I have just now become aware of a book by Elinor Cleghorn -

A Woman's Work: Reclaiming the Radical History of Mothering

Here's the blurb on Amazon -

Mothers make history. But what it has meant for mothers to do the physical and emotional work of mothering has, for centuries, been neglected in the stories of the past. Patriarchal control of motherhood has relegated the acts of growing, birthing, nurturing, and loving to the sidelines, and deemed it unimportant, women's work. Now, through the voices of women themselves, Elinor Cleghorn reclaims and retells the history of motherhood, showcasing the mothers, othermothers, midwives, activists, community leaders, and more who have shaped the course of history.

Beginning in the ancient world, we encounter a figurine made for a childbirth ritual over three thousand years ago. We meet extraordinary writers and poets, like Anne Bradstreet and Elizabeth Jocelin, who were expressing their innermost feelings about motherhood. During the seventeenth century, in the streets of London, we encounter unmarried mothers struggling against stigma and shame, and the women who strove to help them. Later, pioneers like Mary Wollstonecraft laid the intellectual foundation for the liberation of motherhood from male control, and the abhorrent treatment of enslaved mothers was brought to public attention by courageous activists like Sojourner Truth. These and many other brave characters lobbied for mothers of all classes and circumstances to be valued, respected, and supported--not as reproductive vessels, but as people.

This post is brought you to by my life-long understanding of my own mother, my long-term partners including my wife (and a mother), my three closest mother friends, one of whom has twins, and then after off of this, my own thoughts and impression.

So it is with grave concern that I read about the womanosphere - a growing movement that puts women in the place allotted to them by white, Christian conservative men. It entreats women to abandon their humanity – “meant to turn women into creatures who never again trust the voice inside their own ribs.”

The womanosphere (created and controlled by white, conservative Christian men) – — Questioner

Don't approach communities by engaging their critics. That is absurd. Engage communities by engaging its members and its actual activities. I have engaged this specific community quite a bit through my wife's interest (interest - not inclination).

An example here, it seems to be suggesting that in Social Media, spaces by women, for women who are conservative, prefer traditional roles etc... are somehow subverting their rights and what not. That is absolute bullshit. Go and talk to those women. I often do, as does my wife. They're lovely, happy people who are certainly not oppressed in any sensible way - unless, of course, your bent is to assume that any one who submits even a smidgen of anything to anyone else must be a child incapable of taking care of herself against the big bad mean men in the comments (not to mention that blog is god-awful preening crap written by someone who likely thinks first-year creative writing courses set you up for a life of journalism - and has never stepped outside the clear, semi-aggressive ideological bubble they're in). They're mostly just women who enjoy typically feminine things and behaviours. There's nothing wrong with this.

Besides this,

Dr. Estés has created a new lexicon for describing the female psyche. Fertile and life-giving, it is a psychology of women in the truest sense, a knowing of the soul. — Questioner

This is exactly the kind of stuff that the vast majority of mothers dealing with real-world problems have no time for. They need to pay bills, fix illnesses, work jobs, deal with transport, birthday parties, fees, permissions, clothes, food, happiness.

Mothers need to raise their children. That's what a mother does. While I agree, there needs to be restrictions on any kind of coercion, oppression or enforcement of anything but plain responsibility on mothers, there also needs to not be totally misleading, unhelpful rhetoric floating about convincing young women we're living in the middle ages and we can create our living myths around our children. It's selfish and dumb. It's about the kids. Much to be said for men, obviously.

Don't approach communities by engaging their critics. That is absurd. Engage communities by engaging its members and its actual activities. — AmadeusD

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you?

I read a variety of things and make up my own mind.

are somehow subverting their rights and what not. — AmadeusD

I didn't mention rights, but rather instincts. I am a typical woman, and I believe the vast majority of women have the same instincts as me. But they may have a different psychology - for example needing the acceptance of a domineering man, or a domineering group - and in acquiescence, they obey.

who are certainly not oppressed in any sensible way - unless, of course, your bent is to assume that any one who submits even a smidgen of anything to anyone else must be a child incapable of taking care of herself against the big bad mean men — AmadeusD

You're twisting things. And showing that you do not understand where I am coming from.

Having said that, I will affirm that in any partnership, there should not be one who dominates, and one who submits. Submission requires a surrender of a part of you.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that the vast majority of mothers dealing with real-world problems have no time for. — AmadeusD

Any woman who has no connection to the knowing of her soul would be a sad, sad creature.

unhelpful rhetorics floating about convincing young women we're living in the middle ages and we can create our living myths around our children. It's self and dumb. — AmadeusD

You totally don't get it.

Why do some men need to consider themselves as inherently superior?

The way that Christian nationalists attack progressive women is a case in point.

"White liberal women are a cancer on the nation.” - right-wing comedian Vincent Oshana wrote on X.

The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution "has been a moral and political tragedy for America," firebrand pastor Dale Partridge said in a video last month.

"Why? Women were not made to lead, but to follow and to feel."

Straight out of the Bible shit.

And conservative women, wanting to get in good with the guys, join in. Katie Miller - wife of Stephen Miller - posted on X - "Conservative women are just hotter than Liberal women."

If we go back over a thousand years, we’ll find a lot of societies in which women enjoyed independence and self-autonomy. But then, Christianity – and the Bible - forced them into an oppressed role.

Many read the Book of Genesis as the ascension of consciousness. But the thing is, this consciousness was only reserved for men. The Book of Genesis produced different outcomes for men and women. It was read quite literally when it came to the role of women in the fall. Eve led Adam astray. She is the cause of the fall of the human race. She destroyed God’s image.

This fed centuries of misogynistic interpretations. Eve represents the evil that is inherent in all women. This paradigm spread through the western world: subordinate and inferior, women are by nature disobedient, weak-willed, untrustworthy, deceitful, seductive and motivated only by self-interest.

1 Timothy 2:12-14
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

1 Corinthians 11:3 spells out the hierarchy explicitly.
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Thomas Aquinas, influential in the early Christian church, furthered the reduced status of women. In the 13th century, he wrote that women are inferior to men in not just strength but intellect. They are born female because of some defect in the active force or maternal disposition and are important not for any inherent value or virtue, but only for their ability to reproduce.

Women were put into a box as defective adjuncts of men. Their only holy role could be in marriage and reproduction. It formed a culture of oppression. It diminished their contributions. It justified the witch trials, as an instance. The Book of Genesis is a man’s story. It did not serve women well.

We've come a long way, but these ancient tenets of female oppression are not completely erased yet.

We need all women to reclaim their feminine instincts, to find their true home.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

This is... quite telling. You do not want to engage with the communities you're disparaging, and yet you want to attack (that's what this is) someone suggesting you do this. That is extremely odd. If it were reasonable to approach a community from only the perspective of it's critics, we'd have wiped each other out millennia ago. If you disagree with the actual thing gave as critique, I would like you to let me know that, so we could discuss, instead a sexist ad hominem. Funnily, I am relaying female perspectives to you in the main. Funny... wrong females I guess.

I believe the vast majority of women have the same instincts as me. — Questioner

Well there's a mistake. They don't. Obviously.

for example needing the acceptance of a domineering man, or a domineering group - and in acquiescence, they obey. — Questioner

This is why. You are putting words and thoughts into other women's heads. They don't like it (as they tell me directly). You do not seem open to this. My wife predictably laughed at these initial suggestions - which itself suggests they are wrong, even if you think my wife is an asshole.

You're twisting things. And showing that you do not understand where I am coming from. — Questioner

Not at all. This is a response to exactly how you come across. That is not on me. I actually checked all of this with my wife before responding (although, not further responses save one aspect noted below). You may not like how I am responding, but to suggest i "just don't get it" is a cop out and one that is obviously not apt here. We're discussing competing views, not verifiable facts.

there should not be one who dominates, and one who submits. Submission requires a surrender of a part of you. — Questioner

Is this normative, or just saying this shouldn't be a requirement? I agree with that. But this is exactly what plenty of people naturally, and intellectually desire. I don't think you're coming in good faith to suggest that's never the case (which this sounds like and so is what I'm responding to). My wife has had, over years, to nudge, convince and comfort me becoming more dominant in service of her preferences. Not mine.

Any woman who has no connection to the knowing of her soul would be a sad, sad creature. — Questioner

This is darn judgmental and indicative of a certain flavour of disdain for women who do not believe what you believe. They are not "sad, sad creatures". This is an ironically misogynistic thing to say. I acknowledge, wholehearted, the benefits of a spiritual dimension - but the kind of amorphous, ill-defined attempts at creating a poetic story about motherhood or the "woman's soul"(not your words) (I mean, are you suggesting something real there? It's hard to tell. If you're not this seems to be a bit of a lark) simply distract from practical matters in most cases.

But I also acknowledging that lacking it is simply rejecting one possible poetic route to self-actualization. Plenty of women get that through sexual submission or powerlifting, painting, flower crowns, raising dogs, making whiskey, being aestheticians or sculpting wood or anything at all (albeit, there are tendencies) - if all you mean to say is that all of these things put one in touch with their "soul" then that is trivial and not saying anything about mothers or women but I fully, entirely agree.

I have to say, I ran part of this by my wife and we both find "connection to the knowing of her soul" to be the type of woo-woo stuff that convinces people to buy Goop products. Which is to say not really saying anything. Although, as a little gem of agreement, I've had exactly that thought on Acid.

You totally don't get it. — Questioner

Or, you don't. Your very first reply was to attempt, via sexism, to disparage and perhaps invalidate my response. Tsk tsk. It could simply be that you don't have a great idea going on, right? I mean, I could not get it. Sure. But there's a distance between how you're approaching this (rhetoric) and how I'm approaching it (practicality). I simply responded to your OP.

Given that the vast, vast majority of our interactions have been you putting forward fictions for serious discussion (this isn't a challenge in and of itself - i've really enjoyed it in plenty of places) and fail to recognize where the delineation lies, it is not too surprising you get not much response to these threads. There is so much more to these discussions than the, apparent, ideological commitments you open these discussions with. It's usually not fun to pick up on such a strong, even if admirable, ideological bent and still go ahead and give opinions. They tend to be taken badly, as here.

"White liberal women are a cancer on the nation.” - right-wing comedian Vincent Oshana wrote on X. — Questioner

Yeah, I know hte trends although I'm not on X. That is par for the course, and in no-way partisan.

Seen things progressive women say about the "Tradwife"?? Usually, i'd give you an example. You could Google it. What I suggest you do first is look at a description of what Tradwives themselves adopt. Then look at the slew of disgustingly incorrect "expose" type pieces - usually blogger opinions pieces - that somehow go from "I like to make bread, blow my husband and take care of the kids" to "We're going to lead a fascist revolution and destroy black people".

Horrifically bad thinking on all sides.

Thanks for your response.

And yes, you do lecture.

I think you may have a very hard time learning things.

I think you may have a very hard time learning things. — AmadeusD

Oh gosh, learning defines me.

I was the one who presented a new perspective to you, and you dismissed it out of hand.

It wasn't new and I gave you two, thought-out, direct substantive replies largely populated by ideas gleaned from, and checked over by women.

Lol, there's you lecturing again. Does the word "mansplaining" ring any bells with you? — Questioner

You did exactly this dismissiveness, though, in light of new perspectives from women. I am having a hard time understanding how this isn't just intense projection.

Same thing over and again with Risible. He really really wants you to think he’s an authority on something— anything. No substance whatsoever, which is why it always devolves into these boring exchanges. Next time just do what everyone else does: ignore.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a firm believer that we have deeper natures that need exploring, and understanding.

:pray: Well you’re far more patient than me then.

Well you’re far more patient than me then. — Mikie

I was referring to women :)

Ah okay! Well that’s certainly true as well.

Ah okay! Well that’s certainly true as well. — Mikie

Lol, I mean, with reference to my OP

It's no secret that women have been molded for centuries by men, and there is a movement afoot to turn back the clock. My concern is not the men who feel so threatened by this, but the women who will deny their inner knowing to go along with the flow.

I'll take my rent now.

Which is exactly, and you've not even begun to start thinking about addressing this what i said it was: You saying there are women who don't fit into your framework. You've decided you know better, and should reeducate those women, despite them saying (to these concepts, not you personally): No thank you. I will enact my choices, as is my right. Not only this, you do it with reference to illdefined concepts that you cannot even explain:

deny their inner knowing — Questioner

The responsible thing to do, one would think, is to acknowledge that you have it wrong in hte face of contrary information.

Women are not monolithic., they do not overall share your views and perhaps you're trying to enforce a view and set of beliefs about women. You have entirely ignored that I've presented views of real women on these subjects. That is problematic, regardless of who's bringing it to your attention - i'm sure you can see why???

I suggest it is likely this will go unaddressed, though. You started a thread and seem to only want people to agree with you. Can you explain? Is it just too uncomfortable to work through your positions?

Good points. Good luck discussing it with Risible. Normally you get nowhere with trolls but maybe this time there’ll be progress. :cheer:

should reeducate those women — AmadeusD

Maybe it is more about re-educating society, especially men.

Women are not monolithic — AmadeusD

No, but they are human with the usual human drives for self-autonomy.

you're trying to enforce a view and set of beliefs about women. — AmadeusD

No, just looking at the history.

The narrative most influencing the bent of the Western world for the last thousand years is tipped toward the masculine, rather than the feminine. The feminine has been suppressed. Reclaiming the balance between the masculine and feminine qualities (that characterizes the ancient wisdom) shifts us out of the patriarchy, to a more truly “free and equal” society.

A just society depends on having the voices of the maternal wisdom heard. This requires that women reclaim their voices, and that men listen.

The Bible (men) rewrote the feminine story. “The Word” cast women as untrustworthy seducers to be ruled. They must be quiet and obedient. All that is instinctual and wild became evil, and must be tamed, cursed and shunned. Guilt, shame and fear became tools of control. The ancient wisdom was lost; the heart of the feminine was lost.

(Side note – MAGA women are starting to realize they are surrounded by misogynists. As Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “They want women just to go along with whatever they’re doing and basically to stand there, smile and clap with approval, whereas they just have their good old boys club.

Republican women are especially aggrieved by Speaker Johnson. Some said he’d failed to listen to them or engage in direct conversations on major political and policy issues - a cultural challenge for Mr. Johnson, an evangelical Christian who has often voiced firm views about the distinct roles men and women should play in society.)

An ancient myth – The Maidens of the Well – (first written in the 13th century, but rooted in ancient Celtic folklore) foretells what happens when the Voices of the Well - representatives of the Goddess of sovereignty – the bearers of the cup of wisdom - are silenced. The Wasteland ensues.

Here’s the story -

The Maidens of the Wells

The kingdom went to ruin,
The land was so dead and desolate
That it wasn’t worth two bits;
They lost the voices of the wells
And the maidens who dwelled in them.
Indeed, the maidens served a very important purpose:
No one who wandered the highways,
Whether at night or in the morning,
Ever needed to alter his route
In order to find food or drink;
He had only go to one of the wells.
He could ask for nothing
In the way of fine and pleasing food
That he would not have forthwith,
Provided he asked reasonably.
At once a damsel would come forth
From the well, as I understand:
Travelers could not have asked for one more beautiful!
In her hand she’d be bearing a golden cup
With bacon, meat pies, and bread.
Another maiden would come carrying
A white towel and a gold and silver
Platter, in which was
The food that had been requested
By the man who’d come to be fed.
He was warmly received at the well;
And if this food did not please him,
She would bring a number of others,
Joyfully and generously,
According to his desires.
One and all, the maidens
Happily and properly served
All those who wandered the highways
And came to the wells for food.

King Amangon was the first to violate their hospitality:
He behaved wickedly and underhandedly;
Afterwards many others did likewise
Because of the example given
By the king who should have protected the maidens
And guarded and kept them safe.
He forced himself upon one of the maidens
And deflowered her against her will
And took the golden bowl from her
And carried it off along with the girl,
Then had her serve him ever afterwards.
Ill luck was to come of it,
For no maiden served again
Or came forth from that well
To help any man who happened by
And requested sustenance there;
And all other [travelers] followed [the king’s example].
God! Why didn’t the other vassals
Act according to their honor?
When they saw that their lord
Was raping the maidens
Because of their beauty,
They likewise raped them
and carried off the golden bowls.
Never afterwards did any maiden serve
Or come forth from any of the wells;
Know that this is the truth.
My lords, in this way
The land went into decline
And the king who had so wronged them
And those who’d followed his example
All met a dreadful end.
The land was so wasted
That no tree ever bloomed there again,
The grasses and flowers withered,
And the streams dried up.
Afterwards no one could locate
The court of the Rich Fisher,
Which had made the land resplendent
With gold and silver, splendid furs,
Precious brocaded silks,
Fine foodstuffs and cloth,
Gerfalcons and merlins,
Goshawks, sparrowhawks, and falcons.
In earlier days, when the court could be found,
There was throughout the land
Such an abundance of riches,
Of all those I’ve named here,
That everyone, rich or poor,
Was awestruck at the wealth.
But now it has lost everything.

We often find that Indigenous cultures retain the ancient wisdom, as exemplified by this quote by Nahko Bear, speaking about Winona LaDuke and Indigenous women leaders at Standing Rock –

“One of the most beautiful things I feel right now, is that you see these amazing, empowered women who are stepping up and really reminding us young men, and men in general, that our role is to let the women lead, and yet, we’re their protectors and we stand side-by-side, but the women are supposed to lead with their hearts.”

maybe this time there’ll be progress. :cheer: — Mikie

I appreciate the encouragement. Thanks so much. :)

If we go back over a thousand years, we’ll find a lot of societies in which women enjoyed independence and self-autonomy. But then, Christianity – and the Bible - forced them into an oppressed role. — Questioner

This is quite obviously incorrect. Although there were some societies in which women enjoyed "independence and autonomy", there were many others in which women were oppressed far more than they have been in the Christian West. Primitive warlike societies generally undervalue women: the Yanamomo, the warring people of New Guinea, and the Apache represent examples. Among the Yanamomo (and similar Amazonian tribes), and in the New Guinea interior there are often 3 times as many boys as girls at age 6. Why? The only explanations are selective neglect or female infanticide. Of course child mortality is very high in such societies, and valuing boys more than women can lead to them being fed better and treated better. When Geronimo led Apache warriors in the last major Indian war against the U.S., his complaints about the reservation were that the soldiers wouldn't let the Apache men beat their wives or cut off their noses.

The other Mideastern religions (Orthodox Judaism and Islam) treat women even worse than Christianity does.

Christianity reflects the misogyny of its era. Codes of Christian chivalry protected women (although they also infantilized them). It is true that modern Christians tend to be conservative (religion in general is conservative, worshipping an idealized past) and therefore oppose changing gender roles. Orthodox Jews, the mullahs of Iran, and the Taliban are more extreme examples.

his complaints about the reservation were that the soldiers wouldn't let the Apache men beat their wives or cut off their noses. — Ecurb

Yeah, and a killed woman's murderer in our society is most likely to be her intimate partner. Marital violence was legal up to a generation or two ago. And there's that history of burning witches.

The question becomes - "How does the society treat women as a whole?"

Here's the truth about the Apache nation -

Apache women were the pillars of the tribe. They maintained and passed down the Apache culture, traditions, and history to the next generation and in addition to being the teachers they also built the houses, made the clothing from hides, gathered and stored food for the winter using baskets which they made and raised crops if they had a camp which they were staying in for a long period of time.

They were also the healers who prepared the many herbal treatments and of course bore and raised the children. In Apache culture they also had the choice of becoming a warrior and fighting alongside the men if they chose.

Maybe it is more about re-educating society, especially men. — Questioner

Yeah, but that's literally fascist talk. It also rests on you assuming everything you've said is right. That is clearly not the safest way to go intellectually, and in practice is more liable to getting you killed or imprisoned (not you personally, but to go forth with some sociological position without recourse to even doubt is generally not conducive to goodness in my understanding). I also note that you've been given at least some information that should have you in doubt about the universality of your position. If it requires telling millions, perhaps billions, of other women they're wrong, or need to be re-conditioned to not desire what they desire (that is hte logical inference here - not words in your mouth) then maybe you should rethink that approach?? I certainly would.

No, but they are human with the usual human drives for self-autonomy. — Questioner

I don't think even you quite understand what you're talking about here: plenty of women do not want self-autonomy in hte way you are talking about it. Freedom from abuse, yes, in almost all cases (there are some weird people out thre). Freedom from voluntary submission? You're barking up the wrong tree. Would you like my wife to explain to you how and why she feels, thinks and desires what she does? I'm sure she'd be happy to set you right. This all smacks too strongly of the horrific shit Simone de Beauvoir liked to say:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

Oh no!! Don't give the poor women the choice!! They wont do what i want!! It's anti-feminist.

No, just looking at the history. — Questioner

This is objectively, inarguable not the case. You are literally suggesting a set of social behaviours change and many of htem are ones women actively choose to engage in. If you were just looking athe history, all you would be doing is describing situations you think you've seen play out. You're not doing that. You're prescribing. As you did in the first quote I've used in this response. Its not in question that you're suggesting a set of beliefs be enforced, and you've laid out the beliefs clearly.

I have told you of at least one complete sane, normal western woman who would laugh at your position. Maybe address some of the criticisms rather continuing to wax lyrically. I wanted a discussion, rather than fictions. You're not really engaging anything substantive by posting mythologies and poems with some flowery thoughts attached.

The narrative most influencing the bent of the Western world for the last thousand years is tipped toward the masculine, rather than the feminine. — Questioner

That's definitely semi-true. This is definitely a totally overblown way of saying it, but you're not totally wrong. Perhaps there's something here... but to then ignore the inherent value continually upheld (albeit, essentially against their will... not what's in question right in this exact part) for women, and their inherently important roles and contributions is a mistake I think. It's historically wrong, anyway.

Reclaiming the balance between the masculine and feminine qualities (that characterizes the ancient wisdom) shifts us out of the patriarchy, to a more truly “free and equal” society. — Questioner

I think when you're resting on terms like "the ancient wisdom" you're not really credibly approaching a real problem with a view to a real solution. Can you say what you, personally, mean by "Free and equal"? That may help.

The Bible (men) rewrote the feminine story. — Questioner

No. The bible continued a story that had be going on for at least a few thousands years already. This is an oft-repeated falsity. The 'feminine story' - what does this refer to, in your mind?

The ancient wisdom was lost; the heart of the feminine was lost. — Questioner

Right. I'm sure you can at least see why this isn't moving, even if effective wording.

This requires that women reclaim their voices, and that men listen. — Questioner

That is all we have heard for a decade - and that's a good thing, no doubt. You aren't a man, so you do no get an opinion this, apparently. You're just not listening if you disagree (this is in jest, stress-testing that awful logic).

by Speaker Johnson — Questioner

Great. Are you suggesting that one or two examples here represent either a patriarchy, some illustration of the other couple of billion people we're speaking about or something else? Because a couple of examples of an Evangelical Christian pressing his religious lines is pretty pithy support for hte thesis you're putting forward. I'm not even suggesting he's the only example. Point stands.

We often find that Indigenous cultures retain the ancient wisdom — Questioner

No. We don't. We've been over that one. It seems like you're running on popular, romantic ideals about 'indigenous' cultures which not only don't hold up to scrutiny, are directly destructive of an accurate, fair representation of complex pre-colonial cultures. I take it you've not actually gone into any scientific/socilogical/anthropological work and looked instead at pop socio and activist mythology framing? I'll try to sort some stuff out here.

Firstly, "indigenous' culture is a misnomer variously applied to native populations, conquering populations who successfully either wiped out or assimilated their conquests, cultures who re-wrote their own histories that way etc..
Second, Specific, circumscribed examples does not shift te fact that almost all cultures, including indigenous cultures, have been hierarchy based and men, with the monopoly on force, tend to be at the top. It is well known that indigenous cultures across time and space were mostly patriarchal. By some estimates 70-80% vs something like 10% for just matrilineal - which does not mean matriarchal so the ratio is probably more like 12:1. It is pretty clear from the research that there are no Matriarchies the way we think of them today, in the record.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228014570_Egalitarianism_Among_Hunters_and_Gatherers
Hopefully you have access. There's a couple of related papers listed which are also interesting in this way.

that our role is to let the women lead — Questioner

hahahahaha. Oh yep. No. Your role is to let men lead.

See how utterly stupid this type of ignorant thinking is?

Here's the truth about the Apache nation - — Questioner

No, that is a random blog that makes you feel as if you have support for your position. I note that your response to Ecurb fully explaining why you're wrong is to suggest that somehow the fact that there are still problems in modern times, that somehow has any relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of your claim. Let's go through some aspects of live for Apache women:

https://www.desertusa.com/desert-people/apache-women.html?utm_

"The Apache girl’s puberty ceremony signaled, not only the end of her childhood, but her availability for marriage. "A full oval face is liked and medium height, not too tall," according to an Opler informant. "We like small hands and feet, but not too thin. A plump, full body is best. Legs should be in proportion to the rest of the body and not too thin. Mouth and ears should be in proportion to the rest of the face, not big.""

"After her puberty ceremony, the young Apache woman, valued more for her economic and practical worth than for her beauty, often faced a marriage negotiated by her family, many times without her agreement, sometimes without even her knowledge. Mindful that the man would join the young woman’s family – an arrangement called "matrilocal" by anthropologists – her parents drafted a marriage based, not on romantic love, but on material need. They sought out a proven and, frequently, older man, preferably one with tribal respect, wealth and connections, who would underwrite the future of the young woman, contribute horses to her father, marshal arms for the family’s protection, and contribute game to the family larder."

Sounds pretty familiar. IN fact, we got rid of these practices in the West close to 100 years ago (yes, I'm playing fast and loose. The point is we don't do this). Further, these cultures were note delicate "ancient wisdom holders". They were brutal, warlike human beings like us:

"Sometime in the second half of the 19th century, a Mescalero Apache woman called Gouyen, or Wise Woman, tracked down a Comanche chief who had murdered and scalped her husband.... She lured the chief, staggeringly drunk, into the night. She pounced on him like a mountain lion, ripping out his throat with her teeth. She then stabbed him and scalped him with his own knife. She stole his headband, breechclout and moccasins....Gouyen, said her chief, "is a brave and good woman. She has done a braver thing than has any man among the Mescaleros. She has killed the Comanche chief; and she has brought his weapons and garments to her people. She has ridden his mount. Let her always be honored by my people."


There are some cultures that still treat women this way, and worse. Do you know which they are? Africa, South Asia, Melanesia and Latin America. They have a profound and inarguable monopoly on killing women because they are suspected of have too much power. They are, by-and-large, communities not-too-far-removed from their indigenous cultures.

Its a dangerous, pernicious myth that "indigenous' cultures, as badly defined as that is, were somehow immune the slings and arrows of human nature. They, it seems, were far more resolute in their love of blood and violence, in many, many cases. They certainly, without a doubt, did not treat women on the whole better than modern, Western society. Pretty much none except a handful of South-Eastern tribes and the Cathars. Even those are nuanced.

It would help if you could restrict a conversation about real-world issues, to real-world premises and supports. If that's not the point, all good. But you seem to want to do philosophy.

Yeah, and a killed woman's murderer in our society is most likely to be her intimate partner. Marital violence was legal up to a generation or two ago. And there's that history of burning witches. — Questioner

Many, if not most, cultures in the past had witchcraft taboos and killed witches. It is true that the witch-killing craze in Europe between 1520 and 1650 was extreme. According to H.R. Trevor-Roper, as many as 500,000 people were executed as witches (other historians place the total less, but still more than 100,000). However, something like 30% of those executed were men -- the notion that women were the sole victims is misguided. The classic analysis of witchcraft beliefs in Africa is E.E. Evans-Pritchard's "Witchcraft Among the Azandes".

Here's the truth about the Apache nation

Apache women were the pillars of the tribe. — Questioner

You could say the same about European women. They also had important roles -- but the roles were valued less than those of men. Same with the Apache, who were a warrior tribe. Apache women were routinely beaten by their husbands, and if unfaithful had their noses cut off. The myth of noble, matriarchal savagery is not upheld by actual research. Women were mistreated in many simpler societies -- as the difference between the number of 6-year-old boys and girls in many warlike cultures demonstrates. The notion that Christianity is a cause for sexism is simply not supported by the historical or anthropological facts (although it may be an influence among certain fundamentalist groups today).

By the way, I was once talking to an Apache man, who was going on about how the White man had invaded Apache lands. "You do know," I told him, "That white Europeans were in Arizona and New Mexicao before the Apache were." Which, according to the experts (I also told him I was just repeating expert testimony, and had no personal knowledge about this) is true. Spaniards were in Arizona and New Mexico in the 1500s; the Apache showed up in the 1700s. They moved south from Colorado, and their language is similar to those in the plains of Western Canada.

In your rush to be domineering, you seem to be rebutting things that I never said, or intended to intimate. I in no way mean to disparage or diminish the role of motherhood. Quite the contrary. I began this thread with how important my mother is to me. What I think you have failed to understand is that one of my main points is that we need more of the feminine, nurturing, maternal instinct in our society. If we want a fair and just society, we need more of that.

There are several misunderstandings in your reply, and I am not inclined to answer each one specifically.

And you continue to post condescending, lecturing attacks.

You remind me of the way MAGA treats Greta Thunberg. They tear her apart. Your reaction to me, and their reaction to her, is telling. In New York in 2019, Greta said -

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

It's not her words, but what they represent - an idealist expressing her truth - that I want to point out.

But MAGAts denigrate and mock her. They follow the lead of Trump – and his condescending, sexist remarks – (There, there, be a good little girl) - like when he posted -

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!

Again, it's not the words, but the attitude.

In your rush to be domineering — Questioner

That you see being held to the fire on you views, being told unequivocally where you are going wrong(on hte empirical points - your opinions are your own) and being given well-sourced correctives as 'domineering' tells me quite a lot that I doubt you intended to say. That's ironic. If you had made an attempt to support this assertion, i'd give a very polite and direct response. But you did not. So here we are.

you seem to be rebutting things that I never said, or intended to intimate. I in no way mean to disparage or diminish the role of motherhood. — Questioner

I never said anything remotely close to this. You will need to quote me to continue that charge please. I responded exactly to what you said, with quotes - you have done the opposite, generally. That is incredibly ironic, that you have done exactly what this quote purports to charge me with.

What I think you have failed to understand is that one of my main points is that we need more of the feminine, nurturing, maternal instinct in our society. If we want a fair and just society, we need more of that. — Questioner

I have not failed to understand this (it was in plain English for one), or anything else you've said. You are consistently refusing to engage with responses to your clearly inaccurate claims. You could simply address those responses - but you do not. I'd have thought that you post here, as most of us to, to be challenged and discuss the topics we're passionate about in the realm of philosophy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, attitudes, genders or anything but that you are factually incorrect to a degree that makes these specifics essentially unable to be adequately discussed (this rests on that, generally, i enjoy interacting with you. Otherwise I wouldn't care about this problem). If you refuse to accept that, it is not on me(or Ecurb). It is also a complete lie to say anything that intimates it's somehow me causing your refusal. You may choose not to engage. And that is fine. It's between you and no one else. But to suggest that because I've pushed back I haven't understood is intellectually bankrupt.

There are several misunderstandings in your reply, and I am not inclined to answer each one specifically. — Questioner

All but guaranteed to be because there aren't any substantial misunderstandings, and you are unable to respond adequately to challenges to your views. This is not an attack. It is an observation as it fits with all of your responses on substantive issues since we began interacting. I see absolutely no reason to trust that this is anything but a dodge, given the lengthy, substantive replies, including sources, I have taken the time to put together for you. You have put in extremely little effort and instead retreated into ad hominem. If I am wrong, please (genuinely, please) prove me wrong.

And you continue to post condescending, lecturing attacks. — Questioner

Again, if you think that what I've done is an attack, that suggests you are not ready to engage with challenges to your views. That also fits with your general tenor - extremely defensive with no substantive response. The reason for this, I couldn't know.

You remind me of the way MAGA treats Greta Thunberg. They tear her apart. Your reaction to me, and their reaction to her, is telling. In New York in 2019, Greta said - — Questioner

This is irrelevant, and an extremely bad-faith attempt to lump me in with some group you don't like, for reasons that are wholly divorced from anything happening here.
You continue to give other people's thoughts instead of your own.

If you continue to refuse to engage in anything that could be considered substantive, philosophical, honest or not-sexist you will be treated as such. I assume you'd do the same to anyone who came into a space you enjoy throwing shit at the walls and telling you it's a painting.

It's not her words, but what they represent - an idealist expressing her truth - that I want to point out. — Questioner

This is not a 'MAGA' thing. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/dkcjoa/cmv_greta_thunbergs_un_speech_was_poorly_executed/?

"Greta is not helpful or productive to the cause… a young girl from a wealthy family who skips school and galavants the world on a private yacht meeting with celebrities… will not convince anybody who’s not already on board"

Bhaskar Sunkara, Naomi Klein and several other prominent thinkers on "her side" also critiqued her speech because it was ridiculous. It was out of touch, performative, ineffective and structurally irrelevant - not because she's female (not to mention hypocritical and plain stupid, in terms of PR). Refusing to accept that critique of your idols can be made in good faith is extremely damaging. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out an idealist being a petulant child publicly. Any comments focusing on her sex are abhorrent. I've not seen them, though, I'm just wholesale agreeing. Otherwise, nothing suggests there's anything wrong with multiple people coming to the same conclusion on a fairly cartoonish public performance. That You see this differently doesn't support your assertions about other people.

So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill! — Questioner

That's probably one of the better responses I've seen to it. And I dislike most things Trump has to say about most things. This one was pretty tempered. Although, I suggest if you are taken to believe Trump is a pedophile you will (reasonably) read a lot more into anything he says about minors. I don't (based on evidence).

Virtually none of these types of exchanges ring with any credibility, given that each time you are proven to be factually incorrect, you simply ignore it and move on to ad hominem. I'll continue to engage you as long as you continue to engage me, but i'm not going to treat you like the toddler you seem to want to be treated as. I'll pushback where something is demonstrably untrue, and I will essentially call your bluff when you retreat into ad hominem. An honest interlocutor would welcome this. I suggest, again, to have a think about why your threads of this kind get very little engagement.

A friend once said, "Men are dumb and women are selfish".

That's a view the sums up her opinion of people. It's a very one-dimensional thought.
So, I responded: What are things that think with their dick? She said, "Yes."

In the news, a mother that lived with her children in squalor had one child born with a deadly SCID (severe combined immunodeficiency), though perhaps a milder form. So imagine the irony of the situation.

Without a proper facility in which to place the child, the mother decided to create the child's own bubble free of infection. All white, sanitized, bleached, dust free blankets within their tiny home -- all the rest of home could go dirty, but this child's space was kept immaculate twenty four hours a day seven days a week. The child at the time had reached the 5th birthday, and counting.

We need all women to reclaim their feminine instincts, to find their true home. — Questioner

But wouldn't that reveal itself differently through different women, where some would have full buy in to a progressive way of living and some being far more conservative? The issue is less about what choice is made as just having the knowledge you have a choice. To think otherwise goes in search of victims, trying to convince those who feel contentment that actually their lives lack value, so they ought rebel against their naive happiness. It also declares war upon non-Western views, where you'd suggest that those in less egalitarian countries are patently immoral despite those women thinking otherwise.

To flip it, if a man wants to wake with the sun and do back breaking manual labor until the sun goes down to eek out a living for his family because he lives in a world where men are taught to ignore their own needs, not to complain, and to produce at all costs, then that is acceptable as long as he knows it is his choice. There are plenty of men who would choose working in the mud laying pipes than in sitting at a desk managing employees. I could speak of how one choice might be more enlightened and more intellectually and morally fulfilling, but the man gets to decide. As long as paths are created for him to make other choices, then I can't lament his voluntary subjugation for him.

But wouldn't that reveal itself differently through different women, where some would have full buy in to a progressive way of living and some being far more conservative? — Hanover

Cultures differ around the world, of course, but I think the feminine instinct, the maternal instinct, is universal.

For example, most mothers in all cultures would never protect a sexual predator. But yet, we see powerful women in the USA who not only excuse Trump’s crude and defiling remarks and behaviors directed at women, but continue to steadfastly support him despite the mention of his name thousands of times in the Epstein files.

Are they following their feminine/maternal instincts? Or are they more concerned with their own power, lining their pockets, and building their brands? What makes them use their platforms to add to the pain of female victims of sexual abuse?

I’m talking about women like Karoline Leavitt, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Megyn Kelly, Tulsi Gabbard, Maria Bartiroomo, Laura Ingraham

Cultures differ around the world, of course, but I think the feminine instinct, the maternal instinct, is universal. — Questioner

Well, we now have a logical inconsistency. On the one hand, you don't want women pigeonholed into specific roles, but you want them to live fully to their potential without being locked into traditonal motherly roles, but here you state otherwise and attack those women who have allowed other non-maternalistic drivers to supersede what ought be their highest calling, namely maternalism.

That is, you at once advocate egalitarianism ("[My mother] never treated the boys and girls different, but encouraged us at every step to achieve as much as we could) and condemn those women who don't act like women but have abdicated their true calling to maternalism ( "Are [these women] more concerned with their own power, lining their pockets, and building their brands").

You then condemn women who protect pedophelia because that is something antithetical to maternalistic instincts, but I would say it's as equally abhorrent to paternalist instincts. You also sidetrack this conversation here by turning it into a political debate, as if the Biden administration did anything to expose Epstein that makes its followers better than Trump's.

So, women should be able to act like men but also should act like proper women. That's confusing, but that seems to be what you said. But to the extent you suggest women must comply with their innate instincts to properly function in society, I don't agree. My position is the less radical, which is to allow women (and men) to choose their legally permitted occupations and roles, even if it violates my personal views on what I think proper dominance and submission might look like. If a man wants to raise the kids while the woman takes on the world, I can't see why that would be my concern, even if I truly believe the man's role is otherwise. And vice versa.

but you want them to live fully to their potential without being locked into traditonal motherly roles, — Hanover

This is false. I have never said this.

egalitarianism ("[My mother] never treated the boys and girls different, but encouraged us at every step to achieve as much as we could) and condemn those women who don't act like women but have abdicated their true calling to maternalism — Hanover

Egalitarianism does not imply identicality. I fully accept that men and women are different by nature, indeed I have alluded to that in my posts. I've made the point that we need more of a balance in the feminine and the masculine in society (and politics) and instead these women have become like men.

condemn women who protect pedophelia because that is something antithetical to maternalistic instincts, — Hanover

It is

but I would say it's as equally abhorrent to paternalist instincts. — Hanover

But yet 94% of sexual abuse offenders are men

as if the Biden administration did anything to expose Epstein — Hanover

From what I understand, the files were sealed by court order until 2024

women should be able to act like men but also should act like proper women. — Hanover

This is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. I do not want women to act like men. And I have not used the word "proper" - with its connotations of societal approval.