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

[Beany]

Paul made it perfectly clear in 1 Corinthians that women must keep their stupid mouths shut in church. If they're all confused and need help understanding anything they should ask their husbands instead of embarrassing themselves in public. The article sounds like this Christian Union is following exactly what Paul ordered.

Christianity is not that different from Islam if you actually follow it.

Thanks goodness there are few women with stupid mouths. Smart mouths, filthy mouths, mouthy, lippy, voluptuous, but not stupid. My mom was a devout Christian, she took a red ink pen and crossed out that Paul stuff, because she said it was incongruent with the teachings of Jesus and was written by some male chauvinist in an attempt to diminish women. Go, Mom! By the time she was done editing, the bible was a pretty user friendly book.

[Mr Walker]

So, we agree.

Yes. But when inequality does the same, and produces the same positive outcomes in a society, then inequality is the more favourable model.

Equality is good because/when it produces favourable outcomes. If equality endangered a society, or caused less favourable outomes, then it would not be a good thing.

[Arbenol]

Yes. But when inequality does the same, and produces the same positive outcomes in a society, then inequality is the more favourable model.

Got any examples?

[Mr Walker]

Got any examples?

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.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Arbenol]

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.

Your argument is basically that one crappy situation is slightly less crappy than another crappy situation. But neither of them is preferable to a society that is built on equality.

Your examples exist throughout history, and still today. But, as you have pointed out in other discussions, society should strive for the best possible outcomes for the most people. Your arguments here are for the status quo of a society that has been built on exploitation. History is replete with examples of people who have risen up against exploitation. And, you're right, things often got a whole lot worse before they got better.

I would argue that our own societies today are not built on equality, but we have been getting a little better at it - all except financially, which appears to be going the other way.

[White Crane Feather]

How much easier would life be if I could control my wife like that. OMG, no nagging, no honey dos, go to the pub whenever I want.... Yeah!!!!

oh wait....no paycheck or benifits from her awesome job, no sex from a woman who actually wants to be with me, no interesting discussion with my spouse, oh and polluteded genes in the the tendency for my own children to meek and controllable.

Did I mention her paycheck?!?!? And good sex?!?!? :D

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife....... No thanks. Women are the backbone of humanity, the religions that understand this will overtake the others evenchually.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Seeker79

[Arbenol]

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife

I knew you'd find a positive if you thought about it long enough.

[Mr Walker]

Your argument is basically that one crappy situation is slightly less crappy than another crappy situation. But neither of them is preferable to a society that is built on equality.

Your examples exist throughout history, and still today. But, as you have pointed out in other discussions, society should strive for the best possible outcomes for the most people. Your arguments here are for the status quo of a society that has been built on exploitation. History is replete with examples of people who have risen up against exploitation. And, you're right, things often got a whole lot worse before they got better.

I would argue that our own societies today are not built on equality, but we have been getting a little better at it - all except financially, which appears to be going the other way.

My arguemnt is th t of reality it is not possible for absolute or principled equality in many situatons. It is not about the status quo pe rse, but the actual and realistic alternatives.

My original point was that whatever brings out the best outcomes for a society is more mportant than what brings out the best outcomes for an individual or a group of individuals within a society. It is like a family. To gain the security benefits and survival available fromm the society all must protect the society and work for its betterment. They must sacrifice certainabsolute individual desires and expectations for those of the group.

Now, where it is possible to improve the status quo of groups or individauls without harming the society, that is good, but if giving equality to one group disadvantages the whole group, especially severely, or even threatens its health prosperity or survival, then the balance must be weighed and a rational decision made.

Again, we do this today in modern societies. In the past life was harsher and less certain and alternatives more stark and severe.

As in my first post equality is a good thing but not if, on balance, it harms a society and the people in it.

[Mr Walker]

How much easier would life be if I could control my wife like that. OMG, no nagging, no honey dos, go to the pub whenever I want.... Yeah!!!!

oh wait....no paycheck or benifits from her awesome job, no sex from a woman who actually wants to be with me, no interesting discussion with my spouse, oh and polluteded genes in the the tendency for my own children to meek and controllable.

Did I mention her paycheck?!?!? And good sex?!?!? :D

I'd probably be an alcoholic horder without the strength of my wife....... No thanks. Women are the backbone of humanity, the religions that understand this will overtake the others evenchually.

I must agree. My wife is my partner and togther we are stronger than either of us as individuals .

When we married in 76, my wife decided to stop working after nearly 20 years of work and concentrated on our home and caring for people . Her belief was that as i could support he,r her job should go to a young single woman who needed the income. She has never done paid work since, although she works longer hours than me, and when we were caring for her parents could work 18 hour days.

When she gave up work it was the height of the womens lib movement She was verbally abused and harrassed by orther women who told her she was letting woman hood down as it was the responsibilty of all women to work. the idea was tha tat work wonw could be socialised and politicised, get politicaly aware and become more activist. Work was seenas a place where this activism and politics could be spread to women and thus increase their outcomes it was argued tha twomen who stayed at home remained relcacitrant conservatives because they lacked this exposure to womens liberation and hence formed a rsistance group to the womens liberation movement.

. My wife disagreed to her a womans prime role was as home maker mother carer etc Only if it was economically necessary should a woman be forced to work although it was any ones choice to work or not. She had worked since she was 15 and now chose a new life.

I will admit that this time of abuse helped shape/firm up my own principles and beliefs, as i take my vows to protect, care for, and love, my wife very seriously.

[Arbenol]

My arguemnt is th t of reality it is not possible for absolute or principled equality in many situatons. It is not about the status quo pe rse, but the actual and realistic alternatives.

My original point was that whatever brings out the best outcomes for a society is more mportant than what brings out the best outcomes for an individual or a group of individuals within a society. It is like a family. To gain the security benefits and survival available fromm the society all must protect the society and work for its betterment. They must sacrifice certainabsolute individual desires and expectations for those of the group.

Now, where it is possible to improve the status quo of groups or individauls without harming the society, that is good, but if giving equality to one group disadvantages the whole group, especially severely, or even threatens its health prosperity or survival, then the balance must be weighed and a rational decision made.

Again, we do this today in modern societies. In the past life was harsher and less certain and alternatives more stark and severe.

As in my first post equality is a good thing but not if, on balance, it harms a society and the people in it.

But, as you said, a society that values equality of it's individuals is intrinsically preferable to one that doesn't. This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It works in the real world.

When slavery was abolished in the US it would have had significant economic repercussions for all. Was that a bad thing? Were (and are) people worse off because of it. Britain has evolved from feudal states, etc..... There are no end of real world scenarios that illustrate this.

What you're talking about is that the process of change can be a painful one. It's the outcome that's an improvement.

Do you have any examples (not hypothetical) of states that have collapsed into long-term social chaos and famine as a result of a drive for a more equal society? Has giving women equal rights to men ever had a permanent detrimental effect on any nation? (just to get the thread back on track)

Edited December 14, 2012 by Arbenol68

[Mr Walker]

But, as you said, a society that values equality of it's individuals is intrinsically preferable to one that doesn't. This isn't a hypothetical scenario. It works in the real world.

When slavery was abolished in the US it would have had significant economic repercussions for all. Was that a bad thing? Were (and are) people worse off because of it. Britain has evolved from feudal states, etc..... There are no end of real world scenarios that illustrate this.

What you're talking about is that the process of change can be a painful one. It's the outcome that's an improvement.

Do you have any examples (not hypothetical) of states that have collapsed into long-term social chaos and famine as a result of a drive for a more equal society? Has giving women equal rights to men ever had a permanent detrimental effect on any nation? (just to get the thread back on track)

The highest value for a society is survival, and the maintenance of population viability. Then comes the abilty to create a suprplus of food and other materials which brings some freedom and the chance to trade. Equality comes quite a long way down the list of social priorities.

Yes, if all things are equal equality is a good thing but equailty often messes up a society and endangers it.

No system of slavery has ever been abolished or overthrown until it was no longer economic. No group of people like women have ever gained freedom or equality until it was in a nation's economic and social interest for this to occur.

It was the same with children and universal education this only occured and was paid for by the govt when govts required a disciplined partly educated work force for growing industrialisation.

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.

Of course the evolution of society is a complex one. In general life was better in the last century than this. I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life and neither did my parents or grandparents. There are dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women.That includes violence disrespect and sexual crimes against women. Of course it can be argued tha this is an inherent result of the increased equality and fredom of modern women who now live as men once did.But that is my point.

The only thing which has improved is scientific advances So, for example i appreciate modrn medicine but don't own a mobile phone and could live totally happily without a tv computer etc. People have all become wage salves trapped in a society where they have to work just to survive and can never be free or get to a point of indpendence. Kids rarely spend time with their parents or garandparents and the cohesive fabric of family, neighbour hood, and society, which binds a society together and protects its members is breaking down

The reasons societies usually dont totally collapse is that they balance themselves and find a lower point of equilibrium. They withdraw equalities and privileges, and hunker down into survival mode Otherwise some would have collapsed And indeed some may have. There are many societies in the world we know little about in historicla terms. Also modern societies are more robust. They can survive, but are still often harmed by, some changes in social values. Often a period of social liberation leads to almost anarchy and then a repressive leader steps into give people reassurance. Such leaders often establish dictatorships which last for decades.

To address the bit i bolded. Of course. This is often an outcome of revolutionary change based on idealistic notions of equality. The classic examples are the french revolution, the russian revolution, and the chinesse revolution or civil war.

Failed examples include the spanish civil war and also a number of major revolutions in europe during the 1800s.

The religious wars of europe can also be seen in this light, and created a long period of social chaos and disruption across most of europe with extrene hardship for people. That period fits your cause and effect precisely. It also totally changed the nature/pattern of states across europe.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Arbenol]

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.

Of course the evolution of society is a complex one. In general life was better in the last century than this. I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life and neither did my parents or grandparents. There are dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women.That includes violence disrespect and sexual crimes against women. Of course it can be argued tha this is an inherent result of the increased equality and fredom of modern women who now live as men once did.But that is my point.

We're going round in circles, but I'll just comment on these two paragraphs because they are more relevant to the thread.

What you have stated is a baseless opinion and sadly typical of a socially conservative viewpoint. I disagree that there are "dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women". However, there are many that contradict your opinion.

I won't labour the point, but I would direct you to read "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker who, with buckets of data, comprehensively smashes this myth.

It's understandable. Many (if not most) people have always thought that the next generation is making the world a worse place. It tends to get more pronounced as we get older but is nearly always based on anecdotal evidence rather than real facts. As an example you stated "I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life".

There's a certain amount of comfort in believing that the past was a less violent and better place, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

[Mr Walker]

We're going round in circles, but I'll just comment on these two paragraphs because they are more relevant to the thread.

What you have stated is a baseless opinion and sadly typical of a socially conservative viewpoint. I disagree that there are "dozens of measurable social indicators which track the deterioration of society since the liberation of women". However, there are many that contradict your opinion.

I won't labour the point, but I would direct you to read "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker who, with buckets of data, comprehensively smashes this myth.

It's understandable. Many (if not most) people have always thought that the next generation is making the world a worse place. It tends to get more pronounced as we get older but is nearly always based on anecdotal evidence rather than real facts. As an example you stated "I never encountered swearing drunkeness violence burglarty car theft etc etc in my early life".

There's a certain amount of comfort in believing that the past was a less violent and better place, but unfortunately it is incorrect.

Unfortuantely the statistics in austrlaia at least confirm my pov in regard to the tie pereiod I am speaking of. This it is difficult, in that such detailed colection of data is a modern trend made possible by computers and also the cahging nature of govt control over society, but social historians can confirm such deterioration from many sources.

And anecdotal/ personal experience is valid NO ONE in my childhood locked their dors or took the keys out of their cars if you found a wallet inhte street you took it to the owner. if you found a five pound note you took it to the police. There was no graffiti and no vandalism, because society controlled and observed young people and families had power over them. Today NO ONE would leave their keys in a car, day or night and few people leave their doors unlovcked even in the day.

In my late teens if i was on the street after midnight even sober and with a reasonable purpose i would be stopped by the police and directed home. Today the police lack the powers to do this.

The legal age for drinking was 21 and some of us statred at 18 Today the legal age is 18 and most young teenagers are drinking and binge drinking.

There were no drugs when I was a teenager outside of tobacco, today a majority of teenagers have smoked marijuana and an increasing percentage use hard drugs.

There was discipline and order in societies and in familys, which does not exist today. I am old enough to KNOW the difference and have watched the transformations. I also take an interest in the statistical data which illustrates the growing breakdown in society family and socia order. I have taught teenagers for 40 years, over 3 generations, and watched the decline in their behaviour. ethics morality and treatment of/respect for, themselves and others.

There are still good kids but words beginning with f and c which i have never used even as an adult are now used in class and shcool yards as everyday language. Kids beat others up and put it on u tube. Girls starting younger than teenagers take naked pictures of themselves and send them to their boyfriends who often post them on social media The language i hear from young peole today as public language has only begun to occur inmy experience in very recent years because kids no longer know that such language is offensive, do not care if it is, and believe no one has a right to control their language. In fact, increasingly, young teenagers believe that no one has a right to control their life in any respect.

Apart from homcides most crime records in australia only go back two or three decades making statisticla analysis over a century difficult. heres a quote from an article which recognises the difficulty of statistical confirmation of changes in crime, but makes this point early on.

recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation.

http://aic.gov.au/pu...view paper.html

Here is a snapshot of how crime rates increased over a few years in the 1990's. Note the increase in assaults.

The chart wouldnt copy properly, so i will summarise. From 1993 to 1999, in Australia, assaults rose from 101,000 to133,000 or from 560/100000 pop to 704/100000 pop

Robberies doubled and theft went up from 490000 cases to 610000 or 2700/100000 pop to 3200/100000 pop.

http://www.aic.gov.a... australia.html

And that is just in 8 years. Extrapolate that back, and across the period from my childhood to the present day and see what results you get.

or look at this graph

There were 176427 victims of asault in australia in 2007 or 840 victims per100000 pop

• The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period.
  
• 
  

Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month

Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)

sadly it is the young who are most vulnerable to assault

Assault victims in 2007, by age group and sex (per 100,000 of that age group and sex)

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mr Walker

[spud the mackem]

And Lo,it came to pass that Women were allowed to Vote...All People are equal except some are more equal than others.I acknowledge that some Ladies are more intelligent than men.Go get 'em girls.

[Jinxdom]

And Lo,it came to pass that Women were allowed to Vote...All People are equal except some are more equal than others.I acknowledge that some Ladies are more intelligent than men.Go get 'em girls.

Date more you'll find that to be false Stupidity is pretty balanced for both sexes.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Jinxdom

[spud the mackem]

Date more you'll find that to be false Stupidity is pretty balanced for both sexes.

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.

[Arbenol]

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.

[Mr Walker]

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 December 15, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Arbenol]

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.

[Mr Walker]

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 December 15, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Arbenol]

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.

[Ultima Weapon]

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.

[Ultima Weapon]

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...

[Mr Walker]

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.

[Arbenol]

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.