View Single Post
Old March 11 2013, 10:48 PM   #63
Re: Cardassian society - enforcement or preference?

Sci wrote: View Post
So what if they fall short? The goal isn't to justify idolizing earlier cultures, it's to accurately describe them. "Democracy" literally means "rule by the people," but basic logic says that a society in which more than half the population is disenfranchised is not rule by the people.
So you have a problem with the semantics? Would it be better to retroactively say Athens called itself something else? Are you looking to white wash history because it doesn't live up to your standards?

I already think my society is deeply, deeply flawed and oppressive; I have no problem with future historians coming to the same conclusion.
Yes, it's clear that you have an unrealistically high standard for everyone and everything. Constructive criticism is one thing, but your criticism is less constructive and more belittling.

An accurate understanding of the nature of that society which does not rely on buying into the ideological justifications for their oppressions.

Athens called itself a democracy. The concept of rule by the people surely owes a great debt to Ancient Athens. But the simple fact remains that by no reasonable standard can a society in which only an elite set of property-owning men were allowed to vote be called a genuine democracy; to uncritically call Ancient Athens a democracy is to make the women, the poor, and the people held as slaves in Ancient Athens invisible to history - it is to say that they were not really people and did not really count. But those people were there; they existed, and they were an important part of Ancient Athenian society -- even if the ruling elite wanted them invisible.
You wanted Athens of 2000-some-odd years ago to make the jump to modern equality in one go? That's unrealistic. Rather than belittling the Athenians for not being modern, you should acknowledge the debt modern society owes them for fostering the idea of democracy, even if they didn't practice it to your standards. As it is now, you may as well be belittling a child for not being a first-rate heart surgeon when he or she practices surgery on a teddy bear.

For one, there's the fact that Kirk seems to agree with her assertion. And the fact that women in TOS were never indicated to hold any higher social status than women in early 1960s America does not factor into this?

TOS reflected many of the social mores of early-to-mid 1960s white America, and that included the subordination of women. Sorry to say, TOS was not a product of second-wave feminism.
Why shouldn't he agree with her? She's mad. I'd agree with anything she said, too, just to get her to calm down.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote