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

I'm somewhat envious of you idyllic childhood. Mine was filled with alcoholism, mental illness, and poverty. Some of my friends were from single-parent households who grew up on welfare & the food commodity program and considered fried chicken backs & necks a gourmet dinner when they got it, which wasn't often. We poured cereal out of the box along with a few roaches. So as always, our past shapes us. However, I have always believed that each human being has a right to determine their own destiny, without coercion, and sometimes this means risking the disapproval of society at large, which is often more comfortable with the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL please provide evidence.

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.

It's tempting to look at the past through our rose-tinted glasses but it gives a false view. You say there was less violence, but then speak fondly of getting "a good caning". Using weapons to inflict violence on children is now illegal. It's also illegal to rape and beat up your wife. It never used to be. And racism was not only condoned by the government, but was indeed encouraged - segregation in the US, the 'whites only' immigration policy in Australia along with the genocide of aboriginal people, as a couple of examples.

The rights revolution has sought to redress these inequalities and still has a way to go. But no-one could rationally argue that we did those things better back then. Not unless you're a white bloke who feels disadvantaged by granting others the rights that you have always taken for granted.

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.

So, there's not a lot of disagreement between us. You wouldn't have a woman PM (or a lesbian finance minister) if equality for others hadn't been pursued so vigorously. You say it's not a bad thing - we agree. It seems that your sole objection to womens' equality is that they can now go to work. I don't disagree that two parents working can have significant impacts on families. But this is a separate issue from their rights. It's what we do with those rights that really counts. Withholding them because we don't trust people to use them responsibly is ridiculous.

And why do so many women have to work? If other families are anything like mine we would work as little as we can get away with. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but none of it has anything to do with increased equality for women. It's given women the rights to have careers, and rights to stay at home if they wish. To have children or not. To be protected from abuse within marriage, etc....

Are there negative effects? If you insist - but these are outweighed by the positive effects on society of giving everybody the same opportunities. How many great female politicians, scientists, etc has society missed out on because they were expected to know their place.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhat envious of you idyllic childhood. Mine was filled with alcoholism, mental illness, and poverty. Some of my friends were from single-parent households who grew up on welfare & the food commodity program and considered fried chicken backs & necks a gourmet dinner when they got it, which wasn't often. We poured cereal out of the box along with a few roaches. So as always, our past shapes us. However, I have always believed that each human being has a right to determine their own destiny, without coercion, and sometimes this means risking the disapproval of society at large, which is often more comfortable with the status quo.

Yes I was lucky. Mind you while my parents went without shoes during the depression, we also had it tough in the fifties which was a time of economic depression. Dad had a regular, secure, but low paying government job with the railways and worked nights in his garage fixing cars for people to make enough to support a family of six. We were lucky to live in my grandma's house and have another small but regular income from her war widows pension..

I never owned new clothes and was give new toys twice a year on my birthday and christmas.These were often wondrous contraptions my father built for us, and sometimes bought toys he made from overtime earned by working away from home for a month or two. I was the oldest child, so the others had hand me downs. I often took bread and dripping sandwiches to school with nasturtium leaves for a bit of flavour. But money wasn't then, and isn't now, an indicator of the success of a society or a family.

There were unlimited free books from the library and we grew most of our fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs, chooks ducks etc on our house block. My parents loved and disciplined us and taught us ethical and moral behaviour. They stressed the importance of education as a liberating and empowering force, and reading as a way to know the world, society and enjoyment. I am now the poorest of my siblings, who range from millionaires to multi millionaires. I have a job I love, a wife of nearly 40 years who loves me, a good reputation in my community and a sense of personal worth, integrity and honour; all of which makes me the richest man on earth, despite possessing today (the day before pay day) a total of 12 dollars in cash, and debts of $150000.

All my family are good citizens, as are their own families . None have ever divorced, had affairs, or been in trouble with the police or their society, neighbours etc., carrying on a family "tradition" going back a least to the late 1700s

None have ever been unemployed or on govt benefits, except for the old age pension or equivalent. So yes I am biased by my upbringing, but the objective facts as available confirm my own world views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tempting to look at the past through our rose-tinted glasses but it gives a false view. You say there was less violence, but then speak fondly of getting "a good caning". Using weapons to inflict violence on children is now illegal. It's also illegal to rape and beat up your wife. It never used to be. And racism was not only condoned by the government, but was indeed encouraged - segregation in the US, the 'whites only' immigration policy in Australia along with the genocide of aboriginal people, as a couple of examples.

The rights revolution has sought to redress these inequalities and still has a way to go. But no-one could rationally argue that we did those things better back then. Not unless you're a white bloke who feels disadvantaged by granting others the rights that you have always taken for granted.

So, there's not a lot of disagreement between us. You wouldn't have a woman PM (or a lesbian finance minister) if equality for others hadn't been pursued so vigorously. You say it's not a bad thing - we agree. It seems that your sole objection to womens' equality is that they can now go to work. I don't disagree that two parents working can have significant impacts on families. But this is a separate issue from their rights. It's what we do with those rights that really counts. Withholding them because we don't trust people to use them responsibly is ridiculous.

And why do so many women have to work? If other families are anything like mine we would work as little as we can get away with. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but none of it has anything to do with increased equality for women. It's given women the rights to have careers, and rights to stay at home if they wish. To have children or not. To be protected from abuse within marriage, etc....

Are there negative effects? If you insist - but these are outweighed by the positive effects on society of giving everybody the same opportunities. How many great female politicians, scientists, etc has society missed out on because they were expected to know their place.

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.

They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves, economic producers and consumers etc. Like the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic. I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the negative social changes, values, attitudes, ethics and moralities for humans.

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their society. I lived with children as a child and I

I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.

They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves, economic producers and consumers etc. Like the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic. I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the negative social changes, values, attitudes, ethics and moralities for humans.

They did win a battle for equality. To be able to vote, for a start.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, now. If more women in the workforce is not a result of a drive for equality but more the result of economic pressures, then that is irrelevant to our discussion (as I pointed out to you in a earlier post).

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their society. I lived with children as a child and I

I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

So, let me get this right:

Not violently assaulting your children is child abuse.

Inflicting violence on children will teach them that violence is wrong. Will stealing from them teach them that stealing is wrong? How about rape and murder?

I agree that we are living in a society which has a growing sense of entitlement. The "me me me" philosophy is particularly virulent. Obviously this is about parenting, and kids will generally absorb this attitude from their families and society at large.

But, a couple of things. I frequently help out at my childrens' schools and their scout troops. I spend plenty of time around other people's kids and don't find too many of them with the attitude of "I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them do so". Sure, there are a few, but I find the majority to be well disciplined and respectful (and not a belt mark on any of them). This is a parenting issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with women's rights.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont look at the past through rose tinted glasses. I logically and rationaly argue that society as a social structure was perhaps better then, although it limited the equality of women.

The role of women evolved to meet the economic imperatives of a changed society. They did not win a battle for equality.

They were forced into becoming like men; wage slaves, economic producers and consumers etc. Like the abolition of slavery, the change came about from external forces, mostly economic. I do not accept that a material, throw away, consumer- based economy, driven by the premise that continued expansion and growth is an economic necessity, is worth the negative social changes, values, attitudes, ethics and moralities for humans.

It might be inevitable, given the linkages between economic and other social forces, but it is not necessarily good.

But then I think that parents who do not physically discipline their children because they love them, are not only guilty of abusing their child but of inflicting great future problems and dangers on their society. I lived with children as a child and I

I live with then now. One of the most common mantras from a child (anyone under the age of adulthood) today is " I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them do so"

Much as i love children and young people, I know society will continue to deteriorate even more before it self corrects. If the abolition of corporal punishment theoretically reduces violence and the propensity for violencein a society why are our societies and especially the young so much more violent today than for any time in my life. Once certain segments of society had a propensity for violence Now it is widespread among most segments of youth.

Humans tend to be violent unless they have learned self control and discipline Today parents teachers and police etc lack the power or authority to impose discipline on the young, which is the first step in allowing a person to understand how to control them selves..

It's funny you use the term "wage slave" and I use the term wage opportunities. Difference in perspective, I guess. I'm single and have been for years, and close to retirement age, so I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to support myself independently, that there were jobs available to me, and happy to pay into social security & pension. I know women who stay in abusive relationships solely because of economics, while I was able to leave an abusive relationship because of my ability to support myself, and I have never felt like a wage slave. Or any other kind of slave, for that matter. OK, I may be a slave to dark chocolate. I honestly don't see any harm coming from me or any other woman having the ability to be self supporting and determining the course of their lives.

I'm an optimist, I guess. I would rather live right now than at any other time in history. I believe we have more than ever the opportunity to achieve great & wonderful things both as individuals and as a society, and am doing my best to participate in effecting a positive future.

Edited by Beany
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did win a battle for equality. To be able to vote, for a start.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, now. If more women in the workforce is not a result of a drive for equality but more the result of economic pressures, then that is irrelevant to our discussion (as I pointed out to you in a earlier post).

So, let me get this right:

Not violently assaulting your children is child abuse.

Inflicting violence on children will teach them that violence is wrong. Will stealing from them teach them that stealing is wrong? How about rape and murder?

I agree that we are living in a society which has a growing sense of entitlement. The "me me me" philosophy is particularly virulent. Obviously this is about parenting, and kids will generally absorb this attitude from their families and society at large.

But, a couple of things. I frequently help out at my childrens' schools and their scout troops. I spend plenty of time around other people's kids and don't find too many of them with the attitude of "I can do as I please. No one has the right to control me, and I will not let them do so". Sure, there are a few, but I find the majority to be well disciplined and respectful (and not a belt mark on any of them). This is a parenting issue and has nothing whatsoever to do with women's rights.

Women gained rights, as did slaves, NOT basically as a result of any movement for those rights, but because economies changed and required a change in social structure. That is a common acknowledged historical truth.especail yin revoutionary studies. Now as womens roles changed and social structures changed there are advantages and disadvantages costs and benefits All are interwoven I would argue strongly that the society i live in now is deteriorated from the one i lived in fifty years ago Staristics of all sorts bear this out. i would argue that, while womens positions may have improved they are now living in a society which is worse, and th t impacts on them and outweighs many of the specific advantages they gained. For example how many women in a western counrty are now free NOT to do paid work if they do not want to. Society is increasngly structured so that very few have this choice.

How many young women (and the not so young) are safe walking the streets late at night or even in their own homes. How many women are treated with respect, as women, compared with a generation ago. Eqaulity with men has brought women down to the same level as men and subject to the same treatment and expectations and outcomes That can be good, but it can also be very bad. How many young women 50 years ago used to go out and get completely drunk and die from choking on their own vomit or be raped, assaulted etc while unconscious or semi conscious. Very very few.

Not teaching your children self discipline and control is a very serious form of child abuse. Not teaching them to think of others rahter than themselves is not only a form of abuse but anti social. Some parents succed in bringing up wel behaved children without physicl punishmnets but it is rare

As i said i live in a good conservative well behaved neighbourhood and even here many children and teenagers are totally out of control Some remain well behaved by choice and common sense, but mos tknow they can get away with anything if they want to. If that is not the case where you live then there may be a reason for that, Here social and legal pressures make effective parenting almost imposible. A parent cant stop a 13 year old girl from walking out of the house at midnight and staying away all night, or for days. Or from throwing rocks at the house, breaking walls, windows and possessions.

A friend stopped his 16 year old step son from hitting his 12 year old daughter by restraining him, and had a visit from the police warning that he could not do that without risking a charge of assault. As a teacher I cannot touch a child other than to stop them harming themsleves or another and even that is problematica.l Theoreticaly i should try and remove the class and lock the violent child away from the others and let them do what they want.

And I see this behaviour in children, boys and girls, at primary school as young as 6 or 7 on a daily basis.

Another friend called the police to restrain his violent 13 year old daughter. They took her to the hospital, where the doctor basically said to let her do as she pleased. The girl returned home and continued smashing up her room.

We were caring for her as an alternative to her being put into care, and she tried the same sort of behaviour. One smack, a bit of loving comfort and explanation about house rules and behaviour, and she was as good as gold. Another younger aunty did the same thing and the girl was perfect.

And yes it is all connected, both directly in the lack of time and effective loving parenting, working parents can offer, but also less directly with many other factors such as the size of families, the lack of availabilty of other family carers, and particulalrly the increasing break up of biologicla families.

So many kids today live with one or both adults who are not their biological parents, and do not have the form of loving investment that most biologicla parents have in their children. Many are cut off from their biological grandparents. ANd like it or not, the break up of family units is, in large part, a direct result of the economic freedom of women, but also of their changing role in society from being primarily nurturers and care givers to primarily just another wage earner.

That change is accompanied by changing expectations (another aspect of revolutionary theory) and thus a sense of dissatisfaction in many aspects of life, whichdid not exist in women 50 years, or so, ago.

In a sense women have been displaced from their primary biological purpose in life, and forced into a substitute purpose, and such a displacement always comes at a cost.

We see that cost, and its effects, in the displacement of men from their evolved role in the species, as well.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny you use the term "wage slave" and I use the term wage opportunities. Difference in perspective, I guess. I'm single and have been for years, and close to retirement age, so I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to support myself independently, that there were jobs available to me, and happy to pay into social security & pension. I know women who stay in abusive relationships solely because of economics, while I was able to leave an abusive relationship because of my ability to support myself, and I have never felt like a wage slave. Or any other kind of slave, for that matter. OK, I may be a slave to dark chocolate. I honestly don't see any harm coming from me or any other woman having the ability to be self supporting and determining the course of their lives.

I'm an optimist, I guess. I would rather live right now than at any other time in history. I believe we have more than ever the opportunity to achieve great & wonderful things both as individuals and as a society, and am doing my best to participate in effecting a positive future.

Let me put it this way. How free were you not to work. If you have that fredom you are not a slave, but slavery comes when we are compelled to do something. And for women today most do not have a choice. they are forced into work because of the way society and our economy has evoved around them. And tha t evolution, especialy the economic evolution, is in large part a product of the huge increase in the percentage of women who now work. Further economic progress/growth is predicated on increasing the percentage of women who work even further and society will build in drivers to ensure tha thapens leaving most women with no choice. As i said earlier, my wifes decision not to work for the 37 years of our marriage cost us, so far, over a million dollars. Not many couples can afford to pass up that sort of money, given the expectations on people in a modern society.

Also she was abused by women in the seventies, when we were married and she stopped working, who told her as a woman she had a duty and a responsibilty to go to work, so she could be socialised into modern attitudes and values by the women in the work force.

Being very independent, my wife told them politely but firmly where they could go, and where to stick it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way. How free were you not to work. If you have that fredom you are not a slave, but slavery comes when we are compelled to do something. And for women today most do not have a choice. they are forced into work because of the way society and our economy has evoved around them. And tha t evolution, especialy the economic evolution, is in large part a product of the huge increase in the percentage of women who now work. Further economic progress/growth is predicated on increasing the percentage of women who work even further and society will build in drivers to ensure tha thapens leaving most women with no choice. As i said earlier, my wifes decision not to work for the 37 years of our marriage cost us, so far, over a million dollars. Not many couples can afford to pass up that sort of money, given the expectations on people in a modern society.

Also she was abused by women in the seventies, when we were married and she stopped working, who told her as a woman she had a duty and a responsibilty to go to work, so she could be socialised into modern attitudes and values by the women in the work force.

Being very independent, my wife told them politely but firmly where they could go, and where to stick it.

We all have a choice to work or not, it's whether we're prepared for the consequences of either choice, and I know families who have decided having mom home is more important than any economic benefit derived from her working. The point is, there are choices. While you may define me as a wage slave, I don't, and it's my perspective that matters most to me; how I participate in shaping my own life & future is at least as important as the societal forces around me.

Edited by Beany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women are increasingly abused and increasingly exposed to domestic and social violence sin e the 19 70s, and the statistics bear this out.

And do you honestly think that those statistics went up because women were gaining equality in that time period got them abused more OR that gains in that area for women created an environment where abuse was much more reported? People kept that stuff quiet back in the old days. I highly doubt the abuse escalated, but you see the rise in numbers because women were making progress in standing up for the rights in many areas, this being one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have a choice to work or not, it's whether we're prepared for the consequences of either choice, and I know families who have decided having mom home is more important than any economic benefit derived from her working. The point is, there are choices. While you may define me as a wage slave, I don't, and it's my perspective that matters most to me; how I participate in shaping my own life & future is at least as important as the societal forces around me.

Fair enough. I can respect that choice.

In principle I agree with you about people having choices, but in practice many women are basically forced to work, to help provide a family, either with the basic necessities of life because living costs are so high, or with the lifestyle choices and material possesions, society educates/indoctrinates them to believe they must have.

The high basic cost of living is, in part, based around the general inclusion of women in the work force and the extra domestic revenues and hence taxation generated by these incomes. So families without two incomes are increasingly disadvantaged. In scandinavian countries, almost one entire wage from a working family goes towards govt taxes. That would of course be impossible if there was only one income in a family.

Whereas the australian govt used to provide tax relief for people with a dependent spouse, the movement by unions and governments to get as many women as possible into the work force slowly changed the tax regime so that it now disadvantages and penalises familires where a woman(or a man) stays at home to care for children. Rather from the increased income tax take of more employed, it provides very high child care rebates for poorer families to put their children into professional child care.This further diminishes the role of family and parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And do you honestly think that those statistics went up because women were gaining equality in that time period got them abused more OR that gains in that area for women created an environment where abuse was much more reported? People kept that stuff quiet back in the old days. I highly doubt the abuse escalated, but you see the rise in numbers because women were making progress in standing up for the rights in many areas, this being one of them.

While this is, in part, true the experts and statistics agree that it is only a part of the equation. Violence, abuse especially sexual, etc. is increasing in our society, especially among the young, and particulary involving women. This is in part a result of, and to be expected from, the changing status of women in society. It has made them less respected, and also put them in more vulnerable positions, often making them targets.

That is not the fault of women and often the fault of individual men. More often it is a natural consequence of the changes. But it is real and must be recognised and addressed. I work among young men and women and I can see the change in how boys relate to girls. Yes there is more equality but that is not always good. The boys treat the girls like boys physically and emotionally, but physically and psychologically/emotionally, they are not the same. It is almost always the girls who get hurt, in one way or another.

I dont believe, I know, that sexual abuse violence etc is increasing, particularly social or street violence. Women are increasingly, and inadvertantly, placing them selves at risk because they now have the freedoms to do so (this is also true for young men to a lesser degree and violence is greater among them as well)

There may be some reduction in domestic violence but that is much harder to assess The statistics show it is increasing, but as you say this may partly be a result of increased awareness, lower tolerance, and hence greater reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women are increasingly abused and increasingly exposed to domestic and social violence sin e the 19 70s, and the statistics bear this out.

Women have always been abused by men. Only, in the past it wasn't illegal to rape or assault your wife. It happened - it just wasn't reported. The increase that is indicated in the stats can be attributed to a society that no longer finds this acceptable, where women are more able to report it. And that's a direct result of the rights movements. It's exposed it for the crime that it is - and is no longer the husband's prerogative.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in part a result of, and to be expected from, the changing status of women in society. It has made them less respected, and also put them in more vulnerable positions, often making them targets.

WHY should violence towards women be 'a result of' and (worse!), 'to be expected from', 'the changing status(i.e. a measure of equality), of women in society'? WHY should that make them less respected? WHY should they then be perceived as 'vulnerable'? I actually find this very shocking. Whichever way you present it, it just screams at me 'The menfolk are angry at those upstart women who have dared to put the baby down for a moment and step out of the kitchen ........ and by golly they're going to make them pay for it!'

You are a similar age to me and I have found your many and long posts fascinating ....... and deeply depressing, but not in the same way that you do.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is, in part, true the experts and statistics agree that it is only a part of the equation. Violence, abuse especially sexual, etc. is increasing in our society, especially among the young, and particulary involving women. This is in part a result of, and to be expected from, the changing status of women in society. It has made them less respected, and also put them in more vulnerable positions, often making them targets.

That is not the fault of women and often the fault of individual men. More often it is a natural consequence of the changes. But it is real and must be recognised and addressed. I work among young men and women and I can see the change in how boys relate to girls. Yes there is more equality but that is not always good. The boys treat the girls like boys physically and emotionally, but physically and psychologically/emotionally, they are not the same. It is almost always the girls who get hurt, in one way or another.

I dont believe, I know, that sexual abuse violence etc is increasing, particularly social or street violence. Women are increasingly, and inadvertantly, placing them selves at risk because they now have the freedoms to do so (this is also true for young men to a lesser degree and violence is greater among them as well)

There may be some reduction in domestic violence but that is much harder to assess The statistics show it is increasing, but as you say this may partly be a result of increased awareness, lower tolerance, and hence greater reporting.

I'd like to see some statistics regarding the correlation between acts of violence committed against women and their changing role in society, Or a study. Or a paper. Or something. Society is constantly changing, and not all of it, I would guess very little of it, is accompanied by an increase in violence. And women are actually in a better position in regard to the violence because of fairly new laws that don't require the cooperation of an abused spouse before the police will arrest the abuser, and because more people understand that a rape victim is just that, a victim, no someone who has somehow inadvertently responsible for the rape, because we now understand rape is a crime of violence, not a sexual crime.

and it seems to me that in working class families many women did work outside the home, it was only in the middle & upper classes where women had the opportunity to stay home. Where I grew up, women worked in the canning factories, or fruit & vegetable packing plants, or out in the fields, taking in ironing, cleaning houses, renting out rooms, what ever they could to bring in some sheckels. I come from a blue collar family where everyone, men & women alike, worked their rears off in order to provide economic security for their families. As families moved up the socio-economic ladder the woman sometimes quit work, but only if her income wasn't needed. And I'm talking about the 50's & 60's here, when society generally was less affluent. Clearly you & I didn't grow up in the same environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY should violence towards women be 'a result of' and (worse!), 'to be expected from', 'the changing status(i.e. a measure of equality), of women in society'? WHY should that make them less respected? WHY should they then be perceived as 'vulnerable'? I actually find this very shocking. Whichever way you present it, it just screams at me 'The menfolk are angry at those upstart women who have dared to put the baby down for a moment and step out of the kitchen ........ and by golly they're going to make them pay for it!'

You are a similar age to me and I have found your many and long posts fascinating ....... and deeply depressing, but not in the same way that you do.

Look at the lifestyles of modern women, especially the young to see why this is so. Of course it is inexcusable. all violence is inexcusable. I've only hit a female once in my life, when i had to slap a teenage girl who was violent and abusive, and I've only ever hit a bloke once, aged 15 in self defence. More to the point I verbalise and act towards all people with respect nad love. Its not just physical violence and abuse which harms people.

.But the increase danger to women happens because of physical changes in womens lives. Its a trade off for greater freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, an unverified (by me) report in my state newspaper this morning stated that; in new zealand, australia and america last year there were more domestic violence reports of women assaulting men, than men assaulting women. The implication was that this was the first time this reversal of reporting had occurred.

The injuries were not as severe in the cases of women striking men, but open reporting of abuse apparently is working in both directions. Perhaps women are achieving true equality with men, at least in domestic violence. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some statistics regarding the correlation between acts of violence committed against women and their changing role in society, Or a study. Or a paper. Or something. Society is constantly changing, and not all of it, I would guess very little of it, is accompanied by an increase in violence. And women are actually in a better position in regard to the violence because of fairly new laws that don't require the cooperation of an abused spouse before the police will arrest the abuser, and because more people understand that a rape victim is just that, a victim, no someone who has somehow inadvertently responsible for the rape, because we now understand rape is a crime of violence, not a sexual crime.

and it seems to me that in working class families many women did work outside the home, it was only in the middle & upper classes where women had the opportunity to stay home. Where I grew up, women worked in the canning factories, or fruit & vegetable packing plants, or out in the fields, taking in ironing, cleaning houses, renting out rooms, what ever they could to bring in some sheckels. I come from a blue collar family where everyone, men & women alike, worked their rears off in order to provide economic security for their families. As families moved up the socio-economic ladder the woman sometimes quit work, but only if her income wasn't needed. And I'm talking about the 50's & 60's here, when society generally was less affluent. Clearly you & I didn't grow up in the same environment.

No I grew up in australia Few married women worked. In part it was illegal in govt jobs, but also after the war there were not enough jobs for men, let alone women. But mainly it was social expectation as it is now for women to work. Also we had a slightly better social welfare system here including payments, called child endowments, to married women with children to help meet family costs.

The labor force participation rate of men has been decreasing since the 1950s, having registered 86.4 percent in 1950, 79.7 percent in 1970, 76.4 percent in 1990, and 73.3 percent in 2005. This decline has resulted from various factors. For example, the Social Security Act was amended in 1960 to make individuals under 50 years of age eligible for disability payments.

The decline in the men’s labor force participation rate is expected to continue; it is projected to be 70 percent in 2020 and 66 percent in 2050.

Women’s labor force participation, which was at a rate of 33.9 percent in 1950, increased significantly during the 1970s and 1980s, climbing to 57.5 percent in 1990. In 1999, the women’s participation rate reached a peak of 60 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/o...n/wk2/art03.htm

womens and mens participation in work is now approaching equivalency. When I was born about a third of women( mostly single) worked; today it is twice that rate while male participation has dropped.

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.