Are women constantly being harassed or does the news recently just make it feel that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s much more complicated than that. In matriarchal societies women don’t need to use their “sexual powers to get perks”.

. . .

Other studies have looked at the confidence of girls and women in matriarchal societies and found that they have equal confidence in their decision making as males. By contrast, the more patriarchal the society, the less confidence females had in their decisions compared to males.

I can see how in a society where women have less power, they would use their sexuality to influence the males that do. It would also make sense that lower status males would try to elevate their status by putting females down below them.

This is definitely a tangent, but were any of these matriarchal societies agriculturally based? I read something about how the status of women in society was often harmed in places after the agricultural revolution took place. It had to do with owning and defending property and passing it along to heirs as well as treating women much like the the livestock they were now breeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is definitely a tangent, but were any of these matriarchal societies agriculturally based? I read something about how the status of women in society was often harmed in places after the agricultural revolution took place. It had to do with owning and defending property and passing it along to heirs as well as treating women much like the the livestock they were now breeding.

These societies were in Asia and Africa. As far as I know there are no matriarchal societies in South America. Yes, some of these societies are agricultural. It doesn’t mean that the men have no power, just that land, property and family names are handed down through the woman’s side of the family. In some of these societies it is the mother’s brother who helps raise the children.

My personal view is that religion is the biggest determinant of whether a society is patriarchal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that the majority of sexual harassment claims are legit. Unfortunately, you do have the occasional nutcase or opportunist that complains to HR over something that no reasonable person would consider harassment. When this happens, word spreads among men, which tends to make them skeptical of harassment claims.

A study I read from a few years ago estimated that 97% of sexual assault claims are true and 3% are fabricated.

This statistic is commonly posted into the comment sections on various feminist sites. But the common interpretation is misleading.

Saying that 3% of rape accusations are likely false is NOT the same thing as saying that 97% are true. The truth is that the majority of rape accusations end in inconclusive "he said she said" situations, with no clear outcome. I do agree in principle that the majority of these sort of claims are likely to be true, but it's important to be careful with statistics like this. Overstating the case can backfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The news needs a victim-centered non-story to obsess over. Last year, it was people who beileve they are not the sex they were born. Now it’s this.

Ignore. This, too, shall pass.

Maybe, till it happens to your daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While all of this is disturbing, I am saddened at how many very young girls were harassed and groped at 13 and younger. That’s not harassment, it’s pedophilia. There is no age where harassment of another is “acceptable” but the assaulting of children, of either gender, is a crime.

It is also cowardliness - young girls are easier to intimidate than grown women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe it. I'm already tired and bored of the issue.

Bring on the next entertaining cause/terrorist attack/natural disaster!!

Go back to FFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is definitely a tangent, but were any of these matriarchal societies agriculturally based? I read something about how the status of women in society was often harmed in places after the agricultural revolution took place. It had to do with owning and defending property and passing it along to heirs as well as treating women much like the the livestock they were now breeding.

These societies were in Asia and Africa. As far as I know there are no matriarchal societies in South America. Yes, some of these societies are agricultural. It doesn’t mean that the men have no power, just that land, property and family names are handed down through the woman’s side of the family. In some of these societies it is the mother’s brother who helps raise the children.

My personal view is that religion is the biggest determinant of whether a society is patriarchal.

Thanks. I tend to believe that the culture shapes the religion more than the religion shapes the culture. It's a feedback loop, of course, but religion is so malleable. I think a patriarchal society is not created by religion; rather, a patriarchal society will either adopt a patriarchal religion or shape its version of the religion into something oppressive to women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is definitely a tangent, but were any of these matriarchal societies agriculturally based? I read something about how the status of women in society was often harmed in places after the agricultural revolution took place. It had to do with owning and defending property and passing it along to heirs as well as treating women much like the the livestock they were now breeding.

These societies were in Asia and Africa. As far as I know there are no matriarchal societies in South America. Yes, some of these societies are agricultural. It doesn’t mean that the men have no power, just that land, property and family names are handed down through the woman’s side of the family. In some of these societies it is the mother’s brother who helps raise the children.

My personal view is that religion is the biggest determinant of whether a society is patriarchal.

Thanks. I tend to believe that the culture shapes the religion more than the religion shapes the culture. It's a feedback loop, of course, but religion is so malleable. I think a patriarchal society is not created by religion; rather, a patriarchal society will either adopt a patriarchal religion or shape its version of the religion into something oppressive to women.

You have a point. Some of the strongest matriarchal societies are in the Himalayan region and I wonder if the mountainous terrain has something to do with it. For one, they are smaller communities in areas where it’s probably difficult to conquer surrounding people and land. So maybe there’s no incentive to be physically dominant. Also, the terrain is such that it’s difficult to partition it between several hiers. In matriarchal societies the land belongs to the woman’s family, not to the woman herself.

[Anonymous]

Every time I go to the city by myself I get cat called, but I have never been uncomfortable with that. It has been a part of my life since I was 12 or 13 and I assumed it happened to all women. I don't respond and no one has ever invaded my personal space. There has been flirting, with sexual undertones and occasional brushing of arms, sitting a little too close etc, but no one has ever crossed the line to inappropriate.