Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Women allowed to speak .... sort of ....


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#91    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,577 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:10 AM

View PostJinxdom, on 14 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Date more you'll find that to be false  Stupidity is pretty balanced for both sexes. :P
  The only thing Women cant do better than men is park cars at the kerbside properly. Wow I expect a blast back for that statement.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#92    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 14 December 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Unfortuantely the statistics in austrlaia at least confirm my pov in regard to the tie pereiod I am speaking of. (snip)

Sorry to snip your post - I did read it. I find it clogs up the board if you quote the whole lot.

It's an interesting debate and I don't doubt your stats, but it's not really relevant to the discussion in this thread. I would urge you to read the Pinker book. It's meticulously researched and would make an interesting challenge to your point of view. He even has a comment or two to make on the increase in the use of profanities amongst the young.

I would pick you up on one thing. Drugs weren't around when you were a teenager? You either grew up in the middle of nowhere or you are incredibly ancient.

To keep this on track, I would ask you to back up this statement:

"Of course giving women equal rights has caused detrimental efects on western societies. It has also caused some positive ones But what it has done is  help encourage a materialistic, consumer based, growth society, whihc is totally unsustainable and harming the world. It has also made  western humans, in general less happy, more depressed, and more frustrated, leading to greater violence and the use of drugs and alcohol to feel good".

I'm surprised one of our female members hasn't had you about this yet.


#93    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:47 PM

View PostArbenol68, on 14 December 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Sorry to snip your post - I did read it. I find it clogs up the board if you quote the whole lot.

It's an interesting debate and I don't doubt your stats, but it's not really relevant to the discussion in this thread. I would urge you to read the Pinker book. It's meticulously researched and would make an interesting challenge to your point of view. He even has a comment or two to make on the increase in the use of profanities amongst the young.

I would pick you up on one thing. Drugs weren't around when you were a teenager? You either grew up in the middle of nowhere or you are incredibly ancient.

To keep this on track, I would ask you to back up this statement:

"Of course giving women equal rights has caused detrimental efects on western societies. It has also caused some positive ones But what it has done is  help encourage a materialistic, consumer based, growth society, whihc is totally unsustainable and harming the world. It has also made  western humans, in general less happy, more depressed, and more frustrated, leading to greater violence and the use of drugs and alcohol to feel good".

I'm surprised one of our female members hasn't had you about this yet.

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

Edited by Mr Walker, 15 December 2012 - 12:06 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#94    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:46 AM

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

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

I'm glad you qualified all that with this statement. I think most of what you said is debatable (but I agree with some of it). However, the issues you speak of are not, and never have been, the direct result of increased rights for women. There are many reasons, some of which you mentioned, but these have less to do with rights conferred and more to do with governments and individuals failing to exercise their responsibilities.

Rampant consumerism and the "whats in it for me" society is not a consequence of women working. Neither is unhealthy eating habits. I doubt you can produce much evidence that people in families where the woman works are generally less healthy and more obese than those from families where one parent is at home. Poverty and a disposable lifestyle seem to be more major factors in that.

Neither do I see how social welfare failures are the result of increased equality.

One last thing. You focus on one model of family. There are several more, you know.


#95    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:24 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 15 December 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

I'm glad you qualified all that with this statement. I think most of what you said is debatable (but I agree with some of it). However, the issues you speak of are not, and never have been, the direct result of increased rights for women. There are many reasons, some of which you mentioned, but these have less to do with rights conferred and more to do with governments and individuals failing to exercise their responsibilities.

Rampant consumerism and the "whats in it for me" society is not a consequence of women working. Neither is unhealthy eating habits. I doubt you can produce much evidence that people in families where the woman works are generally less healthy and more obese than those from families where one parent is at home. Poverty and a disposable lifestyle seem to be more major factors in that.

Neither do I see how social welfare failures are the result of increased equality.

One last thing. You focus on one model of family. There are several more, you know.

Yes there are many family models. Statistically, one is proven to provide the best outcomes for children and in the main it is children and women, for whom i have the most concern .  I  could get very angry and frustrated about modern society if I let my self; rather i do all i can personally and professionaly to pick up the pieces, but it gets hard taking women to shelters, fostering the children of broken families and trying to teach children from disfunctional ones Not hard for me physically or financially, but hard to see them suffering. It is not poverty that is the problem in Australia .

There is little true poverty in australia, only comparative poverty or poverty  created by lifestyle chices (with a few exceptions) For example i know a family with 7 children They live mostly on welfare benefits. They paid off a home worth 240000 dollars after about 10 years and have just bought a 400 acre farmlet  for over $400,000  They are careful with their money but send 5 of the children to a private school at the cost of $4000 dollars a week. All of this is paid for or subsidied by govt. Another couple has just had a young son. They were provided with a govt house within a few weeks of birth given $6000 baby bonus and will gainmany benefits such as free medicla benefits and education They wil also get a pension for all the time tha child is in their care amounting to over a hundred dollars a week plus a extra 5-600 each year while it is at school  Their rent is subsidised and amy be as low as about $50 a week for a three bedroom house. That is on top of their own considerable individual govt "pensions"

My wife and i have spent  nearly 40 years caring for the children of such families who are kicked out, or leave home when they are teenagers, and becoming more expense and trouble than they are worth, to their 'parents" We still are, although at age 70 with severe arthritis, my wife is finding it increasingly physically  difficult to care for teenagers. We rarely get any money from parents, and never from govt, to cover any costs . The parents continue to take the benefits for these children. I dont begrudge them that,  because often they need it.

You would have to convince me, with good logic and evidence, that there is not a causal effect between changes in the roles of women and detrimental changes in social structure, because i can clearly see causal links.

Edited by Mr Walker, 15 December 2012 - 01:27 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#96    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:44 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 15 December 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

You would have to convince me, with good logic and evidence, that there is not a causal effect between changes in the roles of women and detrimental changes in social structure, because i can clearly see causal links.

Now, you know I can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is with you.


#97    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:25 AM

View Postouija ouija, on 11 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

AquilaChrysaetos said:

The four gospels were written as accounts of events taken place in Christ's lifetime. Many other books of the bible are accounts of other people as well, but there are still many others that are no more than the authors preeching their own words as the words of God. Those I definately don't accept. And the accounts of other men's lifetimes are all well and good, but they are admitedly imperfect, therefore I ask "why study them as truth?"

I am well aware that the gospels were written by man, after Christ, and therefore cannot be fully trusted. However, fact is there is no other writtings we can go by, other than the lost books denied the official bible cannon, most of which I have read, (a few exerpts of at the very least). Otherwise it must be taken by faith. I understand that, but what other choice do we have?

I personally have found peace with the original 4 gospels, and have found no controdictions in Christ's words or actions in those four gospels. I personally accept it as truth, and if others don't I completely understand and respect that decission. I am simply explaining what I go by, and why.

Regarding the part I've highlighted, here's a thought:  how about we just think for ourselves ....... here ...... now?! Given all that you've said about the Bible's inadequacy and faults, I find it puzzling that you would bother with it at all.

I do think for myself. During my journey of self discovery and while searching for higher insight, I decided to accept that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the only perfect living being. After personally coming to that conclusion, it only makes sense that whatever he says must be true. That is why I don't accept anyone else's insights as absolute truth.

It is difficult to determine whether Christ's words and actions in the bible were doctored up or changed a bit after being passed down orally through a generation or two. However, it is as I said, the closest source we have, therefore I simply have to have faith in the fact that it is true. Then if I turn out to have deviated from his original message, than at least some of that would be due to the failure on the part of the writers and/or the people who passed on the message from generation to generation. It wouldn't be my fault.

It all comes down to this: People have thought for themselves since the very beginning of the human race. However that doesn't mean that it has in any way brought peace. In fact if anything it has brought prejudice, war, hostility, and turmoil amongst ourselves. Mind you, it is obviously far better to have freedom to think for ourselves than to be oppressed by anyone, but the fact still stands that free thought alone isn't an answer. It is only the first step. I think what people need is to all freely make the same decision if we are to find any peace, however that will obviously never happen here on earth. I've basically found myself solving a simple math problem: If Christ is the son of God, and he is perfect, than those who decide to follow his teachings and only his teachings to the maximum degree will all willfully agree and find peace, but only after death since according to Jesus Christ, God will seperate those who follow him and those who don't. a.k.a.: Eternal peace.

Obviously, this scenario can only work if it's true, which after a long agonizing process of thinking for myself I have personally come to believe as true.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#98    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:27 AM

Sorry about divulging a bit off topic, but the above discussion did originally start out concerning the thread's original topic I promise!

So again, sorry... :blush:

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#99    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:12 AM

View PostArbenol68, on 15 December 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Now, you know I can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is with you.
I dont think this applies in such a case. Statistics, correlation, and extrapolation could prove that there either was a connection or there was not.

Observation, anectdotal and historical evidence, and applied logic strongly suggests/indicates there IS a connection, and i think you do need to offer evidence for any counter argument.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#100    Arbenol

Arbenol

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,880 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

Posted 16 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 16 December 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

I dont think this applies in such a case. Statistics, correlation, and extrapolation could prove that there either was a connection or there was not.

Observation, anectdotal and historical evidence, and applied logic strongly suggests/indicates there IS a connection, and i think you do need to offer evidence for any counter argument.

That's a cop out.
You made the claim - you should be prepared to back it up with something more than opinion. If not, that's fine. But accept that it is your opinion, not an objective truth.


#101    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:18 PM

View PostArbenol68, on 16 December 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

That's a cop out.
You made the claim - you should be prepared to back it up with something more than opinion. If not, that's fine. But accept that it is your opinion, not an objective truth.

Wait a minute, with a few seconds research, I already disproved your opinion that society  was simply or totally improving in social terms. In this form of debate both/either side is equally open to proof. It does not involve proving a negative. Both positions can be phrased in the affirmative.
Now, you prove to me that the changing role of women has proved beneficial, or even "cost neutral" to the state of western society, using statistical proofs.

Actually the proof and answer depends on your basic values and definitions of improvement. First  women have gained much freedom and benefit from these changes And society has also gained some material benefits from the changes in womens' roles, but it is naive and  perhaps foolish to deny, or fail to recognise, the heavy costs to society which came with these changes.

One must decide on balance whether the gains for women offset the losses for family, society and people in genera.l My mother had her unit broken into overnight this week end and  her purse stolen from her feet as she slept in a chair. It could have been worse if she had woken up; a ninety year old verus a young thief.
This is the first time it has happened to her but it is common in her retirement village Compare this with when i grew up, and as stated previosly no door in our house was ever locked night or day,  from my birth in 1951 until the  nineteen seventies. This  type of crime, did not happen  in our neighbourhood/ town, EVER, when I was a child or a teenager, now it is a common occurence.

The changes in  society resulting from so many women working, along with other factors, must contribute to such a deterioriaton, simply because they exist, and do have social effects.

Is my mothers' increased social freedom worth the risk of her life, and property loss, resulting from other social changes which accompany it? In my opinion, given the nature, pervasiveness commonality and severity of those negatives, no. Is a young womans' freedom to walk the streets, drunk or sober, at 2 am, worth her life or her physical and sexual integrity? Imo, again, no.

But then, as you point, out I am a social conservative; a product of my family and my times. I do not believe that my own current unfettered personal freedoms are worth the  current cost of them for me, as a male, either.

Edited by Mr Walker, 16 December 2012 - 10:44 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#102    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:25 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 16 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

This did not happen  in our neighbourhood EVER, when I was a child or a teenager, now it is a common occurence. The changes in  society resulting from so many women working, along with other factors, must contribute to such a deterioriaton simply because they exist, and do have social effects. Is my mothers' increased social freedom worth the risk of her life and property loss resulting from other social changes which accompany it. In my opinion given the nature pervasive ness and severity of those negatives, no. Is a young womans' freedom to walk the streets, drunk or sober, at 2 am, worth her life? Imo, again, no.

I've watched this for awhile and I'm glad you finally acknowledge the potential of other factors. The thing is, things have changed but we can't immediately put the blame on women gaining more freedom. If we had a society where the only thing that changed was women's freedom (with everything else staying identical) then we could say one way or the other. Alas, in the time period that women gained greater freedoms other things also happened and its just as likely that those factors (or combinations of them) contributed to the negative factors that you level solely at women.

I have an incredibly big problem with your attitude of blaming women for society's 'breakdown'.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#103    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,640 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:00 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 16 December 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

I've watched this for awhile and I'm glad you finally acknowledge the potential of other factors. The thing is, things have changed but we can't immediately put the blame on women gaining more freedom. If we had a society where the only thing that changed was women's freedom (with everything else staying identical) then we could say one way or the other. Alas, in the time period that women gained greater freedoms other things also happened and its just as likely that those factors (or combinations of them) contributed to the negative factors that you level solely at women.

I have an incredibly big problem with your attitude of blaming women for society's 'breakdown'.

Ive never said the cause was only the changing role of women.

However that change has indisputably played a part . Anyone can observe and demonstrate that, from observation of anyone who lived through the changes, but it can also be demonstrated statistically.  The only problem is finding any statistics let alone accurate ones from the mid twentieth century. Another is the considerable political and social power of the womens movement in shaping how we see our social history of that time.

However, study the effect of the contraceptive pill on modern society. All expert historians and sociologists acknolwedge the real physical effects this had on society. Note also the accpeted social/economic effects of the huge increase in women working. Then combine that with the acknolwedged historical efects on neghbourhoods and local societies  from much much smaller families and far fewer children. Then add in the changed attitudes towards women resulting from their acceptance of equality. I was caned as a child for showing disrespect to any woman. Now they are treated like objects, and dirty objects at that, by many .

No man has to, nor do many, treat a woman with respect  for their nature and importance if they are merely "equal" to a man.
I can't do anything about your attitude, but it might change if you knew more about the history and sociology of the last 50 years. I was at uni and involved with the introduction of womens rights, the womens liberation movement, womens studies courses etc  And of course women have an intrinsic right to equality as huma beings in fact they ARE imo equal as is everyone. But to deny the considerable costs of that equality, especially in institutionalising them, leads us to repeat and compound them.

We are doing this now with "childrens' rights"

Edited by Mr Walker, 16 December 2012 - 11:02 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#104    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:25 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 16 December 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Ive never said the cause was only the changing role of women.

However that change has indisputably played a part . Anyone can observe and demonstrate that, from observation of anyone who lived through the changes, but it can also be demonstrated statistically.  The only problem is finding any statistics let alone accurate ones from the mid twentieth century. Another is the considerable political and social power of the womens movement in shaping how we see our social history of that time.

However, study the effect of the contraceptive pill on modern society. All expert historians and sociologists acknolwedge the real physical effects this had on society. Note also the accpeted social/economic effects of the huge increase in women working. Then combine that with the acknolwedged historical efects on neghbourhoods and local societies  from much much smaller families and far fewer children. Then add in the changed attitudes towards women resulting from their acceptance of equality. I was caned as a child for showing disrespect to any woman. Now they are treated like objects, and dirty objects at that, by many .

No man has to, nor do many, treat a woman with respect  for their nature and importance if they are merely "equal" to a man.
I can't do anything about your attitude, but it might change if you knew more about the history and sociology of the last 50 years. I was at uni and involved with the introduction of womens rights, the womens liberation movement, womens studies courses etc  And of course women have an intrinsic right to equality as huma beings in fact they ARE imo equal as is everyone. But to deny the considerable costs of that equality, especially in institutionalising them, leads us to repeat and compound them.

We are doing this now with "childrens' rights"

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.

Edited by shadowhive, 16 December 2012 - 11:27 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#105    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,326 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:37 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 13 December 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Hoped you would ask. TAke a slave state where slavery pprovides the economic structure for prosperity. Free the slaves and every one suffers and many peole die when the economy collapses.  All are equal in suffering and death.

The slave  society maintains slaves but feeds them and protects them, regulates their rights and responsibilities. it does not necessarily even mistreat them, except that they are slaves. A close realtive of this is the indentured servant or workman, who does not have the freedom to leave his employer until he has worked off a certain cost eg the cost of travelling to a new land.

The alternative for the slaves in many societies is that they would be killed ,or allowed to die, as non economic and costly burdens on the state, which does not have the financial surplus  or resources to care for them.

In reality women have long been in the same position. Both slaves and women have ever only been freed, and given equality, when it was economically feasible and rational, even desirable, to do so.
Men won some freedoms longer ago but only some men, even then. Take the magna carta or the declaration of independence and american constituion and examine the huge holes in their treatment of  some men. And YET they are celebrated as advances in liberty and freedom. They maintain an inequality, or  many inequalities,  to advance the comonwealth of others.

Often, and even today of course, inequalities support, indeed are the only thing allowing, a  society to survive and prosper. And because every individual's well being is dependent on the well being of their society, we all accept this reality. Otherwise ther would be no unemployed, health care along with a full education would be free for all,  and a minimum living standard would be made available to every person in a society.

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.

Edited by Beany, 16 December 2012 - 11:39 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users