Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ouija ouija

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

143 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/empires/romans/empire/slaves_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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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) :innocent:

What modern woman at work, can make that claim?

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

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.

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.

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).

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not believe the truths I tell them about how we lived without crime, graffiti, violence or abuse.

That's because it's not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker, for clarification, are you correlating gender equality (women's changing roles) and disintegration of society as having a causal relationship? If so, that makes the man's role peripheral and having little or no influence in society, which is not true, since we live in male-dominated societies. And by virtue of the fact that society is male dominated, and men hold the power in virtually all of our institutions, couldn't one reasonably speculate that men's behaviors have more to do with societal disintegration and female sexualization than gender equality?

And if conditions are worse for kids these days, and I'm not sure they are, shouldn't some of the culpability be shared between moms & dads? Don't father have an equal responsibility for parenting? Many of them opt out of assuming parental duties, abandoning familial responsibilities, failing to provide financial or emotional support for their children, which surely contributes to their children's lack of well-being, at least as much as women expanding their gender roles. As for social well-being, there are numerous social factors at play here, one of which may be the changing roles of women, but that I don't think there's any evidence that it is a factor, let alone a major factor, at least, I haven't found any, and I've been out on the net looking. If you could point me to any studies or papers on this subject, I'd be happy to read them & further my education. I've found that in a meaningful discussion it's helpful if all parties have the same information and I'm always ready to learn.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because it's not true.

LOL please provide evidence.

i lived in a town without any visible evidence of such things. There was no graffitti people left their doors open and their cars withte jkeys in them if someone found lost property it was returned to the owner. The commuity enforced the good behaviour of all, and especially the young, and i could not have got away with something without someone telling my parents. For example onceaged about 17. I drove a few miles over the speed limit within the town. When i got home 10 minutes later,my dad told me he had had a phone call informing him, and i lost the use of the car for a couple of months. Every crime and criminal was recorded in the local paper under court news, and those columns were slim. Yes there were probably a few dishonest people around but the chances of being caught and severly punished generally kept them from acting dishonestly There were no house breakins or therts from vehicles for example and shop lifting was unheard of.

There was some violence but far less than today and limited and contextual. eg i was bullied at school and beaten up by two boys who went on to be police officers but that was very rare and they had a rationale for their behaviour.

And some would argue that my parents giving me a good caning when i misbehaved was abuse or violence, yet it was not, it was very loving discipline which helped me become self disciplined, loving, honest, and a model citizen.

I see more violence abuse sexism and offensive language etc in one day at the school where i teach than i saw in my entire childhood among young people. And mine is one of the best schools in the, state behaviour wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker, for clarification, are you correlating gender equality (women's changing roles) and disintegration of society as having a causal relationship? If so, that makes the man's role peripheral and having little or no influence in society, which is not true, since we live in male-dominated societies. And by virtue of the fact that society is male dominated, and men hold the power in virtually all of our institutions, couldn't one reasonably speculate that men's behaviors have more to do with societal disintegration and female sexualization than gender equality?

And if conditions are worse for kids these days, and I'm not sure they are, shouldn't some of the culpability be shared between moms & dads? Don't father have an equal responsibility for parenting? Many of them opt out of assuming parental duties, abandoning familial responsibilities, failing to provide financial or emotional support for their children, which surely contributes to their children's lack of well-being, at least as much as women expanding their gender roles. As for social well-being, there are numerous social factors at play here, one of which may be the changing roles of women, but that I don't think there's any evidence that it is a factor, let alone a major factor, at least, I haven't found any, and I've been out on the net looking. If you could point me to any studies or papers on this subject, I'd be happy to read them & further my education. I've found that in a meaningful discussion it's helpful if all parties have the same information and I'm always ready to learn.

First your first paragraph is dead wrong, at least in the society i live in. Men haveve no more power than wmen and probably less. For example when i bought a house, the land agent the conveyancer and the bank manager were all females (and all ex students of mine) At my school the great majority of teachers, including leadership are women.

Most (about 90%) of the businessess are owned and run by women. Most of the employers and employess in the town are women. Men are concentrated in the agriculture mining and industrial work forces but those too have incresinng numbers of women in them. The two hotels are run by family partnerships of husband and wife.

Certainly past historical forces have limited the role of women in the top echelons of corporations and govt and slightly lowered their superannuations etc but that is changing. Today women run the world i live in. Our PM is a woman our finance minister a woman and a lesbian. And that is not a bad thing.

This is not a blame game it is about realistic appreciation of how socai, changes in one area influence society in other areas.If i have time i wil do some research for you. I have read quite a lot on the issue over the years including the rise of gang culture and ghetto- isation in america, as family structures break down, in part, due to the changing roles of women. Many women in these areas are returning to traditional roles and becoming authority figures in attempt to restabilise their society and reduce the effects of gang culture.

You cant separate the changes in men's roles and social position from that of women, any more than you can separate other social changes from the changing equality and roles of women.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.