quote: Remaining celibate was just not going to happen to any large percentage of women at any point in history
This isn't true. We were studying the Middle Ages in Theatre History class, and the best way for an upper-class woman of that time to maintain her family fortune while travelling, writing, gaining the best education available, and not being subject to a husband was to join the church. Those who weren't celibate in that situation were the exception, not the rule.
posted
Roman galleys, I'll give you. The Greek galleys, on the other hand, were manned by volunteers. So were the later Venetian ones. It seems that this is an exception, not the rule.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" We were studying the Middle Ages in Theatre History class, and the best way for an upper-class woman of that time to maintain her family fortune while travelling,"
Right. Because, obviously, upper class women constitute a majority fo women?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not even a large percentage. The percentage of people who could reasonably be considered wealthy during the middle ages was tiny. From a whole population, I bet you could find 2% of the women who had that option available to them. maybe 3.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about every woman in history who has had to send her husband, brother, or son off to war, not knowing if she'd ever see him again? I'd call that pretty damn brave.
I don't. What choice did they have? Courage implies that you have the option of choosing a safer path. Again, this is fortitude or endurance, not bravery in the sense I am using the term.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, at any point in history. I think its clear he was asking for a time period where a significant number of women could chose celibacy. If you choose to read it another way, thats fine, but its not the way he intended it to be read.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't. What choice did they have? Courage implies that you have the option of choosing a safer path. Again, this is fortitude or endurance, not bravery in the sense I am using the term."
Most men who've died in war haven't had a choice about whether they die or not.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soldiers usually have the option of running away. Many of them are never caught. And let me note that the threat of death could hardly be applied if the entire army did the rational thing. Further, it would be a choice between immediate safety - the execution would be far away - and immediate danger.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, read that book! I sent it to Bob and he loved it. It is not an EASY read, by any stretch.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd have to be only describing offensive battles, because the choice for those defending thier homes and families would be to 1) stay and fight and possibly be killed or 2) run away and leave the invading force to destroy their homes, steal their livlihoods, rape their wives and daughters, and force the people they love into slavery or starvation.
Is #2 really a viable option?
Alternately, if invading forces have nothing to lose, are they truly exhibiting bravery, or are they just parading their superior skill for the sake of conquest?
posted
"BC is not my father. What do I care if we become unfriends?"
Here's the thing: one of the best bits of Hatrack is that most of its most valuable posters are friends, and/or want to be friends with the ones they haven't befriended yet.
If you do NOT want to become friends with the other posters here, or if you honestly do not care if you are friendly with the posters here, you will never truly belong. This doesn't mean that we'll kick you out, or that we'll get tired of inviting you to the table -- but sitting at that table requires a desire for friendship. It's part and parcel of the soul of the place.
Part of what makes Jar Head and Bean Counter so toxic is that they not only don't seem to care what we think about them, but downright enjoy riling us up. This is why I have recommended shunning (and it's a credit to the charitable souls of this forum that many people thought I was being excessively harsh when I did so).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, perhaps you misunderstood me : While I would certainly like to have Internet friends, I am not going to be heartbroken if I fail with one or two people. On the other hand, if I am unfriends with my father, clearly that is a major disaster, right?
Defense against an invading horde is certainly a good motive. But consider the Roman legions, for example : Extremely brave, yes? Yet except at the end, they were hardly defending home and hearth. Likewise, in the Thirty Years' War, armies from Austria, France, Spain, and Sweden marched all over Germany. You oculd hardly claim they were defending their homelands. Every last colonial war : The invaded may have been defending their homes, but generally speaking, it was the invaders who showed the most bravery.
In fact, history does not offer all that many examples of volunteer militias rising up to defend their homes and succeeding against professional armies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, history does not offer all that many examples of volunteer militias rising up to defend their homes and succeeding against professional armies.
The civil war wasn't a vicory for the volunteer militias defending their homes, but they certainly gave the invading forces a run for their money.
quote: But consider the Roman legions, for example : Extremely brave, yes? Yet except at the end, they were hardly defending home and hearth. Likewise, in the Thirty Years' War, armies from Austria, France, Spain, and Sweden marched all over Germany. You oculd hardly claim they were defending their homelands. Every last colonial war : The invaded may have been defending their homes, but generally speaking, it was the invaders who showed the most bravery.
Again, this goes back to my earlier statement: What did the invading forces have to lose? Is needless conquest really exhibiting bravery?
posted
Erm, no, but for the average grunt in those armies, being on the front lines and actually fighting takes a good deal of guts and courage. Seeing people's arms and heads and legs chopped off and flying around, and knowing yours could be next, but standing in there and doing your job anyways, does take courage.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are referring to the American civil war? Please be specific, there have been rather a lot of them. If you were, your argument does not hold up : Both sides were volunteer militias.
Certainly, the Senate and the People of Rome, who sent the legions, may not have been all that brave. But I was talking about the legions themselves, who certainly did exhibit physical courage : They went up against people armed with big, sharp swords and nasty attitudes, and didn't run away. What more do you want?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you have defined "courage" and "bravery" so narrowly that it would be hard to come up with non-military examples. Note that this is not a lack inherent in history, but in your definitions.
quote: Dag, childbirth isn't voluntary. For most of history, there's been no opting out of it. So courage doesn't really come into the matter.
Oh, give me a BREAK. Regardless of how unavoidable childbirth may be -- and even now, even assuming that a woman chose to get pregnant, most have a moment (or considerably longer ) when they wish they could get out of the whole labor deal -- it can be faced as a whimpering huddled mass, or with courage and bravery. (I usually opted for option number one.)
Those as ain't tried it should hush. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I am sure you did opt for bravery. Do you have any numbers showing that most women do?
Edit : As for your other objection, that is why I was most careful to consistently speak of 'physical courage', in order to show that I wasn't suggesting this is the only kind.
[ December 19, 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Rotary club had a famous world traveler come in to speak. He said "Yes ladies I have broken most major bones, nearly frozen to death, almost died of thirst, I have experienced virtually every kind of pain possible."
The women of the rotary club chatted a bit and came to the conclusion that no pain could compare to child birth.
The man listened for a while and then said with growing impatience "Ladies until you have been kicked in the balls by a zebra, don't be so sure!"
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I notice you haven't responded to one of my main points...go figure.
It is easy to define something so narrowly that only your examples are correct.
If men didn't ALLOW women to fight for most of history, even given you extremely narrow definition of bravery, how can you hold that against women and say that they haven't been brave, or that they can't be?
I think that stupididty would be a better term for what you are saying is bravery, though.
BTW, there have been many examples of deserting armies, and most soldiers fear what would happen not just to them but to their families.
Once again I am not saying that soldiers aren't brave, but I have a lot more respect for the bravery of firemen and police officers than I do for most soldiers throughout history.
BTW, in the Napolianic era most soldiers were conscripts, weren't they? That is why the common people hated him at the end....too many people died. When you say it doesn't take courage to stay at home you forget that without women to hold down the home front there wouldn't be anything for those soldiers left to fight for, really.
Actually, as I was actually there, KoM, I can say with certainty that I went the whimpering huddled route.
As far as numbers supporting female courage during childbirth:
Even if the percentage is small, there have been an awful LOT of women giving birth throughout history.
A fair number of women have, within hours of giving birth: plowed fields, packed up a family to move, walked all day and night, etc.
More and more women currently opt to have an unmedicated delivery. When's the last time YOU chose to deliver something the size of a watermelon through an orifice the size of a grapefruit without any pain meds -- for someone ELSE's sake?
quote: As for your other objection, that is why I was most careful to consistently speak of 'physical courage', in order to show that I wasn't suggesting this is the only kind.
And yet you keep insisting that is the only kind that matters.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the kind of bravery that takes you into the slums of Brazil every day, facing gunfights and drug dealers to teach children? Your definition does not include that type of bravery.
What about the Noble Women who defended their manors while their husbands were off on the Crusades? They showed courage. They could have stayed wimpering in their beds, playing the part of Buttercup in The Princess Bride, so yes, they had a choice, and they chose to take their destiny into their own hands and fight.
What about every woman who's been raped and gathered themselves together and gone back to living a normal life. That takes courage, I'm not sure I could do it.
What about every single mother who works hard for her children instead of descending into drugs and abuse. That takes courage.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, sorry, so many people insist on arguing with my obviously correct statements that it's hard to respond to everybody. Nations have allowed women to fight when they got sufficiently desperate; but for most of history, fighting depended on physical strength. Further, in a sufficiently defeated nation, couldn't the women themselves form a militia? Who's going to stop them, their dead-or-running husbands? Yet, while history has many examples of guerrilla uprisings (not many succesful ones, true) that has always been a male preserve. Why?
I don't think I've said that physical courage is the only kind that matters. But I have objected when people have tried to define fortitude as courage. I'm not denigrating it, by any means, I'm just saying it's not what I'm talking about.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blacwolve, I think my definition does include the sort of courage that takes you into Brazil. And certainly, there are women who do that. Can't you people understand that I'm not saying women can't be brave? I'm only saying there have been more brave men than brave women.
The rest of your examples are not physical courage, with the possible exception of the noblewomen, an extremely small minority at best.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yet, while history has many examples of guerrilla uprisings (not many successful ones, true) that has always been a male preserve. Why?
[snarky] Because women are bright enough to make the best of a bad situation, rather than make things worse? [/snarky]
I'm sure glad to come of a tradition that knows that women can be military heroes too -- even though I am actually against the Israeli practice of drafting women.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, fer god's sake. Can I please get it on record that I understand women can be brave? I believe this is the fourth time I state this. But you are DAMN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I read them, and you still didn't answer the question I just asked. I'm baffled that you're so sure...that's all. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the very limited definition of people who have put their lives on the line in situations where death is likely, there have been more men then women who are brave, by simple virtue of the fact that of the millions of people who have had to do so, when it occurs systematically, its almost always men who are systematically placed into that situation.
However, this is a foolish definition, and KoM shows himself to be foolish for adopting the position he has.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think you are introducing a distinction without a difference. How can you tell if someone is brave, if they do not exhibit bravery in some particular situation?
I do not think it a foolish definition, though I admit I introduced it more or less as a nitpick. I was careful to limit the discussion to 'physical courage', and I did not ever say that this was the only kind worth considering, as some have accused me of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, I think, KoM, is with your focus on one definition of bravery more than anything else. This definition seems to be "when faced with death, a person does not run".
While that *is* an example of physical bravery, that is as limiting as saying an organism is "something with four limbs and internal organs".
As for physical bravery and courage, childbirth is a big one - one cannot exactly say it's not physical. From very, very, very early in civilization contraception and abortion were possible - as far back as the Egyptians certainly. Suicide was another option that many women took instead of going through with the pain of pregnancy.
And further, for that matter, the decision to take responsibility for a child instead of abandoning it (on a doorstep, at a shelter, in a dumpster) takes a definite level of courage.
But, since you are so intent to beat your chest and say that warfare is the only arena to display what you call "physical bravery" (though even that narrowing of definition is problematic, seeing bearing physical pain, or threat thereof, with dignity is not limited to military action), I will provide examples of women with your type of bravery.
A list of women warriors throughout the ages. If you remember, Athena was the *female* goddess of battle, and sent the *male* god of war crying back to his mother. The Greeks had no such delusions about the bravery of women, as the stories of the Amazons were of the most ferocious warriors, not the most timid.
And that's just offering examples of *women in war* - which is only the tiniest, tiniest sliver of what true courage and bravery encompass.
Thinking about it further, the women warriors of antiquity were *braver* than the men. Even with smaller stature and less muscle mass, they still donned armor and weapons and faced enemies larger and stronger than themselves. In a fight between a small woman and a large man, who must have the greater courage to press on?
But this is simply stooping to your overly-specific definition of bravery, likely cultivated by great misogyny and machismo present in your environment over the years. Often it is the decision *not* to fight which exhibits more courage, and many times choosing to kill your enemies is the greater act of cowardice.
posted
In the beginning, at least. And right quickly they ran away, too.
Edit : This was to Rakeesh.
FlyingCow, for the fifth time, I am aware of the occasional woman warrior in history. I am getting really tired of repeating this. They are still heavily outnumbered. As for the Amazons, they were a myth. There are plenty of women warriors in modern fantasy and science fiction, but you can hardly call on them as examples of female bravery, can you?
[ December 19, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occassional? You obviously didn't check *any* of the links. Not one. Dismissing the thousands and thousands of women who have fought in armed conflict in every civilization of the world is foolish.
It is like saying asians are heavily outnumbered because you don't see many every day. Do some research and you'll find out the numbers are far greater than you think. Same with women in battle.
The trick is, historians tend to be *male* and male historians tend to speak of the accomplishments of male warriors.
But, that, again, is beside the point.
As for the Amazons, they are a myth born of a cultural consciousness. The possibility for such a myth being created in a society means that the prevailing thought of women was not one of meek servitude, but of strength and courage. Note that there are not stories of triumphant warrior women in the Muslim faith, because that culture would not birth such a concept.
The Greek myths, if you look closely, show a culture that respected the strength of women. We do not currently live in such a culture, and so, attitudes like yours have unfortunately developed.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at the myth of the Amazons, you will observe that they were always enemies of the Greeks, and as such, were duly beaten every time. And 'thousands and thousands' just doesn't stack up very well against tens of millions of men.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: DARN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.
I said it before and I'll say it again:
You do not have to be in a war to be brave! There are heroes of war and there are heroes of life!
*resists urge to break own single pseudonym rule to register King of Women*
EDIT: Also, as you well know, KoM, women have not exactly been encouraged to take up the sword. History was recorded largely by men. It's a little biased. No one can ever make a statement "that women are braver than men" or "men are braver than women" because it's like chalk and cheese.
posted
Just to make another point, the only reason men tended to be more heavily relied upon as warriors had nothing to do with courage or bravery, but with brawn.
The male physique is more akin to a pack mule than a woman's, making them more ideal for wearing suits of metal and swinging large weapons. It does not take courage to swing a great axe, but arm strength. A woman, if attacked, will fight a knight in armor just as tenaciously with a knife, pitchfork, or cast iron skillet to protect her family.
Just because she is not conscripted into service doesn't mean she is less brave.
Broad shoulders and strong backs are what military conflict was built upon - that is why there are more men than women, not because of any disparity in bravery or courage.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) when they wish they could get out of the whole labor deal -- it can be faced as a whimpering huddled mass, or with courage and bravery. (I usually opted for option number one.)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Nations have allowed women to fight when they got sufficiently desperate; but for most of history, fighting depended on physical strength. Further, in a sufficiently defeated nation, couldn't the women themselves form a militia? Who's going to stop them, their dead-or-running husbands? Yet, while history has many examples of guerrilla uprisings (not many succesful ones, true) that has always been a male preserve. Why? ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
