references. Yes, at the servant level, the distinction was arguably less significant - when everyone at a certain stratum is treated more like a thing than a person, the differences between them are less divisive. But we also know those distinctions were still culturally there - for example, polygyny being FAR less common than polyandry and (in Judeo-Christian societies) men being head-of-household and women being subordinate to them. Another example (again, less relevant at the lowest social level) is the dowry - whether the society was one that paid bride-price to the bride's father, or one where fathers had to sweeten the deal with other forms of property - the bride is still transactional.

[Grave_n_idle]

Humans are individuals, and if a person has their agency limited it is irrelevant if an-other person has their agency slightly less limited.

You're basically employing the exact same 'logic' people arguing against white privilege use. If ONE white person lives in a shitty situation, there's no such thing as white privilege' - that's what you're doing.

That isn't what i'm doing and I'm not going to bother explaining why to you...

It might not be what you intended, it is absolutely what you were doing.

[Fahran]

This is the same argument that can be made against the notion of male privilege or female oppression. You have essentially argued against the notion of patriarchy theory, and a similar rebuttal for that could be applied here.

The framing I tend to promote allows for conversations of privilege and oppression based on the agent-object dichotomy, and seems to reflect the reality of the situation. As I've mentioned before, the more complex and academically rigorous explanations of patriarchy theory are a lot closer to what I've been saying than to what Tumblr or Buzzfeed have to say on the matter. An understanding that women can participate in patriarchy and that men can be oppressed and harmed by patriarchy isn't alien to feminism. It's been an aspect of the theory since the 1970s. My understanding has been informed by conversations with MRAs, and, to that extent, it's distinct from what, say, bell hooks has to say on the matter, but it's not something that observations really refute.

[Ostroeuropa]

A tyrant can legitimately be deposed without being executed for the good of the state, and naturally, the good of God. However, I don't believe that women inherently behave in an evil manner at the individual level, especially when they've been taught to serve others in their way, as men should be too.

I don't believe women are inherently evil either. I think that a sizable portion of them currently a detriment to society because of the feminist movement causing them to become self-serving, anti-male, and extremely myopic.