Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Noble
Both are true (your propositions are not mutually exclusive), although I would dispute the term "oppress".

The term "oppress" generally means to impose burdens without compensating benefits. My job does not oppress me: I have to spend lots of time at it, but I get paid. If I was forced to work at it without payment, then it would be oppression. My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.

14 posted on 10/30/2002 7:41:00 AM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: RogerFGay
fyi
15 posted on 10/30/2002 7:43:12 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: SauronOfMordor
My point is: did patriarchy generated benefits to women that exceeded the costs to women? I think it did.

Look at it another way. What is known as "women's work" or chores is mundanely repetitive. And most of it is somewhat thankless. That doesn't change that it still needs to be done. Imagine someone comes along and says "why are you doing that thankless job? you deserve help. There's more to life than this. Men have all the fun." It's seductive, a siren's call. Women love to be seduced. That's part of what happened. It was a sales pitch.

I hear this kind of thing all the time, and I'm not married, but I'd rather do the tasks myself. Spend a good two hours cleaning the house and you don't need to go to the gym. Just keep moving...
22 posted on 10/30/2002 7:51:34 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson