Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Burning ghost
Posts: 1834
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Burning ghost » January 13th, 2018, 7:29 am

Sorry, bad choice of words. I meant "act" more like putting your ideas out there to be countered. Rather than sitting on the fence and watching it is very helpful to actually decide to choose what seems to be the best positon and express it so others can attack it, or support it - personally I really think if you cannot find a singular argument in favour of your opposing position then you need to press even harder to find something that is capable of bring it, at least partially, into dispute.

Give Sauasge Dog some credit. He is here talking about it. That is a start. Hopefully he doesn't accost strangers in the street proclaiming the woes of western society and how feminism is to blame (that would be interesting to see.)

One good thing about this forum is that there are very polarized views expressed. I've been called bigoted, liberal, leftist, sexist, racist, a religious zealot, and an atheist, to name but a few. Generally I think that must be a good thing. If I manage to ruffle everyone on everyside of the argument then maybe I'm not quite as bias as I think I am. haha!
AKA badgerjelly

Burning ghost
Posts: 1834
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Burning ghost » January 13th, 2018, 10:38 am

I am not sure if you're familiar with the work of Sapolsky. I've recently been absorbed by his lectures. One curious thing pointed out by his research on baboons suggests that once the articles of aggression are removed from a troupe the less dominate males take over and the newcomers to the group may come in acting aggressively, but quickly begin to adhere to the culture of the new group.

For the people on top of the heap to fall they either have to overstretch or reach some fateful end. To remove them would be nothing more than replacing them with the same like. Change lasts more readily when it is slow and steady, as opposed to quick and chaotic. Males seem to be more prone to risk taking due to testosterone.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 4387
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Steve3007 » January 13th, 2018, 11:30 am

Judaka wrote:People are taking one piece of easy to understand information and using it to formulate a world view because they are too lazy to actually study history, sociology or whatever else in depth. The information being produced by Dlaw, Hereandnow, Steve and Dachshund to name a few. Here's a new post by Dachshund so let's address that...
As has been noted before, you seem to have a tendency to make general comments about "people" without reference to specific things that have been said. But, having said that, in this case, you addressed something that Dachshund said.

You give your brief interpretation of what he said and you say this:
Judaka wrote:Although he posted a huge wall of text, it's actually a very simple and one dimensional argument and let's take a look at why we don't NEED to debunk it
You then proceed to debunk some of it. And you conclude with this:
Judaka wrote:Hopefully someone else will read this and understand what I'm saying and learn from it but there's no value in debating people like this and I hope you will come to terms with that before you waste too much time on them.
I take your point about the unlikelihood of changing minds and the analysis you provide about the reasons why those minds can't be changed, but I don't see these kinds of conversations as necessarily a waste of time because they're not really much about changing minds. I'm just interesting in trying to learn a little bit about the way other people, who have very, very different views to myself, think. Maybe I won't succeed in that. But It's worth a go, i think.

For me, it's worth remembering that this is an obscure website read by a few dozen people and that the things we say on here really aren't likely to change much. Ultimately, it's all just a bit of interesting sound and fury, signifying very little. So I just use it as an opportunity for a little bit of engagement with worldviews I am unlikely to encounter in "real life" and a way to reflect on the nature of argument.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Judaka
Posts: 151
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Judaka » January 13th, 2018, 11:51 am

You seem to play the role of the eternal optimist or perhaps a contrarian which would explain why you've received contradicting criticism. Do I expect the best from others while preparing for the worst? Or do I believe "if something smells like an apple, looks like an apple and feels like an apple, then probably it's an apple"? I can't say there is a right or wrong answer to that. What I do know is that the views expressed here appear to be have been expressed with the level of conviction, only attainable with confirmation bias. You can't take a view like "women don't participate in violent crime" and tell me that Dlaw is saying that so he can learn that actually yes, women do participate in violent crime and a myriad of factors go into violent crime beyond what you appear to be considering.

There's a limit to what I am prepared to believe to be a genuine attempt at understanding the truth and what is simply somebody who is looking to justify an unreasonable view with bad evidence. In my view, there's only one good thing for these kinds of people to learn and that's to do with the dangers of conviction preceding understanding. I don't believe Dlaw ever took an unbiased view of the issue in his life, I strongly believe conviction must have preceded his understanding. So while I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, I don't think it's the appropriate thing to be saying in this situation. These people are intelligent enough to identify the holes in their arguments with an open mind, it's not that hard to do if you try.

Judaka
Posts: 151
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Judaka » January 13th, 2018, 12:02 pm

Sorry that last post was directed at BG, to Steve I recognise that I actually did try to debunk his theory despite saying we didn't need to, the order of what I said could have been done better. The point I am trying to make is that if someone is making an argument blind to the evidence, there's nothing you can learn from or no way you can benefit from talking to this person. They are wrong, you can't argue that because they are appear to be blind to reason. I am not attacking the value of having discussions with others, I wouldn't be on a philosophy forum if I thought there's no benefit to it. I am attacking this thread in particular for being filled with people who are not making intellectual arguments, you don't need this experience to know that people can be stubborn and unreasonable but in my view that's all you're going to learn from this thread.

Littlemoon
Posts: 34
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Littlemoon » January 13th, 2018, 8:35 pm

Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2018, 6:18 am
Well, that's me completely objectified as an inferior second class human being. Darn and blast.

As an inferior being, I am not qualified to offer an opinion but to merely bow and scrape to my masters, no matter how much less bright than me they are because they possess ... THE PENIS. This remarkable meat cylinder apparently imbues wielders with special mental powers that non penis owners cannot even imagine.

Meanwhile, Borat, like Dachshund, observed that women's brains are in fact around the size of a squirrel's. Each have impeccable sources ...
Hahaha Greta! Couldn't say it better myself. But one thing, I don't think women are even considered people in this.
It's kind of funny, in a non comical way, that these people who share this belief (belief?) seem to forget that behind every great man they worshipped, there was a great womans influence.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5802
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Greta » January 13th, 2018, 10:45 pm

Yes, the notion of merit and teamwork appear to be entirely missing from Dachshund's hopes for penis-based suffrage. It is extraordinary that people in this modern age will think like this. The neo misogyny on evidence from Dachshund is seemingly an extension of other Dunning-Kruger social phenomena such as the anti-vax movement, the flat Earth revival and AGW denial.

Littlemoon
Posts: 34
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Littlemoon » January 13th, 2018, 10:52 pm

Don't get me started in the flat earth's. It couldn't be more ridiculous. Although the must have Penis to vote is more ridiculous.
This reminds me the time queens had to expose their chest in paintings to prove they were indeed women. In dash dog panorama probably women would need to drop their pants to prove they are not men and thus cannot vote.

Burning ghost
Posts: 1834
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Burning ghost » January 14th, 2018, 12:56 am

Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2018, 10:45 pm
Yes, the notion of merit and teamwork appear to be entirely missing from Dachshund's hopes for penis-based suffrage. It is extraordinary that people in this modern age will think like this. The neo misogyny on evidence from Dachshund is seemingly an extension of other Dunning-Kruger social phenomena such as the anti-vax movement, the flat Earth revival and AGW denial.
And it is that very phenomenon that is of direct interest to me. There is a force at work pushing back against, and due to, a sense of global nihilism; or simply the impression some people have that others are nihilistic (and therefore amoral.) It is a very interesting and scary function of the world today. It is as if people have just noticed that they are capable of immense evil and rather than face it they latch on to whatever they can in order to blame others for making them look at themselves (which no one really likes to do with any serious conviction.)

Maybe it has always been like this and it is only now that I've hit a certain point in my life that I recognize this. Any older folks out there who've noticed a dramatic change too or is it merely me waking up from a naïve and impartial slumber?
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5802
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Greta » January 14th, 2018, 1:59 am

It looks like a change to me, as though something that was bending for a long time has broken. It reminds me of a documentary I saw about an extraordinary chimp group of two hundred, about double the usual. It was explained that usually chimp groups reach a certain size where in-group members increasingly start treating in-group chimps as though would out-group chimps.

So lies don't matter because who cares about lying to "them"? Conflicts of interest don't matter because it concerns "our boy". Each "side" increasingly refuses to cooperate with the other and then uses the others' resistance as propaganda to show how awful the other side is. The breakdown in civil order begins with the loss of civil discourse. If one cannot talk through disagreements, what are the choices?

Our societies are bifurcating, and in an odd direction that's difficult to get a fix on - it's not just a left/right division. It's happened before - Stalin, Hitler, Mao. When times become hard enough the ones suffering lose faith in thoee who have always promoted the current order - for it is their order that has at least not prevented inequality problems. So the "elites" are mistrusted, and that apparently includes scientists, because their work is used by the powers-that-be.

It's true that workers have been exploited massively. I remember the calming of unions when automation was first making inroads on the manufacturing sector, with promises of a utopian society where everyone would be wealthy and people's greatest challenge would be finding ways of filling in free time. It was a huge con, in hindsight, but not a controlled one. Migration is another issue - people can't understand why their governments keep lowering their living standards by increasing population without the equivalent boost to infrastructure. Just squeeze in a bit more, folks - breathe in!

Burning ghost
Posts: 1834
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Burning ghost » January 14th, 2018, 2:28 am

Here's a gud un ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg

I have always found the paradox of tolerance interesting. I think what Zizek touches on about "distance" is the key factor here. The question of "tolerance" is very apparent today.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 4387
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2018, 5:54 am

Dachshund wrote:The evidence I will be citing in support my case is, I must tell you, limited to evidence from research conducted in anthropology and some historical scholarship. As you and I are both qualified scientists (myself a pharmacist/pharmacologist, yourself an engineer,) we are both fully aware that evidence and data gleaned from research investigations in fields like cultural anthropology and the humanities is inherently rather soft and woolley ( and always best taken with a healthy grain of skeptical /critical "salt"). I mean It is not as hard and reliable as the concrete, objective, empirical data collected by professional research chemists and physicists, for instance, in the structured experiments they construct to test their (scientific) hypotheses. Given the nature of subject matter we are dealing with however,( politics, feminist/gender equity theory, broad-scale patterns of changes in social demographics etc;) it is, I'm afraid, the best that I can do.
The underlying reason for this is that the behaviour and interactions of large numbers of human beings over many years (AKA "History") is an almost unimaginably more complex system than any of the systems studied by such people as physicists or engineers. Consequently, people can offer opinions and cite evidence to support those opinions, but they cannot then justifiably present those opinions as undeniable facts. As I've said, they can test whether they have succeeded in persuading others by the use of such things as opinion polls and elections.

That's why we have debates and votes over such things as the best level of taxation and public spending, but we don't have the same kinds of debates, and we don't take a vote, about things like the universal theory of gravitation or the workings of an internal combustion engine.

This, it seems to me from reading your previous words, is a point that you have not really grasped, at least not previously. Hence your previous assertions that you have somehow proved your own personal worldview to be the correct one.
Dachshund wrote:To begin with, almost exactly 100 years ago, the German philosopher and historian, Oswald Spengler published the first volume of his work "The Decline of the West" (1918). In this book, Spengler argued that the Western world as we have known it in modernity is coming to an end, and we are now witnessing the what he referred to as the final season, the "Winter", of "Faustian"/ Western civilization. To date, many of the predictions Spengler made in "The Decline of the West" have proven to be extraordinary (even uncannily) accurate.
I don't know his work so can't comment in any detail until I look it up, but when I hear phrases like "many of the predictions have proven uncannily correct" in the context of other people who've made such long term predictions, I'm wary. These kinds of predictions are often general enough that we can read into them a number of different things, depending on our personal political leanings. But I'll reserve judgement until I've read more about what he predicted.
Dachshund wrote:He foresaw, for instance, the inevitable rise of a pervasive socialist utopianism in Western societies, ...
...and this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. The proposition that western societies can accurately be described by the term "socialist utopianism" is entirely your own personal opinion. Most people would not share it. Many people would take an almost entirely opposite view. So, presumably, for those people Spengler's predictions were wrong.
Dachshund wrote:...and I think it is fair to say that the current "progressive" liberal orthodoxy in the postmodern West has indeed embraced an intrinsically leftist world-view in the doctrine cultural relativism, and that cultural relativism has clearly established its intellectual descendents in, for example: multiculturalism, persistent attempts at social engineering, the Marxist political narrative of "political correctness", the equalitarian theory of feminism and the so-called "Women's Liberation" movement, etc; very firmly in today's Western societies.
Again, this is simply you setting out your political views, well known on this forum now.
Dachshund wrote: I have focussed my criticism on feminism because I believe that it is (1) innately and profoundly decadent and (2) has therefore, over the past 50 years, been one of the strongest catalysts of Western civilizational decay in general.
Your belief has been noted.
Dachshund wrote:Much of the damage to Western societies wrought by the feminist movement/s has been a consequence of the way they have successfully undermined the traditional institution of marriage as a strict, life-long commitment to heterosexual monogamy in the relationship between a man and a woman focussed on the nurturing of a stable "nuclear" family unit; that unit which has, for millenia, been the fundamental building block of all civilized societies.

As I have already mentioned, it is an incontrovertible fact that since the late 1960s/early 1970s the number of marriages ending in divorce has sky-rocketed and currently stands at a level of about 40% (!). The reason for this is that the vast majority of feminists have been consistent in stridently condemning the cultural imposition of female monogamy in wedlock as a form of patriarchal oppression.
I discussed this in a previous post.
Dachshund wrote:They ultimately succeeded in undermining the notion of marriage and in consequence the past restrictions on female sexuality in the West were swiftly lifted, creating a promiscuous feminized sexual market place that catered ideally to women's innately hypergamous instincts. There was a substantial loosening of sexual restraint among women and pre-marital, post-marital and homosexual relationships began to rapidly proliferate as did rates of cohabitation.
No evidence is presented that, in the absence of restraints on sexual behaviour, women tend to switch partners more than men. The more generally accepted view is that men tend to aspire to promiscuity to a much greater extent than women.
Dachshund wrote:Thirty years before the advent of the "women's liberation" movement, a British anthropologist J.D. Unwin warned that feminism would destroy the West. In his classic work, "Sex and Culture", Unwin published the findings of his research into the patterns that led to the downfall of 80 major tribes and world civilizations (including the Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Anglo-Saxon) across 6000 years of human history...
From the little I've read about it, it seems that J.D. Unwin was attempting to test Freud's theory that suppression of sexual urges results in the energy that would otherwise have gone into the pursuit of sex being channeled into creating things. As far as I can tell from my brief research, he did not conclude from this that women should be disenfranchised and he did not confine his proposed constraints on behaviour to women as you have done. Also, according this review, he appears to have fallen for the old problem of confirmation bias:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... a00210/pdf

...by selecting the societies based on the extent to which they supported the thesis of Freud's that he was attempting to test.
Dachshund wrote:Throughout the history of Western civilization many of its greatest thinkers from Aristotle to Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have been unanimous in warning the women are morally deficient relative to men due to their relatively more limited capacities for rational and logical thought. All of the above philosophers observed that women are more emotionally labile, fickle, unpredictable, untrustworthy, disloyal, disingenuous, inherently disposed to dissimulation, dissembling and chronic lying, cunning, manipulative and duplicitous; in short they are like naughty , mischievous children who need the firm supervision and guidance of man if they are not to generate, mischief, mayhem, trouble and grief.
Obviously these are not so much "observations" as "opinions". "Observation" applies a certain level of impassive objectivity. Simply applying this long list of pejorative adjectives to women is really no different from saying something like "I personally dislike women". an expression of taste.

I don't know without looking into it, but I would be surprised if these great thinkers applied all of these adjectives as a result of some kind of methodical research. They appear to me to be simply comments that show these people to be products of their time. Labeling somebody a "great thinker" does not mean that we share all of their opinions. Isaac Newton, for example, made some great discoveries in physics but that doesn't mean I believe in alchemy.

I guess in Western culture the ultimate expression of this mythology of the morally weak woman is the story of Eve in the garden of Eden. And perhaps one of its most brutal manifestations was the victimization of women as witches in such things as the Salem witch trials. We could discuss lots of possible theories as to why men make up these stories about women. But whatever the reason, it's certainly true that we do, so I guess it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the great thinkers that you cited expressed some of the mythologies of the societies in which they were embedded.

Thankfully (in my personal opinion), although there may be temporary setbacks, I think these views on women held by you and various historical figures are now largely consigned to history, so long as your ambition to silence open debate (tested by polls) and impose your views isn't realized. And I don't think it will be realized. The fact that in our society men and women increasingly deal with each other on an equal basis means that the conversation about these issues is increasingly open and honest and attitudes generally become healthier.

But I think that the possible reasons for these attitudes towards women are still interesting...
Dachshund wrote:And this is precisely why marriage evolved over the millenia; to make it difficult for women - who possess naturally hypergamous instincts - to "monkey branch" to a higher status male or abandon her partner and provider altogether whenever an exciting new bad boy comes along.
It's interesting to take a quick look at the article from which you (presumably) copied this particular wording:

https://relampagofurioso.com/2016/05/30 ... omens-lib/

In the article, interleaved with the various assertions about the unfaithfulness of women, are snippets of soft porn. I guess the idea is to keep male readers reading, but I think this encapsulates quite well a particular conflicted attitude towards women that we men often seem to take - simultaneous desire and contempt, resulting in misplaced blame. It's perhaps one of the main theories as to why we have historically invented the myths about women briefly discussed above.

The porn illustrates the well known idea that we men "objectify" women. We want sex with a body. Whether or not that body is attached to a mind is often incidental. Women, as a broad generalization, to a much greater extent, have a tendency to want to make an emotional connection with a sexual partner. This seems to reflect the other general difference in social skills. It's sometimes said that "Women talk face to face. Men talk side by side." Women share their problems and discuss their feelings. Men talk about car engines and football as displacement subjects. The theory would be that this evolved from our tribal origins and the roles traditionally played by males and females.

Men know this about women (that they are better at empathizing, discussing emotional and social problems and negotiating solutions to them) and because we don't do it so much we don't entirely trust it. So the act of talking over problems with a group is pejoratively characterized as gossip. This, combined with our strong emphasis on physical things like youthful beauty (the "objectifying" thing) leads to the idea of the old witch verbally casting her evil spells on people.

Men seem (historically in our culture and still in some parts of the world) to have a bit of a schizophrenic attitude towards women. The strong sexual desire for women "as objects" together with the societal prohibitions on sex seems to cause many men to blame women for their own thwarted desires, in an attitude that goes right back to the creation story. In a small number of modern societies this attitude is still widely manifested in such things as complete body and face coverings for women. Ostensibly, this is to protect women from the unwanted attentions of men, but the conflicted attitude is revealed by the fact that women are punished for breaking this body-covering rule. So the male logic appears to be:

"I desire women. I can't have any woman that I want. The more I see of women, the more pain I feel due to this conflict. Therefore women who do not cover themselves are causing me pain. Therefore I will punish women who do not cover themselves."

I suppose this is what is sometimes referred to as "projection" - blaming the wholly innocent object of one's desires for the existence of those desires.

At least that's the caricature, and a theory about it. Whether it's accurate is open for debate.


That'll do for now.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4387
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2018, 8:10 am

Greta wrote:It is extraordinary that people in this modern age will think like this.
Extremely atavistic attitudes are certainly interesting. But (in my brief research) I found it surprisingly difficult to find any surveys to show quantitatively how widespread the view that women should be disenfranchised is. I would assume that it in western countries it would be somewhere less than 1%. But I couldn't find out because when I googled it all I tended to get was analysis of which politicians might be elected if only men or only women voted.

In the US, it seems clear that a dictator (as Dachshund claims to aspire to be) who could decree which groups get to vote and which don't get to vote, based on the dictator's personal political views, could essentially have decided whether Clinton or Trump won the last election purely by restricting the vote either to men or women. Maybe that's not surprising given the fact that Clinton was the first female US presidential candidate and Trump presents himself as a sort of cartoon-like caricature of the alpha male. In the UK the difference appears to be nowhere near as pronounced. As I said to Dachshund earlier, in that case he'd be better off getting the government he wants by using age, rather than gender, as the basis for discrimination.

I don't know what it would be like in Australia. Might try looking into it. I gather that Julia Gillard certainly received more than her fair share of misogynistic attacks, as mentioned in this article from a few years ago about an art exhibition examining the use of witch imagery to (literally) demonize women through the ages:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 57605.html
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4387
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2018, 8:37 am

Judaka wrote:to Steve I recognize that I actually did try to debunk his theory despite saying we didn't need to, the order of what I said could have been done better. The point I am trying to make is that if someone is making an argument blind to the evidence, there's nothing you can learn from or no way you can benefit from talking to this person. They are wrong, you can't argue that because they are appear to be blind to reason. I am not attacking the value of having discussions with others, I wouldn't be on a philosophy forum if I thought there's no benefit to it. I am attacking this thread in particular for being filled with people who are not making intellectual arguments, you don't need this experience to know that people can be stubborn and unreasonable but in my view that's all you're going to learn from this thread.
Well, I suspect that the discussion with Dachshund doesn't have much further to go. If it goes any further at all, I suspect the ad hominem comments will start to make a comeback and we can then comfortably leave it there.

But I don't think it was entirely without interest as a discussion. I was fairly interested to see the citation of the work of J.D. Unwin and consider that research in its 1930s context, with its support by Aldous Huxley perhaps suggesting something about the Zeitgeist in which it existed. And it's interesting to consider the psychological place where Dachshund's extraordinary view of women as utterly irresponsible children comes from. There are plenty of parodies of that kind of attitude, like this one here:
But, a bit like Trump, this attitude is perhaps beyond parody because parody generally takes the form of exaggeration - taking the thing being parodied and making it more extreme. It's difficult to see how Dachshund's view could be rendered much more extreme. If the view is sincerely held then, psychologically, to me at least, it can't help but be interesting.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4387
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2018, 9:04 am

Re: My continued inability to find a serious, properly conducted opinion poll documenting as accurately as possible the number of people who genuinely believe in revoking women's suffrage:

Properly conducted opinion polls on extreme views like this don't seem to be done. I guess the reasons why are obvious. Since it seems obvious how the vast majority of people would vote if they were taking the subject seriously and if the sample was representative of the population as a whole, the poll would be deemed to be unnecessary. Similarly, there don't seem to be any serious polls on whether people think that voting should be restricted based on skin colour, for example. Because obviously hardly anyone does. I guess (not unreasonably) the effort of conducting such polls is only expended when it seems possible that the vote could go either way.

But I wonder if this is wrong? Is it a worthwhile exercise to try to accurately document the extent of (what I assume to be) ultra-small minority attitudes?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Post Reply