Which is why I never implied that sexism or racism didn't exist just because we didn't necessarily define it. We're in total agreement on that.
Well no, as many could be attributed solely to lust and opportunism.
Why indeed. The problem comes when post-modern terms supplant perfectly good traditional terms for the same thing, but invoking a layer of pscho-babble and political correctness that are unnecessary. Example sometimes a leer is just a leer -- not an expression of suppressed maternal attachment ("sexism") or a deep insecurity about one's station in life ("racism"). Some rapes in Antebellum/Civil War era were just acts of opportunity -- and horrible enough for that alone.
I'm not comfortable layering post-modern terms onto discussions of historical settings, that's all. I'd like to say that's only me but it's a general trend among history writers. For the sake of honesty they avoid "putting on airs." There's no medals for being "socially-aware" or "politically-correct" or "academically current."
My point is IMHO you are more worried about what is socially aware or politically correct than most people using these terms. The rest of us are just trying to apply the term that fits the best, nothing more or less, and don't give a damn about what people think either way.
If men treated women inferior to men in some factor then it's sexism. It's simple. Most men to women rape of the time was probably motivated by sexism, this includes when combined by opportunism. If a man didn't feel superior to the woman enough to defy her will (or care nothing for it) then whether the opportunity was there or not didn't matter.
Lots of people didn't rape those who they had the opportunity to do so, so what is the key difference between them? Likely in many cases I suggest sexism. The men who viewed women as equal or closer to equals were probably less likely to take advantage of that opportunity. Since sexism was so widespread we had widespread rape. To be clear I'm not saying it was the case in every single example of rape, neither am I saying it didn't combine with other factors.
I mean I don't think any of those views are post modern lol. People at those times, including men,
did in fact view things like that as well. Not everyone of that time viewed women as unequal (even if it was most) which shows that it's not a new idea just a newly widespread idea. It's not a post modern idea, just a minority old idea.
Hell I'll back up my claim, my 2nd great granduncle Miles Ledford Langley argued for the equality of women in the 1868 Arkansas Constitutional Convention.
"""
Mr. LANGLEY (when his name was called) said : I want it understood that I am a Radical. I believe in universal freedom , impartial suffrage; and equal rights. I will vote for the Constitution as a whole, thinking it is a good thing, for the men that made it.
...
Mr. LANGLEY: ... Progress is an unchangeable law of nature. This is an age of improvement. Reform is the order of the day. We are passing through a crisis unparalleled in the history of the world . We have just struggled through a gigantic war, and are inaugurating a new era in the history of our national policy. We must reconstruct the government of our country on radical principles — universal freedom , impartial suffrage, and equal rights. We must be governed by natural justice . and scientific principles. Scientific truth must be our guide in ethics, in religion , in politics, in social life, and in legal matters. Shall woman , created the equal of man, be entitled to the same political and legal rights as man ? This is the question ; and it is destined to be the question of questions, the great question of the age, the question of the country for years to come.
I affirm that woman is by nature endowed with equal rights, social, political, and legal, with man.
The right of woman to the elective franchise, etc., is based on the principles of scientific truth .
I call special attention to this proposition : That woman does not differ from man in any particular that disqualifies her from rightly exercising the same political and legal rights that he does. (I call special attention , I say, to that proposition . I want men to meet me with argument, on this floor.)
Whether this proposition is true or false, depends, not on prejudice , not on ancient custom , not on modern usage, not on legislative enactment, but on scientific truth . This is a question of science, and can be rightly decided only by scientific knowledge. Anatomy, physiology, and phrenology demonstrate that woman possesses every natural qualification which entitles a man to political and legal rights.
"""
I mean his arguments and statements there were at least 70 or so years ahead of his time. His weren't the first on such either. So we should be careful to not delegate everything to "post modern" just because such an idea became predominant or mainstream in the alleged "post modern." Many people have fought with modern ideas of women equality for a very long time, they were just outnumbered, but we must recognize that those ideas
are not new.