Definition of Sexism

[CriticalGaming]

thus a biological need to get knocked up at 15-16-17 is dubious

Well obviously we don't like this anymore. I'm merely explaining why it was a thing in the early ages and in no way am I trying to imply going back to such things.

Nobody had a plan like "maybe 3 kids, two girls and a boy" like they nowadays might.

I think this is wrong actually. People specifically had a shit load of kids, as many as possible actually, the reason being....the more kids you had, the more help you had in the tribe/farm/higher chance your family continues for future generations.

I guess people didn't "plan" for it the way you imply. But I would argue that most people don't plan out their family in that way the way they used too in the 1950's.

But all of that is beyond the scope of this discussion, though it does help the argument of showing how different people are between the sexes and the reasons behind all of it.

 

[McElroy]

I think this is wrong actually. People specifically had a shit load of kids, as many as possible actually, the reason being....the more kids you had, the more help you had in the tribe/farm/higher chance your family continues for future generations.

Can't go back and ask them.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Can't go back and ask them.

This is true, but anthropology does piece things to together through remains of old societies and explains a lot of this stuff. I remember learning about a lot of it in high school science classes.

I do believe that modern farmer's tend to have a lot of kids for this very reason though, so some of that has continued on through the ages. Though machinery has reduced the people requirement on top of simply being able to hire people from outside.

EDIT: As a point of order to your response though. You know who we can ask? Modern women.

We can ask women on the street things like, "Why are you not a computer programmer? Why aren't you into engineering? Why didn't you join the army?" And see what real people actually say to those responses.

The counterpoint most progressives would use against these answers, is to blame it on society. Women aren't interested, or successful in those non-female dominated industries because society DEMANDS it. Because they can't use real people and real data as proof that their theory holds no basis. It's always some abstract pressure that acts to blame.

It's like saying God made me do it. There is no proof, and no evidence that God told you to do anything, yet it's just an improvable excuse that nobody is allowed to question.

 

[McElroy]

I do believe that modern farmer's tend to have a lot of kids for this very reason though, so some of that has continued on through the ages. Though machinery has reduced the people requirement on top of simply being able to hire people from outside.

When arable land was plentiful or practically infinite in some places with slash and burn, a culture that had plenty of kids who then went to the frontiers could be a successful one. On the other hand having a lot of kids without land to spread out would lead to starvation and violence (and this can't be compared to modern countryside in developing countries where people flock to the cities). All of this is further and further away from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that humans practiced since the emergence of Homo some 2 million years ago. Piecing together paleo-anthropological evidence does not give such precise answers.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[CriticalGaming]

The reason being no contraceptives. People back then still had the sex drive we had today which meant they liked to knock boots just as much as we do. Making sure you had someone to care for you when you grew old was one factor among many others, but the most important one was that you simply couldn't prevent a pregnancy and that meant lots of kids popping out. In fact, a common problem among farmers up until the 19th century was that they worried about having more children because it meant more mouths to feed without an increase in arable land, that's why sending older children away to look for work was a fairly common practice. If you can't feed your children it is better that they seek employment with someone who can provide food and shelter in return for menial labor.

Also the kids would work because there were no video game invented yet, and Toy's R' Us wasn't a thing so what else where the children gonna do with their time?

 

[Satinavian]

Also the kids would work because there were no video game invented yet, and Toy's R' Us wasn't a thing so what else where the children gonna do with their time?

Going to school.

Which was the main reason why compulsatory nationwide schooling was opposed so much in the 18th and 19th century.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[CriticalGaming]

Sure the kids would work but in subsistence farming, much as the name implies, you farm to provide food for yourself. The problem for the individual farmer was not one of labor (that problem arose on the landowner side with the aristocracy always wanting more farmer on their lands) but one of available land. They were given just enough land that they could feed themselves and produce a surplus that could be taxed. For every child you had you could plant and harvest faster but it didn't increase your output, whereas the drain on your food stocks increased. For the majority of people another child was not a blessing but a curse in disguise, as it forced them to feed another mouth from already meager food stocks. You loved those children, which is why you bartered your daughters away as milk maids to those that had larger farms and made sure to get your sons conscripted in times of war. War was a terrible affair but it was better then starving to death on the farm.

I mean, I don't think you truly understand just how poor people were up until the late 19th century. We are talking a level of poverty where a copper pot was such a precious commodity that it was inherited for generations and where 4/5ths of the population is estimated to have suffered from malnutrition regularly.

I mean I don't deny any of that. And a lot of that poverty came from the lack of technology of the era as well. Today's poverty is no less harsh because indoor plumbing exists.

Again I do have to point out though that the merits of 18th century lifestyles, do not defeat the point of the thread and the course of evolutionary biology.

 

[CaitSeith]

So there was a push a few years back in the UK to not give women prison sentences except in the most extreme cases (no changes needed in how to punish men, of course it's OK to imprison them), and a more recent to make domestic violence law in the UK gender neutral. Who do you think supported the first and opposed the second, and what sorts of ideologies do you think they tend to identify with?

I don't know. But I suppose you're going to provide us with the exact date and place of each proposal, the name of all the official organizations that supported and opposed to each one of them, the quote of their arguments, and the outcome of the proposals, all with proper references, aren't you?

 

[CriticalGaming]

I don't know. But I suppose you're going to provide us with the exact date and place of each proposal, the name of all the official organizations that supported and opposed to each one of them, the quote of their arguments, and the outcome of the proposals, all with proper references, aren't you?

BBC NEWS | UK | Scrap women's prisons, peer says

news.bbc.co.uk

Looks like it was one of those feminist movement protests and such.

Then of course American journalists hopped on the idea because Prison is hard and women can't handle it. (according to the article) https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

There are other articles about proposed legislation and alternate punishments for women and women only though. Most of which have been scrapped and I can't find anything more recent than 2015.

 

[CaitSeith]

Looks like it was one of those feminist movement protests and such.

And by "feminist movement protests" you mean, Baroness Corston who was commissioned with a report by the Home Office and in it she proposed to replace prisons with small secure units, don't you?

Then of course American journalists hopped on the idea because Prison is hard and women can't handle it. (according to the article) https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

According to the article, the journalist proposes that all prisons should be completely abolished, women's prisons being merely the first step for the whole thing.

 

[CriticalGaming]

And by "feminist movement protests" you mean, Baroness Corston who was commissioned with a report by the Home Office and in it she proposed to replace prisons with small secure units, don't you?


According to the article, the journalist proposes that all prisons should be completely abolished, women's prisons being merely the first step for the whole thing.

I mean I just did a quick search, so i glossed over a lot of it just to find out if any of the claims were real. Which they were, despite going nowhere.

 

[CaitSeith]

I mean I just did a quick search, so i glossed over a lot of it just to find out if any of the claims were real. Which they were, despite going nowhere.

I had little doubt that the claims were real (Schadrach isn't known for making this kind of stuff up); but I wanted the specifics (who? what? when? where? why?).

 

[Schadrach]

I had little doubt that the claims were real (Schadrach isn't known for making this kind of stuff up); but I wanted the specifics (who? what? when? where? why?).

The Baroness was the public start of the prison thing, it grew over time for a while leading to things like https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13666066 and then largely fizzled out in a public sense, though there's still a noticeable tendency to avoid imprisoning women in the UK if they only do minor, unimportant things like, say, https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/25/carl...r-after-she-found-him-watching-porn-14641222/ or https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...ets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend .

As for the domestic violence law one, that was something the UK started considering last year, and you can literally pick any feminist or feminist group writing about the Domestic Abuse Act between the middle of 2019 and present and see an example (with the TERF ones of course also throwing trans women under the bus with the men, because they see them as men). For example, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-theresa-may-women-men-violence-a9007151.html includes quotes from Women's Aid and End Violence Against Women Coalition.