Print Page | Close Window

Debate of the Month 2

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Women's History
Forum Discription: Discuss women in history and other historical topics from a feminine perspective !
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13697
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 13:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Debate of the Month 2
Posted By: Mila
Subject: Debate of the Month 2
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 22:14
DEBATE of the month

Has the general understanding of women's history been shaped by men in order to conform to societal practices that oppress women?

I love belly dancing. I know most every style and movement, even those I'm not yet able to do (stupid Egyptians and the swords balancing on their heads while they spin as fast as figure skaters).

Belly dancing is, today, understood primarily as an Eastern form of seduction. It is most notably remembered as an Islamic style of dance originating from harems. Concubines did well to attract the attention of their masters and they developed elaborate methods - including dress, make-up, and - yes - belly dancing in order to achieve this goal.

Belly dancing is, we're led to believe, something that was invented for the pleasure of men.

In reality, there is an abundance of evidence that suggests belly dancing pre-dates Islam and was actually born as a method of female worship, dedicated to female divinities.

We'll never know the truth because the men who, more often than women recorded history, did not record it as such. Is this a fair assessment?

I believe it is, and I believe there are countless other examples littered throughout history.

At the same time, there is history that has been passed down by men that relates to women. Famous females like Cleopatra, Joan of Arc and others were remembered mainly by men. Our understanding of them today is certainly framed by male eyes but it is a detailed understanding that shreds any idea that women were purposely forgotten from history entirely.

There are also histories that have been passed down through women. An example would be rural villages throughout the former Yugoslavia where women, and only women, know exactly which plants can be used for which purpose and how to properly prepare them. This may not sound like a very impressive aspect of history but every plant comes with a story of women from centuries in the past and the circumstances that surrounded their use of it. Legends and myths, and a little bit of fact.

So - do you agree with the statement at the beginning of this post - why or why not? Share examples, possible solutions, ideas - whatever comes to mind.


-------------
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">



Replies:
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 01:06
The idea for this debate came from one of Komnenos' threads. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13253&KW=homer+woman - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13253&KW=homer+woman . When it was mentioned that the poem is too complex to have been written by a male, in one person's opinion, it made me wonder... would women have really remembered history vastly differently? Did women contribute significantly to historical memory as it is already or not? Etc.

I think women might have recorded history differently. Certainly the "good old days" wouldn't be remembered as such. Early Islamic history wouldn't be remembered as a paradise for women but as a time of hard work and more rewards for them, more rights - but people still died of infections caused by thorn scratches and things like this. Hmmm...


-------------
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 16:15
Mila, I'm not really sure what to respond here. I'm a bit confused as to the point you are trying to make. As I see it, women's oppression was something women were not even aware of. Women were traditionally raised to bow down to men and not trained to do anything else but please him and maintain a house, bear children and protect the family unit. That, in and of itself, is a HUGE job for any woman. Just being a housewife and mother(even in the modern world)is a 24/7 job. Historically, I don't think women knew that they were "oppressed" simply because that's how life was back then. Women had no time for anything else.

Mila, due to the lack of response from forumers here, I think maybe everyone else is also missing the point of this thread.   Do you mind elaborating a bit more? Thanks!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 16:32
I suppose what I'm wondering is if you think the memory of women's history is wrong. Could it be possible, for example, that most of Europe was matriarchial in the Dark Ages, or that Alexander the Great's mother was the one who conquered Greece, or whatever else you could imagine... is it possible that women's history as we understand is is wrong simply because we went through patriarchial phases and everything was remembered according to the objectives and points of view of men, etc...

-------------
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 20:22

*chauvinistic response*LOL

 

Nope. Women's history is not wrong. If we left it up to women to write history, it would have never been written - you women are so indecisive and melodramatic!

 

*a bit more serious response*

 

I think herstory would have been written much more differently. All you have to do is take a look at how non-Western history was written by the Western Europeans –it turned out to be highly ethnocentric, chauvinistic, and inaccurate. No doubt, herstory, would have presented a more positive view (and probably one more accurate as well) of women.


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 15:56
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No doubt, herstory, would have presented a more positive view (and probably one more accurate as well) of women.


True, but remember that historical women did not have the right to an education, did not have the right to get a job outside the home, did not have the right to participate in men's conversations, did not have the right to vote or participate in any political debates, did not have the right to live an adventurous life, etcetera. Women's role was that of being a wife and procreating. Women were totally dependent upon her male counterpart for survival!      

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 16:22
Originally posted by Mila

that Alexander the Great's mother was the one who conquered Greece, \
Maybe should know  of course dear Mila the name and the origin of Alexander mother before make again your known  arbitrarilies conclusions


-------------


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 16:36
Originally posted by morticia

Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No doubt, herstory, would have presented a more positive view (and probably one more accurate as well) of women.


True, but remember that historical women did not have the right to an education, did not have the right to get a job outside the home, did not have the right to participate in men's conversations, did not have the right to vote or participate in any political debates, did not have the right to live an adventurous life, etcetera. Women's role was that of being a wife and procreating. Women were totally dependent upon her male counterpart for survival!      
 
And that is why women were viewed so negatively as well. They were considered as "booty" or "spoils of  war" and not much thought was given to their suffering. Notice that MEN (in the guise of male historians) have been responsible for romanticizing war, and glorifying generals, and the soldiering profession while ignoring the fact that many of these so-called "skilled military generals" (i.e. Alexander the Great) were responsible for the mass rapes of women and their enslavement?
 
Had a woman actually written history, then no doubt, that in our schools, we would not be taught about what a great leader or conqueror Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun were - we'd be taught that they were pigs and rapists.
 
^^^ And that would be a far more accurate discription!
 
 


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 16:51
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

 And that is why women were viewed so negatively as well. They were considered as "booty" or "spoils of  war" and not much thought was given to their suffering. Notice that MEN (in the guise of male historians) have been responsible for romanticizing war, and glorifying generals, and the soldiering profession while ignoring the fact that many of these so-called "skilled military generals" (i.e. Alexander the Great) were responsible for the mass rapes of women and their enslavement?
 

Just to add  that sources to mention rapes(we the today derivation) and  e.t.c. we don't have recorded. The sexual possession of these bearers of status, whether legitimatedby marriage or not, was a particularly powerful symbol of victory-a kind of second victory, both sexual and military, over the males to whom the women had belonged. Victory as rape and conquest as sexual union were commonplaces of Greek literature, metaphors but more than metaphors

Thus, that Alexander came into control of the women of the Persian royal family and other women of the Persian elite after the battle of Issus in 333 BC meant both that he had achieved a real victory and that he had acquired a potent set of symbols of that victory which he could manipulate to his own ends in the varying contexts of Greek,and Persian audiences. However, these Persian women were or could be,thanks to another old Greek literary tradition, dangerously ambiguous symbols to the Greeks .

The family of Alexander's mother, the Aeacids, asserted their essential Hellenism via connection to the great saga of Troy, not only by claiming descent from Achilles, through his son Neoptolemus, but also from Andromache,the captive of Neoptolemus.The strong influence of the story of Troy in Greek literature has created the image of a male Greek conquering and taking captive an Asian woman.

By the 5th  century and after the  Greeks had defined themselves as superior because they had defeated Asians, Trojans and Persians had been conflated, and by then both were characterized as mere barbarians. Thus the capture  and marriege of Asian women by Greeks could be understood as part of the victory of civilization over barbarism.



-------------


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 17:05
I don't care for any justifications for it. Rape is rape and it is a heinous crime and male historians were wrong in glorifying such scoundrels and sexual predators such as Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan, and so many others.


Posted By: akritas
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 17:08
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

I don't care for any justifications for it. Rape is rape and it is a heinous crime and male historians were wrong in glorifying such scoundrels and sexual predators such as Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan, and so many others.
Agree with you, but we must consider also the circumstances(historical,social and political) in the era that we want to critisize.


-------------


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2006 at 17:20
No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
 
I can excuse the mass slaughter of able-bodied males who may have posed a threat to the conqueror, or the enslavement of these males, but I can never excuse rape. When Alexander was on top of a woman and she was screaming "No! Please no!" and trying to fight him off - he would have known that what he was doing was immoral, and a crime. The same goes for every other scumbag "warrior" who thought it was his "right" to rape as many enemy women as he could.


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 12:30
[QUOTE=Master_Blaster] No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong! /QUOTE]

Well said, MB! I agree 100% There are absolutely NO EXCUSES when it comes to rape!    

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2006 at 20:28
Thank you morticiaApprove
 
This is another example of how herstory may have been written differently. Too often, male historians have glorified war and excused the atrocities committed against women during wartime. We must never let male historians' version of history interfere with out view of sexual predators, and violators of women such as Alexander "the Great"!


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 10:47
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

This is another example of how herstory may have been written differently. Too often, male historians have glorified war and excused the atrocities committed against women during wartime. We must never let male historians' version of history interfere with out view of sexual predators, and violators of women such as Alexander "the Great"!

    
You're right, MB! It's almost as if women were the "booty prize" after a long day of battle for the men. It sickens me!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 21:07
morticia,
 
I don't know what is more disturbing, that soldiers would take possession of an enemy's women and do with them as they please, or that male historians have simply brushed this terrible part of history aside and excused it as "the spoils of war" or as "casualties of war"!
 
To the rape victim, I do not feel that she views or viewed herself as a "prize" for the victors or war or as a "spoil" or "casualty" or "unavoidable consequence" of war. It's truly disgusting that men would view it in such an unimportant and excusable manner.


Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 14:01
I think, at the time, women expected as much. Women's place in society was completely reliant on the men and I believe they saw nothing wrong, in essence, with being included in the failures of the men they chose. I'm not saying they liked what happened to them, but I don't believe they were shocked that it happened.

When the Sultans changed, the harems changed. The favorites were given comfortable retirement homes, most were set out on the street, many were killed. The thing is, they never expected anything different. When your Sultan died, that was it. You could be dead tomorrow, that's how it goes.

I think most women handled these things with a level of strength and dignity, honor, and all these male qualities that goes unnoticed. And that's what annoys me most about this situation.


-------------
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">


Posted By: Master_Blaster
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 16:42
Being a concubine is different than being the child of a commoner and having your entire life shattered by some ruthless soldiers who think they have the right to do with you as they please b/c they are the conquer and you are the conquered.
 
Speaking of sultans, I was watching the history channel the other day and they stated that the Turkish sultan of India, Akbar had 300 wives and 5,000 concubines in his harem. How does a single man satisfy so many women? I have trouble with one! :(


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 23:11
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

Speaking of sultans, I was watching the history channel the other day and they stated that the Turkish sultan of India, Akbar had 300 wives and 5,000 concubines in his harem. How does a single man satisfy so many women?

    
The sultan still has some catching up to football player, Wilt Chamberlain, who publicly admitted bedding 20,000 women in his lifetime. I don't understand it! Is that supposed to make them proud?

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 14:09
No it doesn't make them proud but 20,000 women that's like 4 women a dayConfused


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:26
Originally posted by Mila

DEBATE of the month

Belly dancing is, we're led to believe, something that was invented for the pleasure of men.

In reality, there is an abundance of evidence that suggests belly dancing pre-dates Islam and was actually born as a method of female worship, dedicated to female divinities.




While I don't know the case of Belly dancing, I would like to state that all dances in India (they are very ancient & elaborate) have had their origins as a method of worship. Female worship was & still is very common in India, The Indian religion has an equal number of godesses as their are Gods (& they are not inferior to the gods in status).

In fact in Indian mythology their are instances when Gods have failed to control or have been defeated by the demons (evil forces) & Godesses had to be called to finish off the demons. In our tradition Godesses are considered to be more powerful than the Gods.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:35
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

 
Speaking of sultans, I was watching the history channel the other day and they stated that the Turkish sultan of India, Akbar had 300 wives and 5,000 concubines in his harem. How does a single man satisfy so many women? I have trouble with one! :(


It's not suppose to be this way. The women were there to satisfy the sultan , not vice versa. The women's feelings off course had no meaning.

And talking of rape, their is still a law called the hudood law in Paksitan, which says that a raped woman to prove her rape has to furnish four male eye witnesses to the rape, to prove her claim. Other wise the act will be considered as adultery, where again the women has to bear the blame !



-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2006 at 11:11
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
 
I can excuse the mass slaughter of able-bodied males who may have posed a threat to the conqueror, or the enslavement of these males, but I can never excuse rape. When Alexander was on top of a woman and she was screaming "No! Please no!" and trying to fight him off - he would have known that what he was doing was immoral, and a crime. The same goes for every other scumbag "warrior" who thought it was his "right" to rape as many enemy women as he could.


It was wrong.  It may even be morally worse than killing thousands of men as you claim (although I would disagree with you there).  However, the rapes were ultimately for the same reason: just as killing all military age men would keep a city from rebelling in the short run, the rapes kept cities from fighting the conqueror in the long run.  They did this for a number of reasons: in a patrilinieal society, if a Persian woman say was raped by a Greek and got pregnant, the child was considered Greek.  The large number of people considered "Greek" in the city would fracture it, keeping its populace from rebelling anytime soon.  Also, the fact that any raped woman was considered unclean kept her from marrying and having actual Persian sons to fight the conquerors. 

So, no the question is, if they were done for exactly the same reason, is mass rape still worse than mass murder?


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 15:28
    

 

Originally posted by morticia

Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No doubt, herstory, would have presented a more positive view (and probably one more accurate as well) of women.


True, but remember that historical women did not have the right to an education, did not have the right to get a job outside the home, did not have the right to participate in men's conversations, did not have the right to vote or participate in any political debates, did not have the right to live an adventurous life, etcetera. Women's role was that of being a wife and procreating. Women were totally dependent upon her male counterpart for survival

Well it all depends were and what time.

It all started in the Stone age, Men were stronger so we went to go hunt most of the time, wile the Women stud and resided the kids, Women were dependent upon her male counterpart for survival as for the family being were dependent on the Tribe or Clan. Since we went hutting we stared making tools like the spear and we are bettor in mechanics then women, and sense woman raised the kids they started being better in multitasking then men!

During Roman times women in Rome had some jobs as well in religion, Pagan or Christen, and the Roman honored motherhood, I see women being a backbone in Human civilization being a mother help grow human civilization! With out parent hood we would be animals and humans cannot survive! It is a parent’s love that makes the human race survive!

Also woman had equal power in most barbarian tribes! Their were woman worriers and rulers in some barbarian tribes!

Originally posted by Master_Blaster

I don't care for any justifications for it. Rape is rape and it is a heinous crime and male historians were wrong in glorifying such scoundrels and sexual predators such as Alexander, Attila, Genghis Khan, and so many others.

I agree for it being wrong. Some did this act so they can out bred their enemies like the Gals, Also to have a half Roman and half Gals this makes more troops for the coming generations. Most historians do not glorify it. But men were not the only ones doing bad, their was a masker of London, it was a barbarian Women ruler that killed men, women, and children in that city whether they were Romans or not! And the barbarian men and WOMEN worries burned that city down, but after the Romans defeated the barbarian they built London back up.

We are all humans and we as Humans do bad and good things and it is the person to choose, this is my point!



-------------
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2006 at 09:46
Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
actaully i always assumed it was common in war (still is in places) we are judging this all in a modern perspective.


-------------


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2006 at 12:56
Originally posted by Leonidas


Originally posted by Master_Blaster

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!
actaully i always assumed it was common in war (still is in places) we are judging this all in a modern perspective.


Welcome Leonidas . Rape may be common in wars, but that doesn't make it right! It was wrong back then and it is still wrong now!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 06:39
Hi Morticia, just poking my nose in the womens forum.Smile

What i was saying is that we are judging it from a certain perspective in time and place. We just know better.

I'll try to explain my thoughts on rape in war, (i am not a very eloquant writer so apologies  in advance). I am influenced by the Freudian notion (as far as i understand)  that we are essientally voilent-sexual beings that basically are smart enough to relegated such impulses for the benifits (ie security) of society. We like to think of ourselves as being naturally civilised beings, i dont think that is the case. I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.

War is the anti-thesis of society. In war, even in the very latest ones we still see rape even if particular effected societies are culturally against it. I have heard of stories of quite normal men turning into complete animals once at war, many of the perpetrators wouldnt normally act like this. War is total violence, and in most cases, this has little or no boundaries and strips these men of the very 'civil'  rules that keeps them 'human'  It by its very action negates society and everything it controls and uphelds. I think that since society is temporarily detroyed by war this unleashes these real and very powerful atavistic forces back to the surface.

Now im not excusing rape but trying to understand it within that context


-------------


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 13:56
Originally posted by Leonidas

Hi Morticia, just poking my nose in the womens forum.


Hi Leonidas - you can poke your nose in the women's forum any time you want! I welcome you again!

Originally posted by Leonidas

What i was saying is that we are judging it from a certain perspective in time and place. We just know better. I'll try to explain my thoughts on rape in war, (i am not a very eloquant writer so apologies  in advance). I am influenced by the Freudian notion (as far as i understand)  that we are essientally voilent-sexual beings that basically are smart enough to relegated such impulses for the benifits (ie security) of society. We like to think of ourselves as being naturally civilised beings, i dont think that is the case. I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.War is the anti-thesis of society. In war, even in the very latest ones we still see rape even if particular effected societies are culturally against it. I have heard of stories of quite normal men turning into complete animals once at war, many of the perpetrators wouldnt normally act like this. War is total violence, and in most cases, this has little or no boundaries and strips these men of the very 'civil'  rules that keeps them 'human'  It by its very action negates society and everything it controls and uphelds. I think that since society is temporarily detroyed by war this unleashes these real and very powerful atavistic forces back to the surface.Now im not excusing rape but trying to understand it within that context


I see your point, and, as human beings, we are still "animals" (in a sense) and will always have those animalistic instincts and tendencies which have made the species survive for as long as it has. However, it's important to learn from past mistakes so the same mistakes will not be committed again. Not very much has progressed though, I fear. Women are still getting raped, women are still considered second class citizens, women are still being oppressed, women are still not considered men's equal, there are still wars (we all know about that), etcetera. So you see, not much has changed at all!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 02:32
Right, not much has changed, except that the world policing has got stronger, which is infact better for all. 

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 27-Oct-2006 at 22:14
Originally posted by morticia


I see your point, and, as human beings, we are still "animals" (in a sense) and will always have those animalistic instincts and tendencies which have made the species survive for as long as it has. However, it's important to learn from past mistakes so the same mistakes will not be committed again. Not very much has progressed though, I fear. Women are still getting raped, women are still considered second class citizens, women are still being oppressed, women are still not considered men's equal, there are still wars (we all know about that), etcetera. So you see, not much has changed at all!

We do learn from our mistakes logically, or we wouldnt have the societies we have. But what happens when those deep powerful forces are unleashed has nothing to do with logic, its the complete opposite of logic.

Humans have not evolved/progressed on that level as quickly as the societies we build. This is a massive disconnect, I think that is not understood well enough (especailly by our leaders) and this to me is the real problem.  Its simple when we go to war, our society/world goes to the monkeys, understand that effect of war on the human condition and manage accordingly. The only way you can avoid it, sadly is by limiting wars or at least the scale/scope in which they are conducted.

I would seperate war/rape with more general womens inequality. War is a particular situation of chaos that makes everyone victims in different ways,. At the same time women are getting raped (and killed), men are blowing each other up, all beacuse of these same primal demons.

Domestic violence is more particular to men vs women issues. This is something that can be controlled through law and eduction. No country can be successful if half it population is treated as sub human.



-------------


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2006 at 21:28
It sounds unfair, yes. I am slightly uncomfortable with this situation... but a sentence justifies all in historical matter.
 
"Winner makes the history"
 
It sucks, but it's the reality.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: New User
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 04:26
I have read about early women having a much larger role in society and even hunting when the men did the heavier work of scavenging back in prehistory. I shall try and retrieve the book and source it for everyone.
 
As to the male role in the forming of history, its a very interesting subject with which I have been thinking about for a while. As a woman, I read about people, then sort of re assess them when I find out they thought women were inferior or something ie Napolean. Have any other women found periods of history being talked about as a golden age or something, only to think "sounds like hell for the women?" I do and have on many occassion, I shudder to think what they have gone through over the ages..
 
I don't like the line when it comes to women's rights in historical times that "that was they was it was, they knew and wanted no different" that doesn't work adequately for me.
 
There are many examples of women who did not toe the line in varying times of history. Historical views and enquiries on lesbians by women writers, for example ,throw up whole new lines of thought when it comes to looking at certain eras.
 
There are many oft forgotten aspects of women's history, presumably due to the male dominated writing of it, that are being re examined. There are many books on the subject and a whole area in history to deal with such questions.
 
I find it exciting that history is now being looked at so closely from a growing female perspective. New perspectives on an old subject..fab
 
 
Great thread


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 13:36
Thank you, New User, and welcome to the women's forum. Here, you can get many issues from a woman's perspective. I thank you for your contribution and participation.

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: conon394
Date Posted: 23-May-2007 at 10:22

member_profile.asp?PF=3551&FID=39 - Master_Blaster

 

No, we don't need to take anything into consideration when it involves RAPE! It has always been wrong! And will always be wrong!

 

I can excuse the mass slaughter of able-bodied males who may have posed a threat to the conqueror, or the enslavement of these males, but I can never excuse rape. When Alexander was on top of a woman and she was screaming "No! Please no!" and trying to fight him off - he would have known that what he was doing was immoral, and a crime. The same goes for every other scumbag "warrior" who thought it was his "right" to rape as many enemy women as he could.

 

 

 

Seems like an odd moral standpoint, you are fine with the mass slaughter of men, but not ok with the mass rape of women (I guess the men and boys undergoing mass execution offer no pleas or struggle).

 

That is your fine with executing a man and taking away any and everything that person might have done but that somehow pales in comparison to raping women? And while you might be right in the general assumption that mass rape occurred in conjunction with the often terse classical descriptions sacked cites is, but why not also consider that potential for equal degradation to have been handed out to men and boys before their deaths.

 

But whatever the crimes of Alexander committed of his female victims I would question the absolute assumption of some out of time everlasting crime (would the women of Macedonia secure from such treatment at the hands of invaders for the first time in several generations because of the army of Philip and Alexander have agreeded) . Consider the Delian league was formed not to free Greeks or other such rot, but to for revenge and plunder against Persia. Did Athenian women judge the assumed rape of Persian subjects (either by league troops or when their captive women were sold into slavery?) as some vile evil or did they rather perhaps note that war booty helped to make Athens the most secure and wealthy Greek polis in the world? This fact might have been rather germane since they would have been only a decade or so removed from the fact of their own (almost)  mass rape and spectacle of the mass execution of their fathers, brothers, husbands and sons… I would wonder if they shed many tears for Persia and it's subjects.



Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 05:47
I would contend we only have the ability to be civilised, but we also have deeper primal forces in our make up that are the complete opposite. Baggage. They havent gone anywhere, but just take the back seat when things are good.
 
Yeah, I would agree with that - we are fundamentally animals and still have those tendancies, despite being buried under centuries of attempting to control them. People who say that "I am selfless" and that "I care only for other human beings" are not being true to their origins, because frankly, the most important thing fundamentally to a human is themself and their offspring - nothing can change that. Read Nietze "Beyond good and evil" - although his work is fundamentally a sandwhich of layers of insanity next to layers of genius, he makes a good point of illustrating this seeming denial of animalistic tendancies.
 
...Anyway, back to what we are talking about- many people seem to have the idea that a woman in them middle ages, say, KNEW that she was being oppressed (Well, oppressed in that sense is a product of our own times and culture), whereas the fact of the matter is that she thought that it was NORMAL for her to be unequal.
 

That is your fine with executing a man and taking away any and everything that person might have done but that somehow pales in comparison to raping women? And while you might be right in the general assumption that mass rape occurred in conjunction with the often terse classical descriptions sacked cites is, but why not also consider that potential for equal degradation to have been handed out to men and boys before their deaths.

Look at Nanking - the psycological effects of those poor women is just as bad as being at the Srebnica massacre.


-------------


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:18
Originally posted by Earl Aster

...whereas the fact of the matter is that she thought that it was NORMAL for her to be unequal.


Well, I think it's time to change that kind of thinking! It is true, however, that women of that era only knew how to be submissive and obedient to her "master". It was probably the only way to survive! That is why the ones that were outspoken were "burned at the stake" or "stoned to death" or just plainly "killed". Thank goodness those day are over (well, at least in most parts of the world).

Thank you for your contribution to the women's forum, Earl Aster, and welcome!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:48
Yes, it is time to change that kind of thinking, but people can't argue that Women in the middle ages were oppressed because to their minds, it wasn't oppression. We are viewing oppression from our cultural context. To all of us here (I hope!), what's been done to women throughout history has been repellant, but that's our cultural attitude of today, and we can't apply that to many periods in history. 

-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 09:05
Ahem! Let's move on to higher things. Where did belly dancing come from? From pre-Islamic temple worship to the moon. A woman could fulfil her triple promise of the perfect union of body, mind and soul by doing the sacred dance of women's mysteries. In her belly shines the jewel, the flashing connection of light between the womb and the all-shining Mother above that shines on her daughters,  the containers of pure goodness, and a woman after dancing could count herself truly blessed. The dance was a sacred act, a freedom from the world. To think of pleasing either male of female desires at such times would be as shocking as having wrong thoughts during religious services. In Iran the women still gather to dance in the ancient ways and men are not allowed.

The name of Allah came from an earlier moon-god, married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters, depending on the culture. Temples to the moon are found from the mountains of Turkey to the Nile. The Sumerians, described the moon deity as either male or female depending upon the season of the year. The popular names of Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar indicate the lunar aspects of the Goddess sailing through the night sky. The moon symbol became the crescent moon in ancient Mesopotamia.

The later Assyrians, Babylonians and Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin, a revised name for the Moon. Sin was a Sumerian name borrowed by the Semites. In ancient Syria the crescent became a symbol of the most sacred. The full moon is placed inside the crescent moon to emphasise lunar phases. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars their daughters. Ishtar was one of the daughters daughter of Sin. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of religious statues.

In the ancient world the symbol of the crescent moon was everywhere - on seal impressions, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals and so on. In Ur the crescent symbol is for the Moon as the head of all life. Bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion. The city of Ur was devoted to the worship and was
sometimes called Nannar, meaning "of the moon". Sir Leonard Woolley when excavating temples in Ur, found many examples of moon worship and are on display at the British Museum. In the 1950's another major temple was excavated and two statues found. Each was of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon on his chest to show the god. Smaller statues had inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon.

Scholars dug up thousands of inscriptions with many discoveries in Arabia. Other sites have been excavated at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions have been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted with the god represented by a crescent moon above them. In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC) the last king of Babylon, built Tayma in Arabia as a centre for Moon worship. The Moon's name "Sin" is a part of Arabic place names such as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," and so on.

The Arabs worshipped many gods at Mecca with the Moon as chief deity. Mecca was first constructed as a shrine to the Moon. In 1944, a temple of the Moon was uncovered in southern Arabia. The symbols of the crescent moon and inscriptions with the name Sin were found, his title was al-ilah "the deity," meaning the chief or high god among the gods. The god Il or Ilah was a phase of the moon.

Within Mohamed's lifetime he turned the previous moon worship into Islam (brotherhood of man). The god of the moon called al-ilah was shortened to Allah in the pre-Islamic times and used in birth names. Both Mohamed's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The people already believed this god as supreme among many. Mohamed revealed Allah as the only god. This new way of worship for the world removed wife, daughters and relatives.

The symbol of Islam still is the crescent moon displayed on top of mosques and minarets. A crescent moon waves on the flags of Islamic nations. Muslims fast during the month that begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon. Islam arose and adapted the best traditions of previous symbols, rituals, and ceremonies to monotheism.

Hail Queen, great Moon, white-armed Divinity.
Fair-haired and favourable I thus with thee
My song beginning, by its music sweet,
Shall make immortal many a glorious feat
Of demigods, with lovely lips, so well
Which minstrels, servants of the Muses, tell.

Homer.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: morticia
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 15:16
Very insightful of you, Elenos. Thank you!

-------------
"Morty

Trust in God: She will provide." -- Emmeline Pankhurst


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 13:58
Elenos
 
(Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005770# - al-Ilah, “the God.” The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allah is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians…
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005770/Allah - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005770/Allah


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 15:30
Thankyou es bih, please feel free to correct me on these points. Yes, the name the religion of Islam uses and the Arabic name used in the Near East are considered as separate. I didn't want to mention El and his female consort for my articles was getting too long.

-------------
elenos


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 10:20
Elenos
 
Most of what you have presented are christian polemics.Here is a usefull site that looks into the development of the moon God myth of Moonothiesm.
 
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html
 
Any Turk on this forum will tell you that the symbol of the moon on mosques and flags is down to their influence, than the residual effects of ancient moon worship. Over time becoming a shorthand for depicting muslims.
 
Islam is truly an Abrahamic faith, consider the discussion of Abraham on the moon god:
 
"ABRAHAM DISCOVERS THE FIRST CAUSE

Our forefather Abraham began his search for the infinite dimension when he was three years old with a very simple, yet piercing question -- the kind of question most three year olds ask when they see something for the first time.

"Whose is it?"

One day little Abraham sees the moon and asks his father, "Dad, who owns the moon?"His father answers in the way of any self-respecting idol worshipper: "It belongs to the moon god, son," as he pulls the moon god off the shelf to show him.

Abraham's next question is, "Well who owns the moon god?"

With this simple question, Abraham is on the cusp of discovering the source of creation. He realizes that finite gods have a beginning, something that existed prior that created them. So Abraham keeps going backwards through the process, searching for the beginning of it all, disregarding the finite gods that exist in time and space. Eventually he reaches God with a capital G, the Being that existed before there ever was time, and asks, "Well, who created God? Where did He come from?"

A being that exists beyond time doesn't come from anywhere. He has always existed. If something created God, God would have a beginning and He'd be finite, not infinite. Beyond time means having no beginning and no end. Eternal. It means there is nothing that exists before God. 'Before' is a time-bound quality that applies only to finite entities. Therefore God is called "the First Cause" -- the Prime Mover -- the dimension that has no other dimension preceding it.

Abraham discovers the infinite source of existence, an Eternal Being, unhindered by time and space. "

Jewish source: http://www.aish.com/SSI/articleToPrint.asp?PageURL=/spirituality/philosophy/God_An_Introduction.xml&torahportion - http://www.aish.com/SSI/articleToPrint.asp?PageURL=/spirituality/philosophy/God_An_Introduction.xml&torahportion =
 
Abraham in the Quran:
"6:74 Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? for I see thee and thy people in manifest error."
75 So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth that he might (with understanding) have certitude.
76 When the night covered him over he saw a star: he said: "this is my Lord." But when it set he said: "I love not those that set."
77 When he saw the moon rising in splendor He said: "This is my Lord." but when the moon set he said: "Unless my Lord guide me I shall surely be among those who go astray."
78 When he saw the sun rising in splendor he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)." But when the sun set he said: "O my people! I am (now) free from your (guilt) of giving partners to Allah.
79 "For me I have set my face firmly and truly toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah.""
 
From the Quran, on Manat, Lat, Uzza :

Allah the Exalted rebukes the idolators for worshipping idols and taking rivals to Him. They built houses for their idols to resemble the Ka`bah built by Prophet Ibrahim, Allah's Khalil.

[أَفَرَءَيْتُمُ اللَّـتَ]

(Have you then considered Al-Lat,) Al-Lat was a white stone with inscriptions on. There was a house built around Al-Lat in At-Ta'if with curtains, servants and a sacred courtyard around it. The people of At-Ta'if, the tribe of Thaqif and their allies, worshipped Al-Lat. They would boast to Arabs, except the Quraysh, that they had Al-Lat. Ibn Jarir said, "They derived Al-Lat's name from Allah's Name, and made it feminine. Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him. It was reported that Al-Lat is pronounced Al-Lat because, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid, and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq (a kind of barley mash) with water for the pilgrims during the time of Jahiliyyah. When he died, they remained next to his grave and worshipped him.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,

[اللَّـتَ وَالْعُزَّى]

(Al-Lat, and Al-`Uzza.) "Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq for the pilgrims.'' Ibn Jarir said, "They also derived the name for their idol Al-`Uzza from Allah's Name Al-`Aziz. Al-`Uzza was a tree on which the idolators placed a monument and curtains, in the area of Nakhlah, between Makkah and At-Ta'if. The Quraysh revered Al-`Uzza.'' During the battle of Uhud, Abu Sufyan said, "We have Al-`Uzza, but you do not have Al-`Uzza.'' Allah's Messenger replied,

«قُولُوا: اللهُ مَوْلَانَا وَلَا مَوْلَى لَكُم»

(Say, "Allah is Our Supporter, but you have no support.'') Manat was another idol in the area of Mushallal near Qudayd, between Makkah and Al-Madinah. The tribes of Khuza`ah, Aws and Khazraj used to revere Manat during the time of Jahiliyyah. They used to announce Hajj to the Ka`bah from next to Manat. Al-Bukhari collected a statement from `A'ishah with this meaning. There were other idols in the Arabian Peninsula that the Arabs revered just as they revered the Ka`bah, besides the three idols that Allah mentioned in His Glorious Book. Allah mentioned these three here because they were more famous than the others. An-Nasa'i recorded that Abu At-Tufayl said, "When the Messenger of Allah conquered Makkah, he sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the area of Nakhlah where the idol of Al-`Uzza was erected on three trees of a forest. Khalid cut the three trees and approached the house built around it and destroyed it. When he went back to the Prophet and informed him of the story, the Prophet said to him,

«ارْجِعْ فَإِنَّكَ لَمْ تَصْنَعْ شَيْئًا»

(Go back and finish your mission, for you have not finished it.) Khalid went back and when the custodians who were also its servants of Al-`Uzza saw him, they started invoking by calling Al-`Uzza! When Khalid approached it, he found a naked woman whose hair was untidy and who was throwing sand on her head. Khalid killed her with the sword and went back to the Messenger of Allah , who said to him,

«تِلْكَ الْعُزَّى»

(That was Al-`Uzza!)'' Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated, "Al-Lat belonged to the tribe of Thaqif in the area of At-Ta'if. Banu Mu`attib were the custodians of Al-Lat and its servants.'' I say that the Prophet sent Al-Mughirah bin Shu`bah and Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb to destroy Al-Lat. They carried out the Prophet's command and built a Masjid in its place in the city of At-Ta'if. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that Manat used to be the idol of the Aws and Khazraj tribes and those who followed their religion in Yathrib (Al-Madinah). Manat was near the coast, close to the area of Mushallal in Qudayd. The Prophet sent Abu Sufyan Sakhr bin Harb or `Ali bin Abi Talib to demolish it. Ibn Ishaq said that Dhul-Khalasah was the idol of the tribes of Daws, Khath`am and Bajilah, and the Arabs who resided in the area of Tabalah. I say that Dhul-Khalasah was called the Southern Ka`bah, and the Ka`bah in Makkah was called the Northern Ka`bah. The Messenger of Allah sent Jarir bin `Abdullah Al-Bajali to Dhul-Khalasah and he destroyed it. Ibn Ishaq said that Fals was the idol of Tay' and the neighboring tribes in the Mount of Tay', such as Salma and Ajja. Ibn Hisham said that some scholars of knowledge told him that the Messenger of Allah sent `Ali bin Abi Talib to Fals and he destroyed it and found two swords in its treasure, which the Prophet then gave to `Ali as war spoils. Muhammad bin Ishaq also said that the tribes of Himyar, and Yemen in general, had a house of worship in San`a' called Riyam. He mentioned that there was a black dog in it and that the religious men who went with Tubba` removed it, killed it and demolished the building. Ibn Ishaq said that Ruda' was a structure of Bani Rabi`ah bin Ka`b bin Sa`d bin Zayd Manat bin Tamim, which Al-Mustawghir bin Rabi`ah bin Ka`b bin Sa`d demolished after Islam. In Sindad there was Dhul-Ka`bat, the idol of the tribes of Bakr and Taghlib, the sons of the Wa'il, and also the Iyad tribes.

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=53&tid=50962 - http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=53&tid=50962
 


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2007 at 19:14

You’re quite right of course, Malizai, I’m not one to argue over holy words. The subject here is about female ethnic practices and in particular the origins of belly dancing. Where did this female idea come from? What makes it so Middle Eastern is that it is a regular female practice. It’s another subject entirely to say what the men did.

On another level (far away from belly dancing) the moon and God are two different subjects. I’m sure some intelligent men and women of those times figured out something else out there, but were surrounded by the beliefs and practices of their times, the same as we are by ours.   

Quote; “When Khalid approached it, he found a naked woman whose hair was untidy and who was throwing sand on her head. Khalid killed her with the sword and went back to the Messenger of Allah.”

Oh please! Any talk, call it religious or not, about an armed man killing a naked and otherwise helpless female is entirely inappropriate in this kind of discussion.



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2008 at 20:02
A bit revolted at the statement that one would rather see men and boys die rather then a woman raped. I'm not even going to judge one or the other worse, but simply making that judgement by yourself is disgusting. I read through the thread and right now I don't remember exactly who wrote it but your statement makes me sick to the stomach.
 
Next, what is with everyone here assuming that Alexander for example went from city to city just raping women? And then next you equate it with some sort of personal struggle in your life simply based on one person's happening to be a woman that you imagine struggled under a supposed thrusting Alexander. I don't know maybe people get off on that type of thing, and I mean it in the sense that they like to be a victim in one way or another.
 
Next, what is with this "Men wrote history so we only know the world through men's perspectives" like men are some sort of alien concept to women completely. History is written through the hands and eyes of HUMANS. Please put away the pity violin because it doesn't help any discussion concerning history.
 
Lastly, what is with this assumption by some people that somehow the world would automatically be better if women had been rulers. Women did rule. Some were good like Joan of Arc, some were bad like Bloody Marry.
 
In conclusion I think people today in general especially in the west have this boy vs girl mentality that is instilled in them at a very young age. Us and them which I hope everyone will eventually out grow. We all have pretty much the same parts arranged a little bit differently. We aren't a different species. Stop the childishness.
 
Now back to belly dancing.
 
I think just like anything else if you want to see something sexual in it you will. But even the sex/animal/instict freudians here have to agree that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6autbeh_tUk - http://youtube.com/watch?v=6autbeh_tUk
 
He's considered one of the best in the world and i'd have to agree.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 21:44
Well actually History has been traditionally wirtten through the hands of men and through the perspective of men. If you look at narratives of female saints you will often notice how they are exceptional women for having "passed over feminine shortcomings," the chronicle of King Louis VII comes to mind, written by Odo of Deuill where he denigrates the Byzantines to have "sucummbed to the state of women." Such remarks are rather offensive in the modern context, but in their conemporaries eyes they were the norm. I am not making a blanket statement that women were complete slaves to men pre-moden era, but there were negatives that came from living in that period surely. Rape was a reality in that time. It happened quite frequently with the taking of cities, etc... lets not forget slave holding societies where oft there were female slaves held as sex workers (practically forced prostitution), and as sex slaves by their owners. Those bits you overlook in your post.


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 21:49
I didn't deny that there weren't discriminating men. There is discrimination against every walk of life. My issue is this dramatization of this supposed en masse rape. And while I believe sometimes it happened, I don't believe in the dramatic way it has been posted here by some of the people here, such as the one that would rather see men and boys be killed rather then women raped. Both are horrible actions, to act as if the death of another is worth more then the "sexual purity" or whatever is just shocking to me.
 
So no i'm not over looking any of those. I think you are missing my point entirely.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 03:04
Originally posted by Mila

I suppose what I'm wondering is if you think the memory of women's history is wrong. Could it be possible, for example, that most of Europe was matriarchial in the Dark Ages, or that Alexander the Great's mother was the one who conquered Greece, or whatever else you could imagine... is it possible that women's history as we understand is is wrong simply because we went through patriarchial phases and everything was remembered according to the objectives and points of view of men, etc...
 
Curious question. Comming from a society that had the reputation of being machist (hispanic), but that in the reality is very matriarcal, it is difficult for me to answer it.
 
First, form where you get the idea women lacked power or education in ancient times? The fact is that some of the strongest men of history.... were in fact women. LOL 
I don't think in women as second class citizens in characters like Queen Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I that had the world at theirs hands, or to theirs modern daughters Golda Meier or Margaret Tatcher.
 
In my own country we have had quite a share of powerfull women, including a catholic nun and swordwoman that killed almost thirty man in duels Confused
 
Anyways, no matter what I have already said, it is interesting to note  that certain traditions are mainly preserved by woman. Certain handcrafts such as pottery and weaving of traditional and indigenous patterns are preserved only in female lines. The same is true in the latin american cooking, which is a tradition invented and preserved by our women.
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 04:00
Very good point.
 
I guess one of my beliefs is this. Not to consider people based on their gender. This sort of mentality seeks to disunify rather then unify us. For example in my Church there are many women saints that play a large role. But I don't think "oh that saint is a woman this and that" she is who she is as a person. I'm not going to make her gender a focal point and quite frankly it is irrelevant.
 
That is why I think "women's studies" and "women's history" are harmful to everyone. Because it can't be your study or history simply because of one gender or another. We all share the same history, planet, literature, whatever based on culture. Getting loud and screaming "omg teh rapes teh rapes" doesn't make any difference. Everyone did bad things. Men, women, Romans, Han, Persians, Amazons, Sarmatians etc etc etc.
 
I'm not disrespecting women. I admire people based on their personal abilities and achievements. The fact that they are men or women is just a physical trait. And studying one or the other in a "women's history" type conotation is about as useful as studying "Left handed people's history."


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 06:36
Studying women's history is useful because oft a lot of it had been undermined and omitted due to chronicler's biases about women. That did of course happen en masse as highly patriarchical societies are most prevalent. Denigrating a male into a female role as I cited in Odo of Deuil's work was obviously done under the precept that Women to begin with were on a lower status, thus the male or males that Odo announces degrade themselves through such acts into such a state of being. Sounds pretty offensive to me. You cannot take the modern context of everybody is equal and the character counts and impose it on previous eras. Then You end up with the perception that that happened only sometimes, when in reality it happened quite more often.

-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 06:55
And you are coming in with the assumption that chroniclers in general had a bias against women. Sorry but I find it hard to believe that most or even just many men would simply omit historical achievements due to someone being a woman. "Oh great discovery but she's a woman so we'll just ignore it and no one will remember." Do you honestly think most chroniclers (men) thought like this?
 
And your quote about Odo's sexism also shows a more equal treatment in the "Byzantine" Empire.
 
The only thing I am taking into context of the modern era is the neo femenist movement today, a reactionary movement due to the puritan mentality in America which is swinging the pendulant the other way in an extremist manner. I mean we have people here who deem it better to have men and boys die rather then a woman being raped. I wonder what the moderators would say for example if such a sentiment had been in a reverse role. Perhaps people thought that she is entitled to say such a thing because "after all women suffered badly" but favorable sexism is still sexism. Sort of how Suzane B Anthoney was not thrown in jail "because she was just a woman after all." I find the femenist movement these days and for about 50 or 60 years now, hypocritical and contra constructive. Now we have femenistic historical revisionism.
 
Such as how before the big bad evil men came with their patriarchal society ideas based on war slavery and rape, people lived in peace in nature loving equal matriachal societies. Take for example how one prominent femenist historian says that in Lithuania it was all peace love and tolerance in the pagan mathriarcal society until the evil male teutonic knights showed up and changed it all to an evil male led world etc and etc. Make no doubt the Teutonic Knights can all swim Peipus in full armor where Saint Alexander put them but the assumption of the society pre northern crusades is the counter historical, wishful thinking and pure revisionism.
 
In conclusion...hai sa fim babe seriuase meaning "Let's be serious old ladies."
 
 
Edit: I'm not saying we don't study women in history. I'm saying why focus it into something narrow like that? Why not simply have history encompass everyone instead of disecting it into a male part and a female part. I don't think B Anthoney had this sort of intention.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 07:33
I believe woman history is just human history. Woman had always played an important role in history. It is true that certain societies had discriminated women, but even when woman didn't vote as in Victorian britain, the country itself was ruled by a woman!
Abusses and discrimination still exist against woman, and in certain societies woman are the target of abortions! That's really sad and true. However, that doesn't mean that all societies have been like that at all. It is well know that in the so called "primitive" societies woman usually had more power and respect than in the pre-industrial civilizations! Some went wrong along the way, that's true, but at least humanity is fixing things up.
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 17:37
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

And you are coming in with the assumption that chroniclers in general had a bias against women. Sorry but I find it hard to believe that most or even just many men would simply omit historical achievements due to someone being a woman. "Oh great discovery but she's a woman so we'll just ignore it and no one will remember." Do you honestly think most chroniclers (men) thought like this?
 
And your quote about Odo's sexism also shows a more equal treatment in the "Byzantine" Empire.
 
The only thing I am taking into context of the modern era is the neo femenist movement today, a reactionary movement due to the puritan mentality in America which is swinging the pendulant the other way in an extremist manner. I mean we have people here who deem it better to have men and boys die rather then a woman being raped. I wonder what the moderators would say for example if such a sentiment had been in a reverse role. Perhaps people thought that she is entitled to say such a thing because "after all women suffered badly" but favorable sexism is still sexism. Sort of how Suzane B Anthoney was not thrown in jail "because she was just a woman after all." I find the femenist movement these days and for about 50 or 60 years now, hypocritical and contra constructive. Now we have femenistic historical revisionism.
 
Such as how before the big bad evil men came with their patriarchal society ideas based on war slavery and rape, people lived in peace in nature loving equal matriachal societies. Take for example how one prominent femenist historian says that in Lithuania it was all peace love and tolerance in the pagan mathriarcal society until the evil male teutonic knights showed up and changed it all to an evil male led world etc and etc. Make no doubt the Teutonic Knights can all swim Peipus in full armor where Saint Alexander put them but the assumption of the society pre northern crusades is the counter historical, wishful thinking and pure revisionism.
 
In conclusion...hai sa fim babe seriuase meaning "Let's be serious old ladies."
 
 
Edit: I'm not saying we don't study women in history. I'm saying why focus it into something narrow like that? Why not simply have history encompass everyone instead of disecting it into a male part and a female part. I don't think B Anthoney had this sort of intention.
 
Well actually... Odo does not show any type of equality in the Byzantine Empire, he does not concern himself with it, he concerns himself with the voyage of Louis and he has a clear anti Byzantine bias. That is another topic however, what you can gather out of it though is that he insults Byzantines of being just like women in other words they are trechorous, lower rank than men etc etc etc... Such little phrases shed a light on society.
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 02:53
Well if the Byzantines were being "Womanly" and the Byzantines didn't have a problem with being "Womanly" obviously they didn't share Odo's mentality in such a sense.
 
Little phrases like that shed light on Odo and perhaps the society he comes from. The Byzantines have many women which they honor as rulers, saints and martyrs.
 
And little phrases like that are shed even today. For example if a man and a woman get into a physical fight (we'll assume no one started it.) and the man loses. Pffft ha! He lost to a girl. And this isn't even in fights, but in all sorts of other activities. And these statements are echoed just as loudly by women as well, at least in the American culture I grew up in where there is ever so much this "battle of the sexes" ingrained in people's minds since their early years of education.
 
Sticking to my example I have a question for you or any man. Would you hit a woman? If a woman attacked you would you hit her? Or would you treat her differently because she is a woman. As nice as it is to say "no no i'd refrain from it" think of the other side of the coin which you are leaving. This means you either consider women lower then men, or men lower then women. In any case it is sexism. As for me, anyone who attacks me physically I will fight whomever I need to. My mother taught me this. I believe this is truer equality. This doesn't mean i'm going to go around and beat up women. The real thing to consider, the real question is am I going to go around and beat up PEOPLE. His gender division is inefficient mentally, socially, spiritually, in every sense.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 05:08
Actually what I am trying to convey to you that it has NOTHING to do with how they behaved or what they did. He was insulting them because he has a hatred for all things Byzantine. He was a retainer of King Louis VII's and he feels that the Greeks were traitors. Thus he INSULTS them by calling them women. Again let me point out it has nothing to do with how they actually behaved. He is calling them women because they are LOW in his eyes and TREACHEROUS. Read the source instead of implying some sort of social commentary of the Byzantines when the source only reveals his views of women in that section.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 05:29
And how do his views translate to "the world was dark and so sexist in the past that women couldn't even lift their eyes from the ground!" and all this type of femenist historical revisionsim which seems to be held as fact by some people?
 
I'm sure if you call a man a woman today they'll be insulted. And if you call a woman a man today they will be insulted too. It's all perspective.


Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 06:28

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I'm not disrespecting women. I admire people based on their personal abilities and achievements. The fact that they are men or women is just a physical trait. And studying one or the other in a "women's history" type conotation is about as useful as studying "Left handed people's history."

And why not study left-handed peoples' history? Besides the obvious question of why a minority population in every society is left-handed, there are some culture-specific questions that are worth looking into (such as how "sinister" came to mean malicious, and how this association affected the treatment of lefties). It's always worth looking at history from different perspectives, since no single perspective can see the whole picture.

Women thoughout history have faced challenges that men haven't (at the most basic level, things like childbirth), and how they faced these challenges is part of history. Combined with the fact that women (leaving aside the extent of any oppression in whatever society) have traditionally been under-represented in the historical record, this makes studying their experiences a valuable pursuit.

As for what it was like to be a woman in Byzantium, the only valid way to find that out would be to look for the writings of Byzantine women and see what they said about their lives. In which case, you're studying women's history. Having no information on the subject myself, for all I know it may well be that being a woman in Byantium was no different than being a man. But there would be no way to verify that assertion without a specific examination of Byzantine women's experiences.

And this goes back to the problem originally identified in this discussion. There are far fewer first-person accounts of life from a female perspective in many societies than from a male one, and on many occasions men have either ignored women entirely or assigned them a place in society that wasn't necessarily the one the women themselves wanted.

Important women have indeed been pushed aside by later male chroniclers. The example that comes to mind for me is Jingu, the martial leader considered the 15th emperor of Japan from the time the rolls were first written down in the sixth century until the 19th century, when she was demoted to consort to her emperor husband and regent to her emperor son. Her rule, and her invasion of Korea, were declared to be legends. Not coincidentally, the 19th century Meiji Restoration was also the time when it was decided that only a man could be emperor.



Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 07:33
You can look at any and all perspectives but when you segregate history even just in name it is harmful to both men  and women I believe.


Posted By: HistoryGangsta
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 10:26
I think that Belly dancing celebrates women's sexuality  not for men. Smile



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com