Primal Attraction page 35

[Uncephalized]

I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.

Just, like, lolwut?

[kenn]

I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.

Just, like, lolwut?

an example of presentism

[drssgchic]

I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.

Just, like, lolwut?

I was . . . yeah . . . couldn't wrap my head around it enough to actually argue that angle.

[Saoirse]

I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.

Just, like, lolwut?

lol, right. she got a whole 1/3 even though it's possible the entire estate was hers to begin with.

[Uncephalized]

an example of presentism

So, are you trying to say that we shouldn't judge their policies as sexist because we have hindsight? I really don't see what your point is here. One of these days it would be great if you could actually explain what you think about something, just for funsies.

[Nicator]

I love that kenn is citing a legal structure that wrote into law the idea that a woman would be entitled to take ownership of less than half of her late husband's estate, in a society where I am sure a widowed man would "naturally" take control of all of his wife's property on her death, as evidence that institutionalized discrimination against women was not a problem.

Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?

[kenn]

So, are you trying to say that we shouldn't judge their policies as sexist because we have hindsight? I really don't see what your point is here. One of these days it would be great if you could actually explain what you think about something, just for funsies.

It's a logical fallacy and typically compels people to take a narrow view of history.

[drssgchic]

Can you find no institutionalized discrimination against men in your studies? Have you even looked?

Have you given half a moment's thought to why that system might have been beneficial for society as a whole, given the higher rate of early mortality in men, and the tendency of women to 'marry up'?

Are you genuinely offended by this 'problem', or have you been conditioned to take offense?

Please explain to me how it was beneficial to women.

Of course men are also descriminated against- but it was a matter of class not gender.

[magicmerl]

It's a logical fallacy and typically compels people to take a narrow view of history.

Yes, I think I can see a narrow view there.

[Nicator]

Please explain to me how it was beneficial to women.

Interesting, the way this question is phrased. It's trajectory traces back to female privilege.

I suppose that the snippet of inheritance law in question would have been beneficial to several women...the widow, and the dead man's surviving female blood relations. It's pretty silly to discuss without context, as inheritance law is extremely regional and complex.

I could be silly, and ask you 'how does paying a bride price benefit men?', or 'how does it benefit a man if he has to repay his wife's dowry to her family if she dies childless', or 'how does jus relictae benefit a man?'...but I realize those institutions at the very least benefit the woman's father.

Of course men are also descriminated against- but it was a matter of class not gender.

If I put on my leftist thinking cap for a moment, it seems clear to me that men, as a gender, are discriminated against throughout history by being expected to provide physical protection against animals and criminals, go risk their lives in wars, and do dangerous and backbreaking labor.

I guess someone forgot to tell Affirmative Action that, even today, more than 90% of fatalities at the workplace are men.

I hate putting on that cap, though, I always feel dumber afterwards.

It's not discrimination, it's nature. Men benefit from the objectification of women, women benefit from the disposability of men, and society benefits wherever men and women both benefit.

Anyone who claims to seek progress for society but only advocates for one gender is a charlatan, or a collectivist dupe.