142 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

Beany, on 16 December 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I guess we'd have to ask the slaves & women how they feel about it, huh? When was slavery ever a rational act that all of society benefited from, including the enslaved? Hello, in the Southern US slaves states, slaves were......

And herein lies the problem in discussing things such as this in our modern context.  When someone speaks of "slaves" in a discussion, we cannot help but look at the African-American slave trade and the horrors that were perpetuated by their white masters.  This is then taken as the norm and our picture of slavery is now tainted.  Slavery in many societies throughout history did not resemble this exploitative and blatantly barbaric form of slavery.  In ancient Rome (for example), around the time that Jesus was preaching, slaves were a vital cog in the wheel of society.  The police force was comprised of slaves, as were doctors also slaves.  In many ancient society's the alternative to slavery was to beg on the streets, and with enough beggars to fill towns several times over, that often led to starvation and death.  Slavery for many was a good life, and certainly preferable to starving to death (though of course not ignoring that there were also cruel slave masters, that's just part of human nature).

Until we move beyond our imagined (and frankly, misinformed) stereotype of all slavery being akin to the African-American slave trade, we haven't a hope of coming to understand the issue,

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 17 December 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[ouija ouija]

Paranoid Android, on 17 December 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

And herein lies the problem in discussing things such as this in our modern context.  When someone speaks of "slaves" in a discussion, we cannot help but look at the African-American slave trade and the horrors that were perpetuated by their white masters.  This is then taken as the norm and our picture of slavery is now tainted.  Slavery in many societies throughout history did not resemble this exploitative and blatantly barbaric form of slavery.  In ancient Rome (for example), around the time that Jesus was preaching, slaves were a vital cog in the wheel of society.  The police force was comprised of slaves, as were doctors also slaves.  In many ancient society's the alternative to slavery was to beg on the streets, and with enough beggars to fill towns several times over, that often led to starvation and death.  Slavery for many was a good life, and certainly preferable to starving to death (though of course not ignoring that there were also cruel slave masters, that's just part of human nature).

Until we move beyond our imagined (and frankly, misinformed) stereotype of all slavery being akin to the African-American slave trade, we haven't a hope of coming to understand the issue,

~ Regards, PA

As the definition of a slave is: 'A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them', I don't think it's possible to take issue with Beany's comment: "When was slavery ever a rational act that all of society benefited from, including the enslaved?".  Your example of ancient Rome 'when slaves were a vital cog in the wheel of society' is not an exception, all slaves are 'vital cogs' because their labour is cheap/free.  How would slave police forces and slave doctors benefit anyone other than their masters/owners/the very rich? As for your comment "slavery for many was a good life", what proof do you have of this? Everything would hinge on how kind their owner was or wasn't. It's more likely that for the majority their life would be no better than a beggar's .... maybe even worse, as a beggar didn't have to work! Once they were no longer fit enough for work they would be flung out on the street anyway.

[CuriousGreek]

How could they make such a decision? They're waaay out of their minds...!!

[Paranoid Android]

ouija ouija, on 17 December 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

As the definition of a slave is: 'A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them', I don't think it's possible to take issue with Beany's comment: "When was slavery ever a rational act that all of society benefited from, including the enslaved?".  Your example of ancient Rome 'when slaves were a vital cog in the wheel of society' is not an exception, all slaves are 'vital cogs' because their labour is cheap/free.  How would slave police forces and slave doctors benefit anyone other than their masters/owners/the very rich? As for your comment "slavery for many was a good life", what proof do you have of this? Everything would hinge on how kind their owner was or wasn't. It's more likely that for the majority their life would be no better than a beggar's .... maybe even worse, as a beggar didn't have to work! Once they were no longer fit enough for work they would be flung out on the street anyway.

I was simply making a comment that the effect of the African-American slave trade has severely hampered our understanding of slavery in a broader context.  This thread isn't about slavery, so I wasn't intending on going further than that.  A simple look at the history of slavery from ancient times to now will show how different ancient slavery was compared to that of the Americans.  If you wish to research it, the information is out there

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 17 December 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[Beany]

I understand you reasoning, however, I can't imagine that people were cheerfully resigned to being slaves, as that means not having full control over one's life or sometimes even body, and that some important life's decisions are left up to those who run or control society instead of being left up to the individual. How well someone is compensated or taken care of or how much responsibility they are entrusted with does not justify taking away a person's freedom. This is from a PBS website: "Slavery in ancient Rome differed from its modern forms in that it was not based on race. But like modern slavery, it was an abusive and degrading institution. Cruelty was commonplace." Here's the link to the webpage: http://www.pbs.org/e...s_freemen.html.

Well, the OP wasn't about slavery, but it was about women being given permission to speak, and about power over, which is an issue with both women & slave cultures. And it is still an issue for women and minorities, and there are parallels to be drawn. Give anyone whose been devalued a voice and you'll likely end up hearing some disturbing images & truths that many would be more comfortable not hearing.

[Seeker79]

Mr Walker, on 14 December 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

In general women's participation in the work force has increased dramatically since the mid twentieth century.

There are at least two direct consequences of this. Women cant be home to raise their children  (and neither can men who are also working); and families, the economy and govts have become dependent on the economic input of women.

For example if my wife had worked at her clerical job since our marriage we would be  over a milion dollars better off economically. That million dollars would be spent, for most people on  increased costs incurred from an economy in which women work  such as childcare and increased infrastructure or a second car, benefits made available by extra  income, and  non essential luxuries such as a second or third car, travel,  two or three flat scree tvs .etc People no longer prepare healthy meals at home but eat out and get fatter and lesss healthy. Because no one is in neighbourhoods all day crime increases and neighbourhood connections break down.

As the economy becomes dependent on womens income it adjusts to this. Inflation rises with increased profits allowed by increased incomes, as do people's expectations. With more to spend people spend more
. Eventually women are forced to work by these increased social costs prices and taxes their freedom to not work is taken away from. My wife and i have defied this trend on principle and because it coudl also "corrupt' us but that has come at a huge financial cost (see loss of income above) Luckilly we don't need a lot of money to live comfortably, and certainly dont care about other people's opinions or social standing, but all costs in our society are predicated on a family with man and woman working (or getting benefits ).
The level of household debt is greater now than ever before largely due to the costs of housing but also credit for luxury items and travel. People buy bigger houses than ever before despite having smaller families than ever before.

No one can care for their elderly and so they are institutionalised. Such institutional care is possible from  govt financing and subsidising raised by increased tax revenues from women's work.

Eventually women stop having children and the govt has to pay them 6000 dollars at birth, plus  5000 dollars or more a year, to have and care for a child. This of course has most appeal for the uneducated and lower paid workers and so you creates an underclass of children from  families who may only have them for economic reasons. I KNOW this to be true because I live with the consequences, personally and professionally, every day.

A  women with a well paying job has high costs involved in having and raising children and will have none or few. A n unemployed woman canmake a considerable sum from a few kids. A poorly paid woman can make more from govt benefits than from working. We now have a generational situation of unemployed living on the benefits made possible largely from the increased income taxes from working women.

It is not the fault of women but of govt and of society for not forseeng this happening and allowing it to continue.

And so, today we have a society rich in material goods but poor in alsost every other commodity which was once valued.

Families fall apart Children suffer very badly and the whole ethical rationale of society and humanity is devalued from a "spiritual" one to an economic materialist one.

I was a child in the fifties and a teenager in the sixties. There were no drugs other than alcohol available to children/teenagers at that time. When i went to university in my late teens /early twenties I was offered, and tried marijuana once or twice. It had no effect on me (as alcohol has no effect on me, except to make me sleepy) Even then ( late sixties early seventies) there was no culture or networking of marijuana at uni. A few people grew it and gave it away like cigarettes.

I wasnt a protected  young person. I was surfing and riding motorbikes from my mid teens and hanging out with  surfies, and I sometimes drank huge amounts of alcohol as an older teenager  once the legal age dropped to 18 (two gallons of beer and a couple of pints of spirit in a day or evening was not unknown) I smoked a packet and a half of cigarettes a day. I was young, fit, healthy, and stupid, (or at least dumb /unaware) like a lot of young people.
I haven't had a cigarette, alcohol, or any other non prescription drug since i was 22. (Close enough to forty years)

Ps at that time my mother had begun work after staying at home for the first 15 years of  her marriage But we did have my grandmother at home to care for the younger children and help with the housework. In fact we all lived in my grandmother's house, being too poor to buy or rent our own. My parents only bought theirir own home after my grandmother died and all the kids had left home. A developer offered them enough for grandma's property to buy a nice home of their own. Grandmas house was 120 years old, built by her father in the 1850s, and basically faling down by then, but the land was very valuable being right in the heart of town

Ps the statistics you felt weren't relevant were entirely relevant, aNd counter to the pov you expressed about society not worsening but improving. They support the rise of violence in our society. Similar statistics can be seen in  other areas including, especially, among the young. Kids are now using drugs and alcohol, engaging in sex and  commiting suicide at rates greater than ever, and  basically unkown in my childhood/adolescence Not all of that is down to the huge increase in working mothers but alot of it is To thinkotherwise is an act of denial

Alcohol alone is involved in a majority of domestic and social violence including sexaul assaults. It is high in the causes of accidents on the road, at home and at work. And the influence of other drugs is only compounding this.

Is ther a direct connection  with the changing role of women? I believe so, especially given the involvement of young women in many of these cases and the increasing objectificaton of women rather than respect for them as human beings, and their  special role as mothers of the next generation. There certainly is a direct correlation over time.

These things occur when a society loses control of its prime functions. This is happening. and one reason is the changing role of women, and hence of the nature of families, which underpins the structure of a society

You are a better man than I MW. I Woud not begrudge anyone, but, my education is in economics and basic 101 Classes has a lot to say about this.

[Paranoid Android]

Beany, on 17 December 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

I understand you reasoning, however, I can't imagine that people were cheerfully resigned to being slaves....

I never said it was a perfect system.  I was simply highlighting the differences between slavery in ancient times and how it is inappropriate (and imo, prejudicial) to make links to modern slavery in America.

Beany, on 17 December 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Well, the OP wasn't about slavery, but it was about women being given permission to speak, and about power over, which is an issue with both women & slave cultures. And it is still an issue for women and minorities, and there are parallels to be drawn. Give anyone whose been devalued a voice and you'll likely end up hearing some disturbing images & truths that many would be more comfortable not hearing.

Parallels to be drawn, perhaps.  But I wouldn't derail the thread to debate the merits of slavery at different times through history.

[Beany]

Paranoid Android, on 17 December 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

I never said it was a perfect system.  I was simply highlighting the differences between slavery in ancient times and how it is inappropriate (and imo, prejudicial) to make links to modern slavery in America.


Parallels to be drawn, perhaps.  But I wouldn't derail the thread to debate the merits of slavery at different times through history.

Well, I have sometimes been called a "train wreck." Slavery entails coercion and deprivation of self-determination, always.  That's the link.

[Mr Walker]

shadowhive, on 16 December 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

I'm a man and I have always treated women as my equal. I've never treated them as anything else. So personally, I find your attitude quite appalling.

I think you're looking far to cynically at the price of equality, by attruting all this negativveity to movement. Women deserved equal rights and, if it took costs for us to finally implement them, I see them as worth it.

Large families with many children were once common place, but there were also reasons for that just as there are reasons for having smaller families now. Just because families once had larger children does not make it the best situation.

Women were treated as objects for a long, long time. There will, unfortunately, always be men that treat women as objects. All we can do is try and limit that, and to lead by example where possible.

A lot of the issues you level at being directly the result of the women's rights movement have so many other causes that blaming the women's rights for them is not only unhelfpul but, to me, rather silly. Not only to that, but by attributing those negative things to the women's rights movements you are devaluing it completely.

I find it funny that you include that 'of course womeen have a right to equality' as if it covers you for all that you are trying to blame on it. Let's get realistic Mr Walker, you are pining the blame for so many things on the women's right moement, even partially that it sounds to me that, not only dont you think women should be treated equally, but that they don't DESERVE equal treatment because 'look at all these bad things that have happened because women got equal rights'.

As for children's rights, it depends on what you mean doesn't it? If you mean that they need to be treated well, with adequete food and access to education etc then yes.

This argument began because arbenol concluded that equality was the most important priority in social organisation. I disagreed. For me the  measurable outcomes for a society are the most importanty not just a value we happen to hold dea,r like equality.

So if equality brings better outcomes i am all for it, but if equality brings poorer outcomes i am less for it. Equality in itslef is not as high a priority as many other social needs and benefits. Along with the improvement in womens equality has come a severe and harmful deterioriation on many social indicators.

Are they connected? Of course they are. That's how a society works

.How directly is harder to ascertian but sociologix\sts and demographers can point to the causal links.  So one has to weigh the balance. In my mind it is no where near as one sides as you and arbenol seem to think. The rights and freedoms of any one section of a society, and of individuals, are dependent on the greater rights and strengths of the society in which we all exist.

And no one part of the society has a right to arbitrarily increase its  rights or power at the cost to other parts, or to the whole. So IF more freedom and more equality for women brings demonstrable harmful effects to segments of society then that has to be taken into acount.

The same is true for young people's rights. Young people have more rights and freedoms now than ever before and this is proving very destructive and dangerious to them and to others in society. Those rights affect others, such as encouraging hotels and night clubs to stay open all night to cater for people who are out all night, rather than closing early in the morning. In turn this affects every other resident of an area and other by standers, as violence fueled by ongoing consumption of alcohol rises rapidly and social order on the streets of cities breaks own, requiring greater police presence etc.

Ps i have never treated a woman as equal, but as "better' and certainly very different  than me.  Women are different in many ways and require different treatment from men; sexually; physically, socially, and emotionally.

While no violence in a society should be allowed or condoned, women are always at greater risk form violence both because of their physical nature and also their emotional make up and  social conditioning They are not driven by testosterone as one example and their chromosmatic/ genetic makeup causes less propensity for violence.

i have had to take many women to women's shelters to protect them from men, but only known one man who was beaten up by his wife, for example.

So i treat women differntly from men. Women have to care for and protect children far more often than men, and they require specia,l superior, and different treatment to/from men because of this.  Women are still not give the opportunities to learn many of the things men do as boys and in fact are not genetically wired, or as physically  able, to do some of the things men do and so often require help with mecahics  and physical labour .

They simply aren't as strong or robustly built as equivalent men. And for example they dont have as good long vision. On the other hand they are superior at multi tasking, pattern recognition, spotting differnces in backgrounds (hence their employment in camouflage detection by military forces)  and being better near sighted/ good with things up close.

  They have far less colour blindness. Men and women have different "drivers", like competitiveness in men and cooperation  in women, based in part on the superior facility with language enjoyed by women; leading to different choices in work and also different outcomes in work. (That means all forms of work not just paid work.)  Women have other compensating physical characteristics such as greater tolerance to pain, and often endurance and abilty to survive in tough conditions.

[Mr Walker]

Beany, on 16 December 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I guess we'd have to ask the slaves & women how they feel about it, huh? When was slavery ever a rational act that all of society benefited from, including the enslaved? Hello, in the Southern US slaves states, slaves were malnourished, beaten, maimed, torn away from their families, deprived of medical care, and usually were quartered in sub-standard housing, And many of them risked their lives to escape, so what are you thinking, that they were just unappreciative of everything done in their behalf? When was slavery ever a rational act that all of society benefited from, including the enslaved? Never, that's when. As for slaves & women in the US, a lot of people fought very hard for a long time to achieve equality under the law, it wasn't given to them. And let's distinguish between economic equality and moral equality, because those are two different things. Slavery and inequality have never been and will never be morally ethical, and a society that has no ethics won't stand the test of time.  

And in regard to slavery & women's right, I would argue that neither was or is morally ethical, nor could be considered beneficial to society at large, but a minority of men at the top of the hierarchy who held the power & wealth benefited from the status quo.

I bow to my wife's opinion on such matters. (not so much slavery, where i have an academic interest but certainly in all things pertaining to women.)

Her argument is that modern society has enslaved women along with men, rather than freed them. She believes her mother, for example, was much freer than almost any woman in modern society. She was in total charge and control of her own household, children, and economic  destiny, something few modern women can make claim to.

Her opportunities were less, but so were everyones in the first half of the twentieth century,  but her freedoms and prestige, treatment, respect, and honour paid to her as woman, wife, mother etc, were far greater than that accorded a modern woman in any field of endeavour. NO ONE told her what to do, or how, or when, to do it.  (with the possible exception of her mother)

What modern woman at work, can make that claim?

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 December 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[shadowhive]

I'll just cover a few quick points quickly (I have a repair man here o I don't want to spend too long answering.)

Mr Walker, on 17 December 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

This argument began because arbenol concluded that equality was the most important priority in social organisation. I disagreed. For me the  measurable outcomes for a society are the most importanty not just a value we happen to hold dea,r like equality.

I agree with him, equality is extremelyy important.

Quote

So if equality brings better outcomes i am all for it, but if equality brings poorer outcomes i am less for it. Equality in itslef is not as high a priority as many other social needs and benefits. Along with the improvement in womens equality has come a severe and harmful deterioriation on many social indicators.

The problem with that stance is two-fold. First, its arguing for the status quo. Let's take slavery. Slaves were cheap labour. Ending slavery, while achieving equality, damaged the economy seriously because that free labour force was lost. So, by using your logic, slaes should hae been kept in poor conditions because the economy depended on them. The economy was, therefore, more important than the slaves rights or welfare. Same here with women.

Second of all, we are not psychic. No one knew exactly what giving women rights would do at the time. And even now, all you hae is 'casual links' nothing definite.

Quote

And no one part of the society has a right to arbitrarily increase its  rights or power at the cost to other parts, or to the whole. So IF more freedom and more equality for women brings demonstrable harmful effects to segments of society then that has to be taken into acount.

And yet, to you, society arbitrarily decreasing or limiting one group's rights or power is a good thing (even if that group is as large as women).

Quote

The same is true for young people's rights. Young people have more rights and freedoms now than ever before and this is proving very destructive and dangerious to them and to others in society. Those rights affect others, such as encouraging hotels and night clubs to stay open all night to cater for people who are out all night, rather than closing early in the morning. In turn this affects every other resident of an area and other by standers, as violence fueled by ongoing consumption of alcohol rises rapidly and social order on the streets of cities breaks own, requiring greater police presence etc.

The problem with that is that it's rather naive of you to think that such places stay open all night just for 'young people'. It sounds like your issues with women having rights: that youre trying to scapegoat problems onto them.

Quote

While no violence in a society should be allowed or condoned, women are always at greater risk form violence both because of their physical nature and also their emotional make up and  social conditioning They are not driven by testosterone as one example and their chromosmatic/ genetic makeup causes less propensity for violence.

Ah the old 'women are the weaker sex arguement'.

Quote

i have had to take many women to women's shelters to protect them from men, but only known one man who was beaten up by his wife, for example.

I've got two issues with that. The first is to do with the second part. Men being beaten by their wives does happen BUT there is a social stigma attached to it. The men that suffer it are afraid to tell people out of fear of not being taken seriously. So it is a problem and I don't think we know how widespread it is yet.

The second is the first part. Like I have mentioned preiously, I do think it's good how uch you try and help people. BUT I think it goes a long way to taininting your opinion. You see all these bad things happening up close and seem, I dunno how to word it correctly. It seems to cloud your judgement.

Quote

So i treat women differntly from men. Women have to care for and protect children far more often than men, and they require specia,l superior, and different treatment to/from men because of this.  Women are still not give the opportunities to learn many of the things men do as boys and in fact are not genetically wired, or as physically  able, to do some of the things men do and so often require help with mecahics  and physical labour

Ultimately I think there's a problem there with sterotyping. Sorry to burst your bubble but neither gender fit a cookiee cutter standard. I'm a man, but I'm not physically strong or good with mechanics. I've known women that are. I've known men that are as carring and loing as women are expected to be, and women that are as caring as a house brick.

Expecting men and women to have different roles is completely wrong. Everyone should have the same opportunities available to them (which is what equality is all about) and everyone should be able to what they want and are able to do not what their gender dictates.

Quote

They simply aren't as strong or robustly built as equivalent men. And for example they dont have as good long vision. On the other hand they are superior at multi tasking, pattern recognition, spotting differnces in backgrounds (hence their employment in camouflage detection by military forces)  and being better near sighted/ good with things up close.

They have far less colour blindness. Men and women have different "drivers", like competitiveness in men and cooperation  in women, based in part on the superior facility with language enjoyed by women; leading to different choices in work and also different outcomes in work. (That means all forms of work not just paid work.)  Women have other compensating physical characteristics such as greater tolerance to pain, and often endurance and abilty to survive in tough conditions.

Physical strength isn't all that matters.

Everyone has different skill sets. Everyone. Again people should be treated based on what their skill set is not what their gender's is.

How men men or women do you know that hae those characteristics that you're basing purely on gender?

[Mr Walker]

shadowhive, on 17 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I'll just cover a few quick points quickly (I have a repair man here o I don't want to spend too long answering.)



I agree with him, equality is extremelyy important.



The problem with that stance is two-fold. First, its arguing for the status quo. Let's take slavery. Slaves were cheap labour. Ending slavery, while achieving equality, damaged the economy seriously because that free labour force was lost. So, by using your logic, slaes should hae been kept in poor conditions because the economy depended on them. The economy was, therefore, more important than the slaves rights or welfare. Same here with women.

Second of all, we are not psychic. No one knew exactly what giving women rights would do at the time. And even now, all you hae is 'casual links' nothing definite.



And yet, to you, society arbitrarily decreasing or limiting one group's rights or power is a good thing (even if that group is as large as women).



The problem with that is that it's rather naive of you to think that such places stay open all night just for 'young people'. It sounds like your issues with women having rights: that youre trying to scapegoat problems onto them.



Ah the old 'women are the weaker sex arguement'.



I've got two issues with that. The first is to do with the second part. Men being beaten by their wives does happen BUT there is a social stigma attached to it. The men that suffer it are afraid to tell people out of fear of not being taken seriously. So it is a problem and I don't think we know how widespread it is yet.

The second is the first part. Like I have mentioned preiously, I do think it's good how uch you try and help people. BUT I think it goes a long way to taininting your opinion. You see all these bad things happening up close and seem, I dunno how to word it correctly. It seems to cloud your judgement.



Ultimately I think there's a problem there with sterotyping. Sorry to burst your bubble but neither gender fit a cookiee cutter standard. I'm a man, but I'm not physically strong or good with mechanics. I've known women that are. I've known men that are as carring and loing as women are expected to be, and women that are as caring as a house brick.

Expecting men and women to have different roles is completely wrong. Everyone should have the same opportunities available to them (which is what equality is all about) and everyone should be able to what they want and are able to do not what their gender dictates.



Physical strength isn't all that matters.

Everyone has different skill sets. Everyone. Again people should be treated based on what their skill set is not what their gender's is.

How men men or women do you know that hae those characteristics that you're basing purely on gender?

A few comments.

Ii am not arguing for the status quo, I am arguing for the best measurable outcome for a society in preference to the best measuable outcomes for a part of society. If eqaulity brings that fair enough, if it does not then not so good. Equality is not the benchmark, the best overall outcomes is. The problem is an assumption that equalityy must be inherently a good thing and bring only good outcomes.
Slavery has never been abolished anywhere until it became uneconomic.

But yes, if the alternatives are slaves beeing killed or dying because they are an unsustainable burden on the society, then slavery is better. If the slaves provide the mechanism for survival for the total society then slavery is not only justified but essential the alternative is that ALL the members of the society, slave and free, perish. However as happened often throughout history, slavery can be a form of existence which is not harsh or harder than life for a free person.  While we object to the principle of one person owning another this is not the critical point it is the conditions under which slaves exist. For most of history no humans have been truly free, as western humans today believe they are free.
Yes a society must regulate the freedoms and powers of all parts of itself. Not arbitrarily but in a logical and measured way, to produce the best outcomes overall for the society.
The presence and spending power of the young is all that makes it economically viable for such establishments to stay open all through the night/morning.

Women are physically weaker, or else the olympic games would not be divided into mens and womens groups to take one example. It is a matter of human anatomy and physiology.

Like you I am not a good mechanic My hands are too small and I am small myself. Precisely why most women are not "good" at it. I can do a lot of things with a car and so could a woman but our biology does define us. I thought my comments made it clear that, while physically weaker women in total are basically different, not inferior, to men.

The differnce in violence by men and women is well established and has little to do with a reluctance by men to report, although
that does happen. Again, the biological and sociological reasons for this are well understood and documented.
I agree that individual humans should have the oportunities to do what they do well but  we have to recognise gender based differences in these abilities tied to measurable bilogical differences. Those differences create different skill levels, abilities, and thus outcomes/efficiencies, productivity and standards, between men and women at different forms of work. Actually, women have proven superior at most jobs in the post industrial age.

Almost every human I know has  identifiable, gender specific and  gender based skill sets, based on their biology/physiology and anatomy and psychology, all of which are gender based/differentiated. It flies in the face of all   modern scientific and medical knowledge to argue otherwise You see it in primitive tribes and in the most modern societies, so it is not a social construct.

Two further points Of course I am stronlgy influenced by the world I live in and my life experiences, combined with my compassion for people, and my fierce protectiveness for the most vulnerable in our society.

Second it is not sterotyping to illustrate actual bilogical or other differences between people. Eg fair haired/ fair skinned peole are at a much higher statistical risk of skin cancer than dark haired /dark skinned people. It is necesary to understand such cultural and biological similarities and differences between groups and the different outcomes this produces for them.

Edited by Mr Walker, 17 December 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Beany]

Do you have any facts or statistics to back up your claim? (see below). while your mother in law may have had great freedom as a housewife, other women didn't or don't. and many single head of household families exist because dad/husband walked out the door and never came back, usually voluntarily. My kids' Dad left me for a 17 year old high school girl, then died less than a year later. So I had very few choices about raising my kids by myself. I was 7 months pregnant and had two children 4 &5. so like many women I did what needed to be done. And my children are wonderful adults, they exceeded all of my expectations. And a lot of women are abused by their spouses, physically, sexually, mentally, verbally. Should they and probably their children remain in this environment?There are numerous factors that contribute to the state of our society, I doubt gender equality is a leading factor, if it is a factor at all.

Here's the quote from one of your earlier posts; I'm wondering on what basis you reached this conclusion. I learned in a critical thinking class that just because B follows A doesn't mean there is a causal relationship: Along with the improvement in womens equality has come a severe and harmful deterioriation on many social indicators.Are they connected? Of course they are. That's how a society works

[Arbenol68]

Mr Walker, on 17 December 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

This argument began because arbenol concluded that equality was the most important priority in social organisation. I disagreed. For me the  measurable outcomes for a society are the most importanty not just a value we happen to hold dea,r like equality.

So if equality brings better outcomes i am all for it, but if equality brings poorer outcomes i am less for it. Equality in itslef is not as high a priority as many other social needs and benefits. Along with the improvement in womens equality has come a severe and harmful deterioriation on many social indicators.

You're putting words in my mouth now, but that's by the by.

The problem here is that you see equality for women as having detrimental effects on society. It's a reasonable hypothesis, and, as any hypothesis, is subject to scrutiny. You spoke about the effects on family and equated it to an increase in violent crime. You provided evidence that violent crime has increased in Australia to back this up. But you've made several errors in logic in coming to your conclusions.

The data you provided that appears to show an increase in violent crime, actually does not necessarily do that. The figures are for reported crimes. Now this may correlate with actual crime, but it's a assumption on your part to state that it does. As an example, here in New Zealand there was a spike in violent crime reported a few years ago. Now, this may reflect a more violent society. Or, it may be the result of the "It's not OK" campaign to heighten awareness of domestic violence. The increase may have been the result of women reporting violence at the hands of partners where previously they would not. It was impossible to say, because that was not differentiated within the data.

Anecdotal evidence is weak, as it only reflects your own experiences and is unlikely to reflect an accurate overall picture. The media cannot be relied on to give this either.

As mentioned by another poster, if everything remained stable and women's equality was the only variable, then your argument may have more merit. However, there are no end of variables that can effect society, and it seems that you pick equality for women as the significant variable on nothing more substantive than personal opinion.

Also, your point that equality may disadvantage other members of society is a little inane. I would suggest that advances in equality tend to level the playing field and that any disadvantages are relative rather than real. Many men feel disadvantaged by womens rights simply because they feel threatened and emasculated by it. You should read some of the tripe put out by men's advocacy groups. But this isn't real. Men are not marginalised or disadvantaged by it. It's just that some don't like the fact that they can no longer look down, but now have to look across at women.

[Mr Walker]

Beany, on 17 December 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Do you have any facts or statistics to back up your claim? (see below). while your mother in law may have had great freedom as a housewife, other women didn't or don't. and many single head of household families exist because dad/husband walked out the door and never came back, usually voluntarily. My kids' Dad left me for a 17 year old high school girl, then died less than a year later. So I had very few choices about raising my kids by myself. I was 7 months pregnant and had two children 4 &5. so like many women I did what needed to be done. And my children are wonderful adults, they exceeded all of my expectations. And a lot of women are abused by their spouses, physically, sexually, mentally, verbally. Should they and probably their children remain in this environment?There are numerous factors that contribute to the state of our society, I doubt gender equality is a leading factor, if it is a factor at all.

Here's the quote from one of your earlier posts; I'm wondering on what basis you reached this conclusion. I learned in a critical thinking class that just because B follows A doesn't mean there is a causal relationship: Along with the improvement in womens equality has come a severe and harmful deterioriation on many social indicators.Are they connected? Of course they are. That's how a society works

As mentioned earlier there are few if any statistics from the mid twentieth cnetury or previous however all the ones i have ben able to uncover point to a progressive detrioraton in the measurable indicators of social well being especailly crime related. Also the rates of depression and suicide are higher than at any time previously recorded. And so are the undelrying causes of isolation  of individuals  from place space eg family commuity and history. Much of this comes from the alteration in family structures/relationships and the nature of neighbourhoods; both of which  which physically changed as women increasingly went to work. and had fewer children.

I am not clear what your situation or the abuse of women has to do with this particular argument. Women are increasingly abused and increasingly exposed to domestic and social violence sin e the 19 70s, and the statistics bear this out.

  Not only that but young girls to day are both sexualised, and see them selves as sexual objects, with their worth attached ot their good looks and physical popularity rather than as wives and mothers worthy of respect for their critical role in society.

There exists none of the respect for girls and women by men which was an integral part of my generation of young males as we grew up. Women are perceived as the same as men in sexual terms and availabilty. This has tragic consequences because women are not the same, physiologically or psychologically, in their relationships to sex.
There is a lot of work by sociologists and historians which connects the changing role of women with the wider parameters of societies Other factors are at work also, including the changing role of men.

i have taught teenagers for 40 years. Very few today appreciate how different and worse  conditions are for the young compared with my youth. They do not believe the truths I tell them about how we lived  without crime, graffiti, violence or abuse. How, as children, we left home after breakfast  and came home at dusk, playing together all over the place, eating in someones home for lunch or taking a picnic with us, and no one had to worry about us in all that time