Comment by erdevs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by erdevs | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> > That's because most ancient societies were blatantly misogynistic.

> ...[This] implies that all women terribly oppressed, while all men had lives of unrelenting leisure. That's simply not true.

No. The preceding statement does not imply either of those things. At all.

Let's take patriarchal societies which also had male slavery of hard labor, since hard labor slavery is nearly the antithesis of a "life of unrelenting leisure". Do you think that US society in the 1700s was at all patriarchal or misogynistic? Yes? So then would you deny that US society had male slaves at that time, or claim somehow that being a slave then implied a "life of unrelenting leisure"? Does having slavery including male slavery somehow make a society non-misogynistic or non-patriarchal? Do you think perhaps these are different dimensions and you are making wholly faulty logical leaps?

Or, let's be less extreme. Would you say that US society in, say, the 1920s or 1950s was at all patriarchal? Would you then claim that in the US in either decade "all men had lives of unrelenting leisure?"

Your logic is unsound to the extreme. Your entire line of reasoning is specious at best and employs reduction to absurdity throughout. You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions (like the quoted text above) with no logic justifying them whatsoever. Are you simply making bombastic statements for the sake of controversy?

> Your logic is unsound to the extreme. Your entire line of reasoning is specious at best and employs reduction to absurdity throughout.

You are reacting emotionally to the first sentence of my comment. And are then ignoring the rest of it. Labeling my argument "specious" is not a counter argument.

> You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions

Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that women were not powerless.

Such as claiming that many men also had a terrible life.

Which are both true.

But it's easier to dismiss my argument out of hand, than to address it via facts and logic.

> Are you simply making bombastic statements for the sake of controversy?

Is asking a loaded question good practice?

Your opening line was incendiary. The first line of logic you used to backup that incendiary claim was completely specious, as I took time and care to explain. With limited time in a day, opening this way leaves little motivation to take the rest point-by-point. And since your entire "ethical" position and the arguments that flowed forth from it depend on that opening foundation, all that's required is to point out the flaws in the foundation.

How about you address, point by point, the obviously flawed logic I called out. If you either demonstrate how my rebuttal is incorrect or accept that maybe you were being illogical and/or unfair there, it might enable a more reasonable discussion of the remainder. If you can't even address the first part of your own statements though, then what is the point?

> > You make these stark, extreme claims and assertions

> Such as claiming that the Biblical story of Esther shows that women were not powerless.

Read carefully. Think logically. Did I say all your claims and assertions were extreme? What statements did I specifically address in my reply? Why would you then point to only your statement about Esther. If that single statement of yours was not extreme, would that somehow necessarily mean no statement of yours was extreme? How is this any kind of logical counterpoint to what I actually, specifucally said? Logic.

But related to your comment on Esther, it is indeed an example of the extreme (eg reducing my statements to absurdity) and flawed logic I was discussing. Nowhere did I say that all women in all ancient civs (or even all women in any particular ancient civ) were powerless. I didn't say women were "powerless" at all. You are creating a straw man and then arguing against it.

I simply said that, in the ancient civs which we're aware of today, it seems many were patriarchal and/or misogynistic. By definition, women are less likely to have official functions/jobs (eg government officials, accountants, merchants, scholars) which involved frequent writing and conferred power in a patriarchal or misogynistic government and civilization.

You are not arguing any of my points. You're making up entirely different points (which are also extreme to the point of absurdity) and then making arguments against those separate, made-up, extremist points.

Stop strawmanning. Read carefully. Use clear logic. It will engender a better discussion.

As I wrote below:

However, as shown in another comment, the typical "everything is misogynistic" comment is due to intersectional feminism. Which in my experience, largely does claim that men have it very good just for being men, and women have it very bad, just for being women.

A blatant statement of "the culture was misogynistic" is an overly simple classification. The culture was oppressive towards damned near everyone who wasn't of the highest class.

I just don't believe that a rich woman like the Biblical Esther had it worse than a poor free man living in the city at the same time. So her experience with misogyny gave her a better life than 99% of the rest of the population.

> Yoy are creating a straw man and then arguing against it.

No. I'm arguing against the ideas proposed by certain groups of people. People who (in my experience) typically argue that "that culture is misogynistic" means "all men have it better than all women".

I've run into many of these people online and in daily life. If you don't believe this, I'm sorry for insinuating you do. I was reacting to the normal use of that terminology, which, in my experience, does have the meaning I said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com