DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

-------- only spaces

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 2 2004 17:55

s'ok sabotabby smile

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Sep 2 2004 20:45
random wrote:
marriage is historically a union based on slavery, one man makes a gift of his property to another man. a daughter will work domestically without pay for one man, and when she is old enough she will be 'given away' to another for domestic use and child bearing, again without pay.

whoa there, you unruley bunch of horses.... marriage is historically a union based on slavery. I think we need to start being a bit more precise with termonology here. If were talking histroically here then lets name periods of time, cultures, and developments of those cultures rather than making sweaping generalisations about a whole myrid of institutions that can be lumped together as marriage. Lets also think what we talking about with slavery (does arawack insitiution of slavery have all that much it common with ancient greek slavery or transatlanctic slavery?). I asume by a historic union based on slavery you don't mean that marriage as a political instituion developed out of that of the (or rather a) insitution of slavery? Or is it that marriage and slavery contain some common features and are both forms of domonation?

Without going into some historical or cultural context its hard to say why i'd disagree with what you've said, but then without being applicable to any context what use is any theory? But i think alot of what your saying about 'bride exchange' is based on outdated and misinterpreted anthropology. For a start brides aren't exhcnage as property from man to man, but from kinship group to kinship group.

If where talking levi-struass's ideas of bride exhcnage then women aren't 'exchanged' like a commodity (the gift sure as hell ain't an calculating exchange- try reading some mauss) but represent the principal of exchange. i.e. that women aren't passive victims pushed about by men but there active movement through society makes society possible in the first place. I might not actually agree with levi-struass's ideas but its some subsiquent critique of that (which what your saying has some resemblance too) that have misinterpreted this idea, in part due to levi-struass's dodgey chose of termonology, and ended up representing women as passive victims or commodities. Doing this ignores the how women understand and play with this exchange themselves- instead of viewing women from the point of view of western anthropology (a prodomanately male deiscipline btw). So Surely the imporant question is that how women 'exchanged' understand themselves? (as many recent feminist antropolgoist have focused on). Do they view themselves as slaves or not? If so is there view point still valid?

Quote:
lthough things have changed a lot, there are still hundreds of arranged and enforced marriages in this country

are you equating arranged marriages with enfroced marriages there? If some one is force to do something against their will then of course it bad. But are all arranged marriages against the womens will?

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 3 2004 08:40

i saw that lucy deleted her post so i deleted mine too. dont want a slanging match if i can help it.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 3 2004 11:36

no i deleted it because i wrote it last night when i was knackered and i wanted to add to it and couldn't be arsed editing. not for any other reason.

tongue

i'll put it back up random don't you worry. In the meantime feel free to reply to capt mission. I believe he's talking to you.

slanging match!!! me!!! so thats what you think about my carefully thought out in depth debates is it? you insult me, you scurvey knave.

anyone would think you don't feel safe with me. and I'm a GIRL!!!! twisted

Mr. T

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 3 2004 13:05

well can you do me a favour and leave your assumptions about my mother out of it.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 3 2004 16:29

ooh er missus. bit below the belt that one. especially as people can't see what i did write. i've left it at work and i'm not sure i can be arsed writing it again.

so i'll clarify

no disrespect to your ma but however shit her life may have been (and it was you who said it was remember), she had choices. slaves don't. its the loose definition of slavery you use, expecially in relation to marriage i was criticising. i'll say it again. it was your argument, random, that i was criticising, not your mum.

in the context of my criticism of your definition and usage of the word slavery, i did say i'll bet your mum wasn't sold off at six months old, had no choice whatsoever in who she married and had her kids taken off her and sold as slaves also. this was a true life story of an enslaved woman.

however, if in fact, all these events actually have happened to your mum, then i apologise and can only congratulate you. you appear to have done well for a child who began life born into slavery and sold.

its usually a good idea if you feel strongly about something personal not to introduce it as support for your argument. If you choose to include it, then you must accept that people may disagree with the conclusions you have drawn from it.

by the way, i wonder if people who have had arranged marriages would ask you to leave your assumptions about THEIR relationships and experiences out of it? roll eyes

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 3 2004 19:04

lucy, my definitions of slavery are not in any way loose, rather your definition is so narrow as to diminish the experiences of thousands of people.

here is a link to the anti slavery international site.

here are their definitions of slavery:

Quote:
Common characteristics distinguish slavery from other human rights violations. A slave is:

1: forced to work -- through mental or physical threat;

2: owned or controlled by an 'employer', usually through mental or physical abuse or threatened abuse;

3: dehumanised, treated as a commodity or bought and sold as 'property';

4: physically constrained or has restrictions placed on his/her freedom of movement.

and here:

Quote:
What types of slavery exist today?

Bonded labour affects at least 20 million people around the world. People become bonded labourers by taking or being tricked into taking a loan for as little as the cost of medicine for a sick child. To repay the debt, many are forced to work long hours, seven days a week, up to 365 days a year. They receive basic food and shelter as 'payment' for their work, but may never pay off the loan, which can be passed down for generations.

Forced labour affects people who are illegally recruited by individuals, governments or political parties and forced to work -- usually under threat of violence or other penalties.

Worst forms of child labour refers to children who work in exploitative or dangerous conditions. Tens of millions of children around the world work full-time, depriving them of the education and recreation crucial to their personal and social development.

Commercial sexual exploitation of children is the sexual abuse of people under 18 years old in prostitution or pornography for cash or gifts. Many children are trafficked globally into this form of exploitation every year.

Trafficking involves the transport and/or trade of people, often women or children, for economic gain using force or deception. Often migrant women are tricked and forced into domestic work or prostitution.

Early and forced marriage affects women and girls who are married without choice and are forced into lives of servitude often accompanied by physical violence.

Traditional or 'chattel' slavery involves the buying and selling of people. They are often abducted from their homes, inherited or given as gifts

from this factsheet on contemporary forms of slavery

Quote:
International concern with slavery and its suppression is the theme of many treaties, declarations and conventions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The first of three modern conventions directly related to the issue is the Slavery Convention of 1926, drawn up by the League of Nations....The 1926 Convention's definition of slavery was broadened to include the practices and institutions of debt bondage, servile forms of marriageand the exploitation of children and adolescents in the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, adopted at a United Nations conference in Geneva in 1956.

and a definition from amnesty international:

Quote:
forced (or servile) marriage constitutes ‘a woman or girl child being given into marriage, without the right to refuse, by her parents, guardians, the community, etc.’

I dont want to sit around ticking boxes but I assure you that my mothers marriage fits the desciption accurately. Your "true life story of an enslaved woman" is not the only story. Slavery happens in different ways to different people all around our world, including here. People dont always have the 'choices' you think they do. There are many ways to force people to do things they dont want. It's just not as simple as you portray it to be. Sometimes there is nowhere to run, even now and even here.

Quote:
you appear to have done well for a child who began life born into slavery and sold

youre so fucking offensive its unbelievable. where did you learn to be so condescending and holier than thou? is there a special course or did it come naturally?

i dont mind anyone disagreeing with me or my conclusions, its when they make nasty little digs and way out assumptions that i get pissed off.

sorry captainmission i am getting round to the marriage question, it is an interesting one. but i gotta go bathe my daughter so i'll hopefully get back later. maybe we could talk about it on a new thread, because this one has gone right off the topic of .... only groups, which is another interesting subject which im not sure has exhausted itself and i feel like im interrupting it.

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 3 2004 21:05

captain i found some interesting articles and put the links up in the thought forum here http://enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=17186#17186

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 4 2004 06:05

this is what i mean by "loose"

the basis of my argument in the deleted post was that you make sweeping generalisations. you rush headlong between difference forms of marriage, ignoring the choices and experiences of women who have arranged marriages/unarranged marriages/forced marriages, the cultural, economic and historical context of particular forms of marriage and of slavery. I know the institution of marriage is based on ownership and on property but you slap this on all over the place, chucking everything into the pudding without context.

Quote:
"there are still hundreds of arranged and enforced marriages in this country, and as the women involved are treated as property i would also consider this to be a form of slavery."

this expands in a whoosh to cover traditional forms of marriage in this country. it actually makes debating anything with you very difficult. it is hard work not making assumptions when there is no context. I also think that these generalisations can become offensive although I do not think you intend them to be so. for example the above quote could be construed as seeing asian women as puppet victims and as reinforcing racist stereotypes of asian men.

I think these are the reasons why our conversations have a tendancy to degenerate. I don't seem to have this difficulty with anyone else who posts on enrager, whether or not I agree with their argument.

This was the essence of what I tried to say in the deleted post.

After I deleted it the comments you made about "slanging matches" and "leaving your mother out of it" would have led anyone reading those comments to think that the post was a specific attack on you and on your mother without being able to see the content and context of the argument in which I used examples you used yourself to explain my point.

This is why I have tried to clarify.

I am not going to discuss this any more because its getting really silly. I accept that I do have a jokey, sarky way of putting things which you obviously don't appreciate. wink Maybe you should have waited until I had repeated my argument before jumping to attack.

I suggest we return to the topic of the thread.

<edited a billion times cause it keeps leaving spaces>

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 4 2004 08:54

lucy if you want to discuss the freedom aspect of marriage including arranged marriage then do, dont let me put you off. you're right i dont appreciate your sarky tones because i dont know you and it is impossible to tell over a PC whether you are joking or just being really rude. we've never met and only vaguely talked here, but you come across as very hostile to me. it doesnt help when you pick just one sentence out of one of my posts, seemingly having nothing to comment on anywhere else, and proceed to write a bunch of 'between the lines' assumptions complete with digs, for example "i tried not to say anything but arrrrrrrrrrrrgh "; "these assumptions make me feel sick. Its spot the victim bullshit..", "oh for fucks sake." and the rest including the rolly eyed icons you use every time you talk to me. is it any wonder i take it badly? from my pov it comes across as very condescending, like i'm some lower form of life that cant be talked to normally.

so if its just your own special brand of sarcasm, then im sorry for taking it so badly. but i would appreciate it very much if you could talk to me as an equal in the future, explain where you think i'm wrong without all the unnecessaries.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 4 2004 17:07

thought me first post was quite good meself and I stand by what i said.

its the ideas i'm attacking in my robust binary manner. stop taking everything so personally.

roll eyes <------------- rollyeyed bystander sez "lucy, don't leave me out of your posts. its my job goddamit".

Quote:
seemingly having nothing to comment on anywhere else

confused <-------- confused bystander talking about something else entirely sez "you haven't checked out the anarchist dating service then?? its lovely"

8) <-------- cool bystander sez "random, chill"

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 4 2004 18:27
Quote:
thought me first post was quite good meself and I stand by what i said.

so you dont understand why i would interpret it as being fairly insulting or condescending? or you do understand but wouldnt dream of acknowledging the problem, or heavens forbid actually apologise for causing offence?

why is it so important for you to turn this into a joke?

can we get past all this now?

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 4 2004 19:48
Quote:
why is it so important for you to turn this into a joke?

because you took the fact that i deleted a post and made comments which immediately made it look as if the deleted post was a personal attack on your mum and on yourself. impossible for anyone to check then, wasn't it?

pissed me off a bit to be honest.

so i precised the post so the context could be seen and put it up for the benefit of anyone else who can be arsed to follow this rather lively er..debate. for what am i supposed to apologise?

i do find this whole "you are attacking me" crap rather tiring and it reeks of girlie playground tactics. i am using humour to try to get you to stop.

does this answer your question?

Quote:
can we get past all this now?

if you like. i'm not arsed one way or another. but please stop jumping in with both feet (ie. after the deleted post) and then being the hurt victim.

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 4 2004 23:22

lucy this really makes me laugh, truly the only time i have seen this sense of humour you keep banging on about having:

Quote:
impossible for anyone to check then, wasn't it?

its impossible for anyone to check or reread anything you say when you edit every post three or four times. nip this add that take away this change that, your self editing is so frequent even i cant keep up with it. doesnt seem to me that you're particularly bothered whether anyone can check for themselves or not.

Quote:
for what am i supposed to apologise?

youre not supposed to apologise for anything. its just something that people of honesty do when they've made a mistake, misquoted or misunderstood someone, or offended them for no reason. i wouldnt want a sarcastic and meaningless apology from a person who didnt mean it anyway.

Quote:
girlie playground tactics

you really do think you're better than me don't you? its just so easy to hide behind your pc and your forum clique, try to earn little brownie points for baseless attacks on outsiders. i defend myself from your spiels of bullshit assumptions and insults, and you make a joke out of it, tell me to 'chill', 'use humour' to try and portray me as some little paranoid 'girlie' idiot, what typical good ole boy tricks you have picked up in your little popularity crusade.

im so sick of hearing you misusing the word 'victim'. people dont become victims through choice, they are victimised by bullies. you use the term as if it were an insult, a person should be ashamed of themselves for being a victim, something they have no control over. you use it flippantly and without any thought as to its meaning and what it might signify for the people who carry the weight of it. a victim who lives is a survivor, and you really shouldnt be so fucking insensitive.

you did make a personal attack on both myself and my mum. you claimed that my mum "had choices", which is another of your assumptions that you make without any real knowledge of the situation or facts. your assumption that she 'had choices' implies that she chose to stay, she mustve liked it or maybe even asked for it, is that possibly where that is heading? i guess she mustve really enjoyed being a victim huh? you followed up with your own narrow definition of slavery,( which of course is the only one because you're always right, right?) and told me"you appear to have done well for a child who began life born into slavery and sold". firstly, you do not know how well i have or havent done, secondly you dont know how i began my life, thirdly you dont know anything about me including whether or not i have ever been sold, exchanged, or even given away free in a box of kelloggs. you know absolutely fuck all about me or my life yet you assume to tell me what it was or was not, and you do it in an insulting and flippant way. you really do need to get over yourself.

you also accuse me of "seeing asian women as puppet victims and as reinforcing racist stereotypes of asian men". i never once used the word asian. we were discussing arranged marriages, it was your mind that jumped to the stereotype of asian marriages. perhaps it hadnt occured to you that there are many ways to force a person to marriage, done throughout several cultures? and actually, i dont think its racist to be completely against the practice of forcing women (or men for that matter) into marriage. i dont dislike the practice because of the religions or colours of those who do it. i think there is racism in refusing to challenge or even address human rights abuses because of the colour or religion of the victims.

i gave you a load of information about slavery, after your narrow minded comments, and youve said nothing about it. did you bother to look? did you have anything to say about it?

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 5 2004 17:56

oh god, here we go again. speeling off all over the place. i'm kinda chuffed though that i have a little forum clique. who are they? 8)

liked the box of kelloggs bit though. smile

overall, you ignore everything i say, sensible or flippant. now i seem to have said your mum asked for it??? random, your generalisations and strange connections between what is actually argued and what you think the person is saying, are getting tiriing.

i have explained my points, clarified my actions, and reiterated both. and you keep hurling any shit back.

lets see. taken directly from what you have written, just in this post.

i bang on about my sense of humour

i edit posts deliberately in a sinister and evil way so noone can check what i write

i think i'm better than you.

i deliberately attack outsiders baselessly to score popularity points (like a good ole boy)

i don't understand the complexities involved in the concept of victimhood

I am fuckin insensitive

I think your mum both asked for it and enjoyed it.

i am always right

i am flippant and insult you

i need to get over myself

my mind only operates in racial stereotypesran

i am narrow minded

and then there are all kinds of massive assumptions about what i think shoved into what you write, which you, in the same sentence, respond to? why? basically we are in a position where, because of the above massive assumptions, you are responding to yourself..

and if i try anything other than communicating on the terms you have set i am immediately back to being "who i am" in the above.

I'm kinda bored with banging my head on walls and i don't choose to argue on your terms of engagement.

so see ya.

have the last word.

{ t r y n o t t o g o o f f o n o n e a n d t o f i t t h e l a s t w o r d i n t h i s b o x )

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Sep 5 2004 19:16

well gee lucy thanks for the permission, yet more evidence of your delusions of grandeur.

you are a bully. look it up, learn a little about it. recognise the symptoms?

pathetic. roll eyes

oh yeh, and you forgot one, i also called you DISHONEST.

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Sep 5 2004 20:26

random. talking to you, disagreeing, explaining, arguing, rationalising, even getting pissed off with what you write is not bullying

meanwhile, this discussion is ended cause theres nowhere for it to go. maybe we'll meet up for real one day.

maybe we could do in spoken word what we can't seem to be able to do in text?

actually its been a novel lesson around the notion of a women only discussion.

quick. send the boys in.

wink

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 9 2004 16:20

Deleted <thought better of it>