The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Sundiata]

That's a disproportionate talking point.

how tf is a talking point disproportionate

It's an excessive response.

[Giovenith]

So populations couldn't afford to lose one fertile woman, presumably because they were the only ones who could give birth, but on the other hand there were so many women having babies that they had to resort to infanticide? And aborting babies to save the lives of fertile women was a good policy, even though the only reason that fertile women were so valuable was that they would give birth?

I really don't understand your argument. I don't disagree with it; I don't understand it.

- Women's primary value was that they could give birth to children, yes. But if she dies giving birth to a child during a difficult pregnancy, then we will have essentially traded the myriad of children that she could have in the future for this one child. Of course you want her to give birth whenever she can, but if you face a situation where you can only keep either the woman or the baby, then the smart thing would be to choose the woman because she can always have easily more children later to replace the baby that you aborted, not to mention that you would get to keep all the other labor that a fully grown woman contributes to. A baby cannot give birth or contribute to labor until many years later, it's essentially an investment that you hope will pay off later, but immediate needs always come before investments.

- Reproduction was important overall back then, but individual families and tribes still occasionally faced periods where they might not have had enough resources at the moment to support another mouth to feed, just like we do today. If your village is experiencing a drought and you have to ration food, then having another kid is not ideal. But in a few years after the drought has ended and now you have farming to do, another kid who can grow up to be a farm helper — and for whom you do now have enough food to feed — would be a good thing. Back then, they didn't have effective birth control like we do now, so their solutions for those hard times were pretty much just abstinence, abortion, or infanticide. Humans just don't abstain no matter how hard you lecture them about it, so between abortion or infanticide, abortion comes out as the preferable option for most.

[Fahran]

So populations couldn't afford to lose one fertile woman, presumably because they were the only ones who could give birth, but on the other hand there were so many women having babies that they had to resort to infanticide? And aborting babies to save the lives of fertile women was a good policy, even though the only reason that fertile women were so valuable was that they would give birth?

I really don't understand your argument. I don't disagree with it; I don't understand it.

There's a few components to the argument. First, pregnancy and birth are not easy on women, especially in a world where good analgesics, viable antibiotics, and frequent c-sections were lacking. Infant mortality rate in antiquity has been estimated at 25 deaths per 1,000 births. So 2.5% of all births led to the mother dying. Additionally infant mortality was much higher as well. So, even if you could successfully birth a child, that was no assurance that you'd be able to keep him or her alive. A simple illness or a drought could carry the baby off much easier than it could carry a healthy adult off.

I do have some reservations about the argument Gio made. Women in Ancient Judea probably didn't resort to contraception or abortifacients under normal circumstances. Having large families was socially advantageous in an agrarian society and allowed you to collectively pool familial labor for the benefit of your family. So you wanted to have a bunch of children even if your economic station wasn't all that great because it gave you a large network to support you when you got older. You'd make exceptions in instances of war, drought, etc. as a rule. The contraceptives and procedures we have available today are more effective, more safe, and less hush-hush than what Judean women probably had.

[Giovenith]

So populations couldn't afford to lose one fertile woman, presumably because they were the only ones who could give birth, but on the other hand there were so many women having babies that they had to resort to infanticide? And aborting babies to save the lives of fertile women was a good policy, even though the only reason that fertile women were so valuable was that they would give birth?

I really don't understand your argument. I don't disagree with it; I don't understand it.

There's a few components to the argument. First, pregnancy and birth are not easy on women, especially in a world where good analgesics, viable antibiotics, and frequent c-sections were lacking. Infant mortality rate in antiquity has been estimated at 25 deaths per 1,000 births. So 2.5% of all births led to the mother dying. Additionally infant mortality was much higher as well. So, even if you could successfully birth a child, that was no assurance that you'd be able to keep him or her alive. A simple illness or a drought could carry the baby off much easier than it could carry a healthy adult off.

I do have some reservations about the argument Gio made. Women in Ancient Judea probably didn't resort to contraception or abortifacient under normal circumstances. Having large families was socially advantageous in an agrarian society and allowed you to collectively pool familial labor for the benefit of your family. So you wanted to have a bunch of children even if your economic station wasn't all that great because it gave you a large network to support you when you got older. The contraceptives and procedures we have available today are more effective, more safe, and less hush-hush than what Judean women probably had.

I probably made the mistake there of conflating Judea with the ancient world in general.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So populations couldn't afford to lose one fertile woman, presumably because they were the only ones who could give birth, but on the other hand there were so many women having babies that they had to resort to infanticide? And aborting babies to save the lives of fertile women was a good policy, even though the only reason that fertile women were so valuable was that they would give birth?

I really don't understand your argument. I don't disagree with it; I don't understand it.

- Women's primary value was that they could give birth to children, yes. But if she dies giving birth to a child during a difficult pregnancy, then we will have essentially traded the myriad of children that she could have in the future for this one child. Of course you want her to give birth whenever she can, but if you face a situation where you can only keep either the woman or the baby, then the smart thing would be to choose the woman because she can always have easily more children later to replace the baby that you aborted, not to mention that you would get to keep all the other labor that a fully grown woman contributes to. A baby cannot give birth or contribute to labor until many years later, it's essentially an investment that you hope will pay off later, but immediate needs always come before investments.

- Reproduction was important overall back then, but individual families and tribes still occasionally faced periods where they might not have had enough resources at the moment to support another mouth to feed, just like we do today. If your village is experiencing a drought and you have to ration food, then having another kid is not ideal. But in a few years after the drought has ended and now you have farming to do, another kid who can grow up to be a farm helper — and for whom you do now have enough food to feed — would be a good thing. Back then, they didn't have effective birth control like we do now, so their solutions for those hard times were pretty much just abstinence, abortion, or infanticide. Humans just don't abstain no matter how hard you lecture them about it, so between abortion or infanticide, abortion comes out as the preferable option for most.

Actually there was birth control in ancient times. Not as good as today but it did exist in the form of very primitive predecessors of the condom as well as certain flowers.

[Fahran]

I probably made the mistake there of conflating Judea with the ancient world in general.

I had to use generalized statistics from antiquity and extrapolate some things based on the Torah and the Talmud. Part of the difficulty is that, despite the mitzvot remaining broadly constant until the advent of the Haskalah, Judaism as a religion has changed pretty dramatically. I imagine Hillel and Shammai had different opinions from Rashi and Ramban, and, even in a particular age, rabbis often had disagreements.

[Celritannia]

You cannot stop people doing something that is biological.
So better ensure there are precautions to stop unwanted pregnancies.

I dislike the implications of this both for personal behavior and for policy. We absolutely try to curb certain biological impulses, with varying degrees of success. The way this is worded plays as a rehashing of the "human nature" argument.

You can't really stop people having sex though, nor should you.
What matters are the precautions.

[Giovenith]

- Women's primary value was that they could give birth to children, yes. But if she dies giving birth to a child during a difficult pregnancy, then we will have essentially traded the myriad of children that she could have in the future for this one child. Of course you want her to give birth whenever she can, but if you face a situation where you can only keep either the woman or the baby, then the smart thing would be to choose the woman because she can always have easily more children later to replace the baby that you aborted, not to mention that you would get to keep all the other labor that a fully grown woman contributes to. A baby cannot give birth or contribute to labor until many years later, it's essentially an investment that you hope will pay off later, but immediate needs always come before investments.

- Reproduction was important overall back then, but individual families and tribes still occasionally faced periods where they might not have had enough resources at the moment to support another mouth to feed, just like we do today. If your village is experiencing a drought and you have to ration food, then having another kid is not ideal. But in a few years after the drought has ended and now you have farming to do, another kid who can grow up to be a farm helper — and for whom you do now have enough food to feed — would be a good thing. Back then, they didn't have effective birth control like we do now, so their solutions for those hard times were pretty much just abstinence, abortion, or infanticide. Humans just don't abstain no matter how hard you lecture them about it, so between abortion or infanticide, abortion comes out as the preferable option for most.

Actually there was birth control in ancient times. Not as good as today but it did exist in the form of very primitive predecessors of the condom as well as certain flowers.

That's why I said effective birth control.

[Fahran]

You can't really stop people having sex though, nor should you.
What matters are the precautions.

The broad sexual behaviors of a population are as much a facet of culture as anything else. If we can change people's attitudes towards gender relations or religion, we can probably change their attitudes towards sexuality as well. That's precisely what the Sexual Revolution did in many regards. It's not so much a matter of stopping people from having sex as it is examining how and why we have sex. Mind you, the desirability of changing our sexual culture is open to debate, but "it's human nature" is really just an attempt to shut down any conversations on the subject.

[Celritannia]

You can't really stop people having sex though, nor should you.
What matters are the precautions.

The broad sexual behaviors of a population are as much a facet of culture as anything else. If we can change people's attitudes towards gender relations or religion, we can probably change their attitudes towards sexuality as well. That's precisely what the Sexual Revolution did in many regards. It's not so much a matter of stopping people from having sex as it is examining how and why we have sex. Mind you, the desirability of changing our sexual culture is open to debate, but "it's human nature" is really just an attempt to shut down any conversations on the subject.

Any conversation restricting the right of people to have sex should be shut down.
Sure, we have to make sure that people respect each other and not force sex on others. But consenting adults wanting to have sex should not be an issue for anyone.

[Knica Eas]

People enjoy what pregnancy makes. Not the process of being pregnant.

I can't personally attest to this so maybe we could find a poll or something. There's bound to be women who enjoy pregnancy, not that this is the point.

This sounds like a reasonable general approach.

[Sundiata]

I can't personally attest to this so maybe we could find a poll or something. There's bound to be women who enjoy pregnancy, not that this is the point.

This sounds like a reasonable general approach.

Thank you.

[Giovenith]

Happy New Year's Eve everyone, please jam to a playlist while you look up your local women's shelters, or shelters in general, to see if you can help out for the coming winter hardships. My own home city recently hosted a wonderful Christmas event where families could adopt a dog from a local animal shelter (don't worry, precautions were taken against fickle adopters who may abandon animals after the holidays) and all of the proceeds from adoption would be donated to a local domestic violence shelter. Very sweet, you never know what's being done around your area, and they always need more volunteers.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Back then, they didn't have effective birth control like we do now, so their solutions for those hard times were pretty much just abstinence, abortion, or infanticide. Humans just don't abstain no matter how hard you lecture them about it, so between abortion or infanticide, abortion comes out as the preferable option for most.

I'm pretty sure they'd figured out both oral and anal sex by then. There's no need for rules about things which are unknown or never really happen.

...and a bunch of general replies to several posts, because I don't see the point in quoting individual lines from them.

I probably made the mistake there of conflating Judea with the ancient world in general.

I had to use generalized statistics from antiquity

I've read papers giving values for maternal mortality from ~1% to ~6%, depending on where and when. Infant, neonatal, and child mortality were brutally worse, but I don't have those figures off the top of my head. I want to say most kids didn't live to their fifth birthday, simply because smallpox is so lethal.

and extrapolate some things based on the Torah and the Talmud. Part of the difficulty is that, despite the mitzvot remaining broadly constant until the advent of the Haskalah, Judaism as a religion has changed pretty dramatically. I imagine Hillel and Shammai had different opinions from Rashi and Ramban, and, even in a particular age, rabbis often had disagreements.

But of course. That's why the rabbis tend to keep both majority and minority opinions, and why people keep trying to figure out what it all means.*

Taking guesses about the status of women in Judea (ie, ~900bce – 586bce) is challenging, as you imply, mostly because we know almost nothing about it.

A little after the end of Judea (~500bce) we start to have records of contemporary societies, such as Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Women were treated very differently in those three: Greek societies tended to be the poster boys for treating women as chattel. In Rome and Egypt, there was equality in property laws. (Or near equality; I'm no deep scholar of those societies, but I should be able to find the papers I read on them.) So, taking a guess as to conditions in Judea is fraught, since it had contact with Greece and Egypt, as as well as societies further east.

They probably had one decent contraceptive, because there was exactly one known in the Classical world: silphion. Since that was available in both Egypt and Minoa, it was probably available in Judea.

*: For anybody who wants to read up on Jewish law on abortion, Wakipedia has a surprisingly good summary, and searches on the topic quickly find more detailed ones. But as Fahran notes, there's sometimes more disagreement than agreement about what to do in a specific situation.

[Fahran]

Any conversation restricting the right of people to have sex should be shut down.

We restrict certain forms of sexual expression at present on moral grounds and, historically, this wasn't at all uncommon. When you say adults of sound mind should be able to consent to sex without government interference, you're already throwing up three qualifications on which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which aren't. Again, it's not about stopping sex. It's about the cultural attitudes, sociological functions, and philosophy surrounding it. Because people aren't a vacuum. And people should absolutely feel free to make arguments about and discuss this topic even when they don't assume a libertarian perspective.

Because libertarianism is always cringe everywhere it appears.

Sure, we have to make sure that people respect each other and not force sex on others. But consenting adults wanting to have sex should not be an issue for anyone.

So you do have standards on sexual behaviors.

[Celritannia]

Any conversation restricting the right of people to have sex should be shut down.

We restrict certain forms of sexual expression at present on moral grounds and, historically, this wasn't at all uncommon. When you say adults of sound mind should be able to consent to sex without government interference, you're already throwing up three qualifications on which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which aren't. Again, it's not about stopping sex. It's about the cultural attitudes, sociological functions, and philosophy surrounding it. Because people aren't a vacuum. And people should absolutely feel free to make arguments about and discuss this topic even when they don't assume a libertarian perspective.

Because libertarianism is always cringe everywhere it appears.

Sure, we have to make sure that people respect each other and not force sex on others. But consenting adults wanting to have sex should not be an issue for anyone.

So you do have standards on sexual behaviors.

That really does not negate the point that consenting adults should be restricted.
Cultural attitudes change.
Sex is natural and it should be so. I don't want any culture or what-have-you interfering with my bedroom activities of the person I am with.

I don't think I said I never had standards. Nor have I ever said that consent does not matter, or the age of participants.

Well, I am left-libertarian, so...

[Fahran]

That really does not negate the point that consenting adults should be restricted.

I mean... we do restrict, regulate, and develop people's sexual behavior via socialization, social censure, and cultural conventions at present. In fact, in previous conversations, you have presented arguments supporting a more libertine sexual culture. That's fine, of course, but you should acknowledge that other philosophies and arguments exist. Yours isn't the only paradigm that will be represented in the conversation - in part because a purely libertine approach is bound to create intense social dysfunction.

Cultural attitudes change.

Yes. That's kind of my point.

Sex is natural and it should be so. I don't want any culture or what-have-you interfering with my bedroom activities of the person I am with.

Except your bedroom activities remain a facet and an expression of cultural attitudes. Really, it's difficult to emphasize how profoundly the emergence of the industrial (and later nuclear) family and independent households contributed to our modern sexual culture. One reason medieval society didn't have too many qualms about policing sexual behavior is that the bedroom, as a place where a couple sleep alone, is gloriously modern. Up until a certain period, you wouldn't have slept alone. You'd have had your family piled around you. If you were an aristocrat, you would have had your knights and retainers or your ladies and maids sleeping nearby too. Nobody had to kick down your door to catch you doing a no-no deed.

My point in all of this is that you can't really untangle sexuality from other facets of culture either. Your perspective makes sense under very particular material and social circumstances, and other perspectives may become more or less relevant based on material and social circumstances as well. Sex being natural is also a bad argument to defend your particular perspective, ESPECIALLY given sex being natural doesn't preclude it from being a social and cultural thing that is regulated all the time anyway. Bears and poison ivy are natural too. That doesn't mean those things are necessarily good for us.

I don't think I said I never had standards. Nor have I ever said that consent does not matter, or the age of participants.

Well, I am left-libertarian, so...

That's the point I'm getting at. Y'all aren't really different in terms of both pitching a particular philosophy and cultural attitude towards sexual expression as a potential hegemonic paradigm that will govern social interactions and behaviors. There's not really a "neutral" option here. Personally, I think both of y'all have terrible ideas and the only person who should be allowed to police people's naughty time is me. Then I remember I'm super squeamish and nope on out of there.

And I'm a weird right-con. We're bound to disagree on things.

[The New California Republic]

ne reason medieval society didn't have too many qualms about policing sexual behavior is that the bedroom, as a place where a couple sleep alone, is gloriously modern. Up until a certain period, you wouldn't have slept alone. You'd have had your family piled around you. If you were an aristocrat, you would have had your knights and retainers or your ladies and maids sleeping nearby too. Nobody had to kick down your door to catch you doing a no-no deed.

The implicit assumption here that sex only takes place in the bedroom is just wrong.

[Fahran]

The implicit assumption here that sex only takes place in the bedroom is just wrong.

I'm flabberghasted by this revelation and have the vapors now. Alas! How scandalous!

This doesn't really refute the argument. It's a nitpick that largely ignores the reality that medieval people probably had far fewer places to get their freak on in peace than people living in the 21st century. It's not impractical to take a hardline stance on adultery if you can expect to catch someone in the act. For aristocratic women in particular, carrying on an affair would have been challenging. Your husband's cousin or whatever was probably following you around as one of your attendants and companions 90% of the time and you'd best believe she's going to tell him if you start playing house with that cute stable boy who likes horses as much as you do.

[The New California Republic]

The implicit assumption here that sex only takes place in the bedroom is just wrong.

I'm flabberghasted by this revelation and have the vapors now. Alas! How scandalous!

This doesn't really refute the argument. It's a nitpick that largely ignores the reality that medieval people probably had far fewer places to get their freak on in peace than people living in the 21st century. It's not impractical to take a hardline stance on adultery if you can expect to catch someone in the act. For aristocratic women in particular, carrying on an affair would have been challenging. Your husband's cousin or whatever was probably following you around as one of your attendants and companions 90% of the time and you'd best believe she's going to tell him if you start playing house with that cute stable boy who likes horses as much as you do.

Your original post was a nitpick, as Cel was undoubtedly using "bedroom" as a wider statement of sexual behaviour across the board, not just in that one room.

[Celritannia]

That really does not negate the point that consenting adults should be restricted.

I mean... we do restrict, regulate, and develop people's sexual behavior via socialization, social censure, and cultural conventions at present. In fact, in previous conversations, you have presented arguments supporting a more libertine sexual culture. That's fine, of course, but you should acknowledge that other philosophies and arguments exist. Yours isn't the only paradigm that will be represented in the conversation - in part because a purely libertine approach is bound to create intense social dysfunction.

Cultural attitudes change.

Yes. That's kind of my point.

Sex is natural and it should be so. I don't want any culture or what-have-you interfering with my bedroom activities of the person I am with.

Except your bedroom activities remain a facet and an expression of cultural attitudes. Really, it's difficult to emphasize how profoundly the emergence of the industrial (and later nuclear) family and independent households contributed to our modern sexual culture. One reason medieval society didn't have too many qualms about policing sexual behavior is that the bedroom, as a place where a couple sleep alone, is gloriously modern. Up until a certain period, you wouldn't have slept alone. You'd have had your family piled around you. If you were an aristocrat, you would have had your knights and retainers or your ladies and maids sleeping nearby too. Nobody had to kick down your door to catch you doing a no-no deed.

My point in all of this is that you can't really untangle sexuality from other facets of culture either. Your perspective makes sense under very particular material and social circumstances, and other perspectives may become more or less relevant based on material and social circumstances as well. Sex being natural is also a bad argument to defend your particular perspective, ESPECIALLY given sex being natural doesn't preclude it from being a social and cultural thing that is regulated all the time anyway. Bears and poison ivy are natural too. That doesn't mean those things are necessarily good for us.

I don't think I said I never had standards. Nor have I ever said that consent does not matter, or the age of participants.

Well, I am left-libertarian, so...

That's the point I'm getting at. Y'all aren't really different in terms of both pitching a particular philosophy and cultural attitude towards sexual expression as a potential hegemonic paradigm that will govern social interactions and behaviors. There's not really a "neutral" option here. Personally, I think both of y'all have terrible ideas and the only person who should be allowed to police people's naughty time is me. Then I remember I'm super squeamish and nope on out of there.

And I'm a weird right-con. We're bound to disagree on things.

Sure, but that does not mean they should be the only ones, nor should sex be regulated between consenting adults.
I mean, if you want to look at history, many Celtic tribes and Native American tribes were polyamorous.

[Fahran]

Your original post was a nitpick, as Cel was undoubtedly using "bedroom" as a wider statement of sexual behaviour across the board, not just in that one room.

That's not a nitpick. One element of the argument was, essentially, that policing people's sexual behavior is impractical. That's true in large part because of how familial structures, domestic life, and material wealth have changed. It was absolutely practical to police people's sexual behavior more sternly in the past and it remains absolutely practical to police people's sexual behavior in other societies where social conventions, gender relations, and attitudes towards sexuality are different. So taking it as an automatic fact without reference to material and social conditions is wrong. The real question is whether or not we SHOULD adopt a sterner attitude on some things. And you can definitely argue that we shouldn't. But it's not the argument that was made. If that argument was made, it'd be pretty close to the moral argument Sun is making in terms of justification. The system of ethics would simply be libertarian instead of Catholic.

[Fahran]

Sure, but that does not mean they should be the only ones, nor should sex be regulated between consenting adults.

They definitely shouldn't be the only people participating in the conversations and debates on our sexual culture, I agree. It can't be a conversation or a debate without multiple perspectives and paradigms present. I mean... it depends on what you mean by regulating.

I mean, if you want to look at history, many Celtic tribes and Native American tribes were polyamorous.

Plenty of societies have had elements of polyamory, polygyny, and polyandry. That coincides with my broader point about how sexuality is a facet of culture - one heavily dependent on other factors.

Edit: Also, "tribes" might not be the best word. In Gaul, communal life often revolved around the oppidum, an institution that in some respects resembled the Greek polis in all likelihood. With regard to indigenous American societies, you had different types of social organization. These could range from large urban settlements to extended kinship groups to nomadic bands that were often of heterogeneous descent.

[The New California Republic]

Your original post was a nitpick, as Cel was undoubtedly using "bedroom" as a wider statement of sexual behaviour across the board, not just in that one room.

That's not a nitpick. One element of the argument was, essentially, that policing people's sexual behavior is impractical. That's true in large part because of how familial structures, domestic life, and material wealth have changed. It was absolutely practical to police people's sexual behavior more sternly in the past and it remains absolutely practical to police people's sexual behavior in other societies where social conventions, gender relations, and attitudes towards sexuality are different. So taking it as an automatic fact without reference to material and social conditions is wrong. The real question is whether or not we SHOULD adopt a sterner attitude on some things. And you can definitely argue that we shouldn't. But it's not the argument that was made. If that argument was made, it'd be pretty close to the moral argument Sun is making in terms of justification. The system of ethics would simply be libertarian instead of Catholic.

It really was a nitpick, as it was blatantly obvious that Cel was not just meaning the bedroom when making that reference. If it truly wasn't a nitpick, then you accidentally managed to interpret it in the most spurious manner imaginable.

[Kowani]

UK abolishes tax on menstrual products