[The post is titled "Debunking the Patriarchy Myth"]
[A painting from 1631 of a father wiping a baby]
So there you have it: The Patriarchy in action — changing diapers. This is before feminism, before women’s suffrage and before Susan B. Anthony’s great grandparents were born.
The painting is pretty funny to me, because I can so easily relate to the poor guy in the picture who has to wipe the kid’s butt. You can see him recoiling from the stench, arm hung to the side in resignation.
Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?
33 comments
Nobody ever said that patriarchy means that no man anywhere ever has to change a diaper. I can assure you that back then, just like today, there were men who refused to change diapers because that was "women's work."
Have to? I'm a father and while I don't LIKE changing diapers it's my child. I don't see it as something I "have to" do, I see it as part of raising my child. Tell me, do you also see helping your children with their homework as something you only do because you have to? Because me, I like helping my child. Even if I don't particularly like the action itself.
As for privilege, if you think reluctantly wiping a child's butt (something that every parent should be willing to do for their child) negates centuries of denying women the right to vote, own property, and gain independence then you are not just mistaken but mentally blind. The fact that changing a diaper is the worst thing you can think of shows just how fucking privileged you really are.
Because they love their child and wish to care for it?
Is everything a one-person zero-sum game for you? Because last time I checked the instruction manual for "The Game of LIFE," it said "for two or more players"...
Not every single aspect of human culture in 1631 lined up with what feminists centuries later would complain about. Nor would it matter; 1631 was quite far from the present day, and history sadly does not always move towards equality.
Yet I think it fair to note that women in 1631 could generally not vote or serve in feudal legislatures, could only inherit thrones if the king only had daughters (if that - in some countries it'd pass to a male uncle or cousin), and in many countries such as England could not even own property.
A thousand years ago there were decent people who lived long, fruitfull, satisfying lives, therefore any movements that aim to propagate technological and sociological progress, so that more people live decent lives are unnecessary, is that what you're saying, Mr Price?
That's ONE picture, of ONE man changing ONE diaper. Millions of women change diapers every single day, and these poor women are also recoiling from the stench. How do you wipe a baby's butt with one arm "hung to the side in resignation"? I haven't changed that many diapers, being childless, but doesn't it usually take at least two hands; sometimes you wish you had three or four hands?
If you're not prepared to change a diaper, you ought not to have children, WTF.
The fact that you see having to change one diaper as lacking of privileges, shows that you're incredibly privileged, stupid.
Anon-e-moose
The classic Athena poster:
image
Your point, W.T.F. Price? Another classic Athena poster:
image
You ask why someone goes against their traditional gender roles (and status has fuck-all to do with it; a non-sequitur at worst): a man doing what you 'think' a woman should, in a centuries-old artwork, or as exampled above, modern photographic images of a woman scratching her arse as a man would, and a man caring for a child - as you 'think' a woman 'should'? Well, you'd better sit down, as the following may come as a complete shock to you, W.T.F. Price, but the answer to those visual questions - why do they do such unimaginable things (as far as you're concerned) - is simple:
Because they can .
A man at some point in the past may have wiped an infant's ass, therefore men could not have been privileged and women could not have been oppressed. Genius. Forget that women had no rights, couldn't own property, and were basically owned by their husband or male relative. A man may have had to change a shitty diaper!
And here's a painting of a woman being fawned over by angels:image
You wipe your baby's butt because you care about it and don't want it to get sick. The baby's mother may well have been worn out, sick, or dead from childbirth, and if people weren't often better than the received laws and customs, we'd have had a poor lookout of getting even this far.
Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?
Because people with no one else to rely on have to do jobs that have to get done by themselves? Does this asshole think single fathers with young kids don't have to change diapers?
My brother's daughter is in diapers. They couple is separated. Guess who changes her?
And seriously, changing a didey is such a humiliating, stinky job that only women should have to do it? Fuck off.
Because in those days, people didn't work outside the house. Everyone in the house had to pitch in. Men and women both worked. Your patriarchy - not the fact that men had more political rights than women and were respected more, because that was certainly true, but the idea that men work for money and women stay home and care for the house - dates back to the 1950s.
Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?
Because there wasn't always a woman around to do it. Next question?
1) Many women died in childbirth, leaving men widowers. The man in the painting is poor; it would not have been easy for him to find a nursemaid.
Brouwer evidently painted the same strata of society that Gorky and Dickens wrote about. This man, like the others, is one of the "former humans"; unlike almost all of the others, he is not portrayed as brawling, attempting murder, about to be murdered, preventing a murder, or undergoing potentially lethal quackery. The milieu is nonetheless masculine. In all likelihood this is an impoverished workman whose wife is deceased,and who perforce must carry the baby with him.
Why is raising children being made out to be something one should only wish to do at gunpoint? I'm seeing a lot of this from both Misogynist Reactionary Assholes and Feminists. (Frighteningly enough not the batshit crazy radfems, either.)
It's getting disturbing and not just because it seemingly indicates an unreasoning hatred for one's own offspring.
I fully understand the resentment of being shackled into a role but why the hell has the role itself been turned into something shameful especially seeing as preparing children for the future is kind of essential for the survival of the human race? It's worse than the attempts to foist the responsibility (without the accompanying respect) for maintaining the household onto another party and the resulting inability for the duty-dodger to effectively look after themselves. It's counterproductive and immature.
Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?
Because they actually might care about their child. Please never have children, I have a feeling they would end up being neglected.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
