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?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Dachshund wrote:Before I document the diverse kinds of violent, antisocial fall-out that the feminist offensive against marriage and the traditional family has spread through Western societies ( and I will use the USA as an exemplar) let me give you some examples of the type of rhetoric utilized by key leaders of the feminist movement in the US in their attack against the traditional institution of marriage over the past decades to date...
This is followed by quotes from various individuals. This is a repetition of a previous technique of quoting extreme views and then suggesting, without foundation, that those views are held by 50% of the population and using that to argue for the disenfranchisement of that 50%. My previous criticism of that method still stands.
Dachshund wrote:These are, in my opinion, the self-evidently extreme, fanatical, hate-fuelled outbursts of a cadre of very bitter and twisted individuals, and they serve well to expose the intrinsically violent, antisocial and destructive nature of feminist cultural Marxism.
Marxism is mentioned very frequently. The suggestion is that if some people who call themselves feminists also appear to hold some of the views that are sometimes described as Marxist it follows that all feminists and all women are Marxists. It has also previously been suggested that if all political views can be represented on a left-to-right spectrum then anything to the left of the right-wing of the US Republican party is Marxism. Clearly this is an absurd falsehood and is another example of extrapolation from the extreme to the general.
Dachshund wrote:Note: for each of the bullet points I will set out below, any claims that I make can be supported by hard, empirical evidence in the form of either citations from the relevant, reputable mainstream academic literature or in the form of references to published government statistical analyses, etc.if requested.
I will take just the first bullet point for now:
Dachshund wrote:* The vast majority of mothers in the US today, now believe that absent or uninvolved fathers can be easily replaced by another,...
...and ask for the hard empirical evidence that has been offered. If the hard empirical evidence can't be provided then the "Note:" and the bullet point are falsehoods.

Obviously "hard empirical evidence" means no opinion and no ambiguity - descriptions of reproducible experiments. The hard empirical evidence will first need to quantify what is meant by the term "vast majority" (e.g. 95%). It will then need to consist of properly conducted independent opinion polls which ask US mothers to state whether they agree or disagree with this statement:

"An absent or uninvolved father can easily be replaced by another man who is not the father of my children."

or something very similar. For the bullet point to be true, the number of mothers for which the term "the vast majority" stands (e.g. 95%) must agree with the statement.
Dachshund wrote:would-be or wannabe feminists like Steve3007 ( Shame Steve, shame !!)
I wouldn't have described myself as a feminist before. By expressing your views, you have made a reasonably good attempt at persuading me that there is a need to be one, but I'm still not convinced that your views are shared by more than a handful of people in the society in which I live. As you know, it took me a while to be convinced that they're sincerely held even by you. So I guess I'm still not entirely convinced of the need, in 2018, for feminism. If you can convince me that your views are widely and sincerely held I might change my mind and conclude that there is after all a genuine battle to be fought against those, such as you, who propose to impose dictatorship, remove individual liberty and violate some of the core principles of our justice system. But I doubt whether you will be able to do that.
Dachshund wrote:My only affiliation is to the TRUTH.
The evidence suggests that this is false.

---

On the subject of the correlation between scores in IQ tests and geographical location.
Dachshund wrote:..This is why Black sub-saharan and Australian aboriginal patriarchies, for instance, have never managed to cultivate the kind of sophisticated and refined culture that we see manifested, in particular, in the splendid and majestic artistic and intellectual achievements of Western civilization over the past 400 years...
Dachshund wrote:...Likewise again, as for the patriarchy as it exists and prevails in the context of those Arabic races who practice the religion of Islam in the middle eastern States like Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, etc, the same applies; namely, we are taking, first and foremost, about an ignorant, unenlightened regressive, rude, primitive, and barbaric racial culture ( which according to modern scientists conducting research in the fields of cognitive evolution and etology, for example, is largely a consequence, again, of relatively low average IQ) which although it happens to be patriarchal, bears no legitimate ,qualitative resemblance at all to the white Europid Western patriarchal cultures/civilizations of modernity.
What is being proposed by Dachshund here and elsewhere appears to be, essentially, this:

1. Scores in IQ tests seem to be roughly correlated with geographical locations and ethnic origins ("race") of those being tested.

2. The level of material wealth and cultural sophistication reached by groups appears to be roughly correlated with scores attained in recently performed IQ tests.

3. Therefore material wealth and cultural sophistication is caused by higher IQ scores, and higher IQ scores are a result of something in the genetic makeup of the populations studied.


Aside from the problem (already briefly discussed) of objectively genetically identifying people as being members of a particular race (this being the reason for the classification of "race" as a social construct in contrast with a more objectively quantifiable biological concept like "species" or "gender"), and aside from the fact this is not the only correlation and is not a very precise correlation, the main problem with the above argument is that the causal relationship could be the other way around. If (1) and (2) are correct, this could be because IQ tests, to a large extent, despite their intended purpose, measure educational attainment and therefore the higher IQ scores are not the cause of, but are caused by factors (such as wealth) which result in better education.

How to test this?

It's difficult to test which way the causal relationship works, or whether it's not that simple and is a complex mixture of causes and effects. But this study and other studies that are cited within it, for example, appear to suggest that differences in IQ score are indeed correlated with educational opportunities:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445388/

This survey of IQ by country (Lynn and Vanhanen):

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

...has been widely criticized for its methods. But if, for the sake of argument, we take it at face value, it shows lower IQ scores in many sub-Saharan African countries and, to a lesser extent, the middle east and the sub-continent. But it also shows very high average IQ scores in such places as China and Japan, while some neighbouring countries containing populations of very similar genetic origins but with very different education systems, show much lower average IQs. Some countries with a very high proportion of their populations originating from (or still living in) Europe, such as Argentina and Greece, also show relatively low scores.

A widely known phenomenon called the Flynn effect (general increase in IQ due to environmental factors, e.g. education and nutrition) seems to be at work in China. See here for a study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9613000901

If the genes-cause-IQ-results theory, combined with the Europeans-are-superior theory, were correct one would not expect any this to be the case. For example, if Dachshund's theory about the origins of western culture were correct, one would expect modern-day Greece in particular, whose population can still largely be traced back to the inhabitants of approximately that region thousands of years ago, to be a towering figure in terms of IQ scores; well above China. If recently measured IQ was an indication of which civilization was objectively superior then it appears on the face of it that the most objectively superior civilization on Earth right now is China.

Another test of the genes-cause-IQ-results/Europeans-are-superior theory would be to examine the achievements of ethnic groups from outside Europe who's immediate ancestors have recently immigrated to European countries but who have had similar educational opportunities to their indigenous fellows, and have not been disadvantaged by factors such as family circumstances or second-language issues - i.e. where the only significant variable is the genes of the ethnic group to which they belong. One such group would be people from the sub-continent and other parts of Asia immigrating to the UK. Statistics like this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ex.pdf.pdf

...suggest that children in UK schools whose recent ancestors originated from countries such as India and Bangladesh appear to do better, on average, than their ethnically white fellows.

If Dachshund's assertions about the direction of causality were correct one would expect that, to coin a phrase "you can take the Indian out of India but you can't take India our of the Indian". In other words, one would expect that the educational opportunities in the UK would be to no avail. One would expect the alleged genetic factors to persist for many, many generations. This appears not to be the case for recent immigrants from the sub-continent and other parts of Asia. It also appears to be the case that students of Afro-Caribbean origin have caught up. Again, this contradicts the idea that this group is genetically, on average, less intelligent. If the cause of poor academic attainment was a genetic predisposition in an ethnic group, then one or two generations would certainly not be enough for that to change.


So, as I've said previously, if we want to find the closest possible similarity to Dachshund's views on women, as expressed on this website, elsewhere in the modern world, groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Wahhabi movement of Saudi Arabia (i.e. extremist interpretations of Islam combined with other local cultural traditions) appear to be the best fit. Dachshund's theory that this is not a fair comparison due to supposed genetic-origin differences in IQ between males of different ethnic origins does not appear to stand up to scrutiny. As I said, with reference to the "banality of evil" concept, humans all over the world appear to be capable of attempting to rationalize the oppression and disenfranchisement of particular sections of their populations just as much as each other and this has nothing to do with the average IQ of the ethnic group of which they are members.

Whether it's Nazi against Jew, Hutu against Tutsi or Dachshund against woman, ethnic-group IQ is not a significant factor in predicting whether people will hold what we would see as extremist views.

The professed views of western far-right groups like the National Front are similar to those of Dachshund (though not as extreme as his) on the subjects of immigration and ethnic diversity, but they don't generally appear to fit Dachshund's views about women or on subjects like abortion. Overall, the fit with extreme religious groups (Islamic and Christian) appears to be closer than the fit with extreme right-wing groups on those subjects. But obviously the internal contradictions in Dachshund's views (discussed previously) make it an in-exact fit.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

Burning ghost wrote: January 22nd, 2018, 1:09 amI think it is incorrect to paint Greta the same colour as Dlaw. Greta has IMO been mostly rational rather than emotional. Given your jibes from time to time you obviously wish to cause some disruption in order to get people to speak up - I do the same, but your not helping yourself if you wish to purposefully antagonize Greta.
He will, however, help me if he keeps crossing the line. I am keen as he is to see the "deportation" of undesirables, although our definitions may differ somewhat.
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Burning ghost wrote: January 22nd, 2018, 4:12 am Dlaw -

I done. I am going to block you now. Bye.
Wow, cheap theatrics and yet I couldn't be more satisfied.

:D
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Dachshund wrote: January 21st, 2018, 10:06 pm
Thank you BG, I totally agree. Let's hear what that preposterous Pollyanna -Poppinjay, Dlaw, has to say in defense of his egregious thesis of feminist non- violence and its universally "progressive", prosocial track record in the West over the past 50 years. I'll wager you London to a brick, that if , he can muster the "intellectual"muscle to reply, it will be will be in the form a gratuitous, petty, one -line personal insult of some kind !


Regards


Dachshund (the sausage dog who speaks the truth, the pure truth and nothing but the truth WOOF WOOF!!!)
All that Dachsund has pointed out are VERBAL attacks on the institution of marriage? SO WHAT?

Marriage was a bad institution. It had rules that oppressed women and left them powerless. It left people out like minorities and gays. It SUCKED for some people. So it had to change. Guess what, a little damage was done. But people figure these things out. That's what I'm so confused by with Conservatives rather than stating the obvious they scream it and think they've made a point.

You're talk about the "violence" of feminism is just like Trump's "carnage" speech: it's all paranoid nonsense.

Black kids are born out of wedlock not because their very unsophisticated, often very young parents are reading Andrea **** Dworkin. THINK!

Men in marriages had too much power over and too little responsibility for their wives and children. Law and society changed to reduce their power and - surprise, surprise - men decided to take even LESS responsibility for their "wives" and children.

Andrea Dworkin is not sneaking onto housing estates convincing 18-year-old boys to impregnate 16-year-old girls. They pretty much do that on their own. If anything exacerbates irresponsible behavior on the part of men, why isn't it misogynistic porn culture?

Are the same staunchly anti-porn feminists you cite somehow responsible FOR porn culture in your mind?

"Women and children are ending up being neglected......must be the women's fault". Yeah, that makes sense.

Who takes care of the babies, dummy? The men?
Dachshund
Posts: 513
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund »

Steve3007 wrote: January 22nd, 2018, 2:59 pm
Dachshund wrote:Before I document the diverse kinds of violent, antisocial fall-out that the feminist offensive against marriage and the traditional family has spread through Western societies ( and I will use the USA as an exemplar) let me give you some examples of the type of rhetoric utilized by key leaders of the feminist movement in the US in their attack against the traditional institution of marriage over the past decades to date...
This is followed by quotes from various individuals. This is a repetition of a previous technique of quoting extreme views and then suggesting, without foundation, that those views are held by 50% of the population and using that to argue for the disenfranchisement of that 50%. My previous criticism of that method still stands.
Dachshund wrote:These are, in my opinion, the self-evidently extreme, fanatical, hate-fuelled outbursts of a cadre of very bitter and twisted individuals, and they serve well to expose the intrinsically violent, antisocial and destructive nature of feminist cultural Marxism.
Marxism is mentioned very frequently. The suggestion is that if some people who call themselves feminists also appear to hold some of the views that are sometimes described as Marxist it follows that all feminists and all women are Marxists. It has also previously been suggested that if all political views can be represented on a left-to-right spectrum then anything to the left of the right-wing of the US Republican party is Marxism. Clearly this is an absurd falsehood and is another example of extrapolation from the extreme to the general.


My very dear fellow,

To begin with, I do not recall that I ever suggested how anything to the left, politically, of The US Republican Party should be regarded as Marxism/socialism. As for my own political views I would describe myself as a conservative in the sense and spirit that Adam Smith's was (a political conservative). Left-wing thinking as it manifests itself in the opinions of so-called "progressive", liberal, postmodern, Western intellectuals who champion equalitarian "social justice", feminist etc issues is merely an example of the consequences of "sending stupidity to college". if you trace it - this kind of thinking/worldview in someone's opinions on the political/social/culture issues of the day, say, those of Greta or "Here and now", for example, back to their ideological/epistemological/philosophical roots , you'll usually find you end up coming face-to-face ( metaphorically speaking) with the ghost of old man Marx himself (that much is, I know, generally true).

With regard to the quotations I provided in my post, the persons who made the comments I transcribed were not merely "various (random,faceless) individuals" they were/are are high-profile leaders of the feminist movement in the United States, individuals whose views have demonstrably exerted a strong influence on the attitudes of many mainstream women in the US and other Western nations.The quotations I presented serve to expose just how uncompromisingly violent, extreme, fanatical and unreasonable the leadership of the American feminist movement's have been/are on the issue of marriage in the West. In screaming for the violent overthrow and revolutionary destruction of a marriage -a fundamental institutional pillar of the contemporary West's capitalist social order- the speakers clearly identify themselves as being Marxist ideologues, whether they do, have or would ,deny the charge is beside the point.

I did not say that the views of the feminist speakers I quoted on the topic of traditional marriage/family were held by 50% ( i.e. all of the women) of the American population, or the (adult female) 50% of the populations of other major Western nations like the UK or Australia. What I have said is there there is no doubt modern feminism's trenchant hostility to the notion of the traditional institution of marriage has been a direct causal factor in the steady escalation of divorce rates in the West since the the late 1960s, and I believe we are all in agreement on this fact?

Something like 40% of all marriages in the US now end in divorce and it is a fact that the vast majority of divorce proceedings are initiated by women, with many of them utilizing the "no fault" divorce legislation that is currently in force in all 50 of America's States. Moreover, US federal government statistics reveal an increasing decline over the past decade in the number of American couples choosing the option of (legal) marriage over informal cohabitation, and this trend is predicted to continue.

With regard to the relationship between feminists/feminism, the opinions ordinary, average, "common or garden variety" mainstream women in the modern West and Marxism, the first thing I would say is that not all feminists sympathise with the kind of radical, fanatical, revolutionary views of outspoken individuals like Andrea Dworkin, Julie Bindel, Gail Dines, Kate Miller, etc; and nor, would I expect do most average Western women. My point is that if we look at the question this thread's OP sought to investigate/ illuminate, namely, what is the nature of the relationship between changes in society and the rise of women's rights, I think that the feminist movement (which, of course, is fundamentally committed, amongst other things, to promoting the notion of equal rights for women) has indeed been responsible for some profound changes in Western society.

One of them has been the breakdown of the traditional patriarchal family wherein the biological mothers and fathers of children had made a solemn commitment to remain in a lifelong monogamous heterosexual relation that is called "marriage" in civil law. I believe that cultural Marxism and gender feminism are largely ( but not entirely) responsible for the alarming magnitude of the rate and degree of the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family since the late 1960s and that this has resulted in myriad disastrous and tragic human/social/cultural repercussions for late Western societies.

You claim I have suggested that all feminists and women are Marxists. If that is what you think then you have misinterpreted my arguments to date, so let me now make myself perfectly clear on the issue. The fact that an average American mother who was married with children, but decided to divorced her husband and thereby break up her family might not explicitly label herself a gender feminist or describe herself as any kind of political Marxist, might never have read or heard of Simone de Beauvoir, Herbert Marcuse or "Das Kapital" and is not even particularly interested in whether the current President is a Republican or a Democrat, does not change the fact that, although she may not be not be aware of it, it was the frenetic machinations of liberal intellectuals and political activists promoting ideologies like gender feminism and cultural Marxism over recent decades that were actually the root causes of her divorce and the breakdown of her family.

I believe it is fair to say that most reputable, mainstream historians and sociologists of the modern era, take for example, someone, we all know and mostly respect, like Steve Pinker, would agree that the ideologies of cultural Marxism and gender feminism ( which are strongly related to each other in terms of their fundamental philosophical/epistemological and moral tenets) were the driving forces behind the sexual revolution and the emasculation of traditional marriage and the patriarchal family unit. It all started in 1963 with Betty Friedan's publication of the "The Feminine Mystique", a work steeped in the influence of her indoctrination with Marxist theories of psychological alienation, oppression, middle-class ennui and so on. Throughout the 1960s, radical, hard-left feminism, like Friedan's increasingly gained a firm foothold in the academy; then throughout the 1970s and 1980s it spread though the counter-culture and finally to all levels of American society and into mainstream thought throughout the West today.

What infuriates me so much about feminism is the bitter irony of how no turn away from Western thought has ever had a greater or more catastrophic impact on the lives and futures of common people than the influence that (Marxist) gender feminism has had on Modern thought ( and the nature of the contemporary zeitgeist that prevails in the advanced West) especially with regard to the perfunctory, blase a emasculation of patriarchal marriage and the cavalier destruction of the traditional family unit. Those most effected by the selfishness, bitterness, deviance, and down-right arrant stupidity of the handful of radical female "intellectuals" and their fanatic, political sisters-in-arms from the extreme left who, together, were jointly responsible for creating the theory and then implementing it and orchestrating/stimulating the growth of feminist movement in the real world, have been the West's most defenceless and vulnerable citizens; i.e. its children. They, in their countless millions, are the ones feminism has betrayed and punished. They are the ones whose futures have been stolen by the onslaught of this insane movement over the past 50 years. (cf: the various bullet points in my recent post).

Moving on , you asked for evidence regarding a claim I made in a the same recent post. Here it is: (1) "Mama Says", a national survey conducted by the University of Texas Office of Survey Research, authored by N. Glenn Phd and B White. Published by the National Father's Institute (NFI), 2009, pp16 - [/b]22). If you want more, I have it and will post it for you if requested, but, this post is now starting to become rather lengthy. So I will conclude it here.

NB:The various questions you ask about: race and racial genetics, disparities in the average intelligence of different racial/ethnic groups,race as a social construct, etc, should be dealt with in a separate thread as they are off- topic. Therefore , I am not going to encourage any further diversion from the theme of this OP by responding to those question you have put to me, especially those dealing with the complex and controversial question of race and intelligence, etc; on this thread. There is a relationship between feminism and race in the sense that the feminist movement was created and largely driven almost exclusively by by White, "Europid", middle-class women on the ground ( usually either unmarried - due to being too damn ugly, too young/old or too conspicuously hysterical/neurotic - or lesbians or divorcees, widows etc.), if you have any specific queries about race in the context of this particular group of individuals, I will make an exception.


Regards


Dachshund
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

What infuriates me so much about feminism is the bitter irony of how no turn away from Western thought has ever had a greater or more catastrophic impact on the lives and futures of common people than the influence that (Marxist) gender feminism has had on Modern thought ( and the nature of the contemporary zeitgeist that prevails in the advanced West) especially with regard to the perfunctory, blase a emasculation of patriarchal marriage and the cavalier destruction of the traditional family unit. Those most effected by the selfishness, bitterness, deviance, and down-right arrant stupidity of the handful of radical female "intellectuals" and their fanatic, political sisters-in-arms from the extreme left who, together, were jointly responsible for creating the theory and then implementing it and orchestrating/stimulating the growth of feminist movement in the real world, have been the West's most defenceless and vulnerable citizens; i.e. its children. They, in their countless millions, are the ones feminism has betrayed and punished. They are the ones whose futures have been stolen by the onslaught of this insane movement over the past 50 years. (cf: the various bullet points in my recent post).
The misogyny of this post is astonishing.

It's amazing how people can present such bitterly biased neo-Nazi views and convince themselves that they are being objective.

Since when has the "emasculation of patriarchal marriage" been a bad thing for anyone but men intent on complete domination of their partner? Note that such marriages were marked by violence against both wife and children by abusive "little Hitlers" drunk with patriarchal power.
Dachshund
Posts: 513
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund »

Burning ghost wrote: January 22nd, 2018, 1:09 am Sausage Dog -



To repeat ... what POSITIVE things can you say about the so called "feminist movement"? My biggest issue with feminism, in general, is something Bjork said many years ago. She said she was tired of seeing women having to act like men to get into positions of influence, and that she didn't think doing so was "feminist." She viewed, and I believe correctly, that women have their own power of influence and that for all women to try to compete with men as if they were men was ridiculous; and it is.

Let us also note that "masculine" doesn't mean "male" and "feminine" doesn't mean "female." They are simply terms used to distinguish certain qualities of personality, and it is easy to conflate these terms with each other because they do tend to lean more toward one sex than the other.

OK, first let me tell you that, strictly speaking, there are many different types of feminism, but if we look back over the past 100 years of feminist activism and "cut to the chase" by looking at what major, large-scale social changes feminist have actually managed to bring about in the West, we can, I think, identity two key - or if you like, "game-changing" - feminist movements. The first is what I would call "Liberal" or "Equity Feminism" and the second is "Gender Feminism". Basically, I have no real problem at all with Equity Feminism.

Equity Feminism was the kind of feminism that characterised what is called the "First Wave" of feminism, this "First Wave" hit the world in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Equity Feminism was essentially a moral doctrine that opposed the unequal treatment of women in all of the major domain of adult life activity. It managed to secure reforms that largely assured the provision of equal absolute human rights and treatment of women so that they might have equal opportunities for freedom, self-realisation, independence and reward for their time and effort spent in physical/mental labour. Equity Feminism tackled issues like contractual rights and property rights for women, opposition to women's suffrage, opposition to chattel marriage and the treatment of women as property. Equity Feminism, however, did not seek to to alter the structure of society, rather it sought to work within the existing structure of mainstream Western society to facilitate the integration of women into that structure. Its roots date back to the American Revolution and the social contract theory of government that it instituted. All of the goals of Equity feminism were eminently reasonable and, as I say ,I have no problem with it, it was, overall a welcome and desirable political movement that ultimately benefited all members of society male and female.

My beef is with Gender Feminism. (And) Gender Feminism is a totally, TOTALLY different ball of wax to Equity Feminism altogether. Gender Feminism is a lethal cancer that, beginning in the 1960s started to spread itself rapidly throughout the body of societies in the West. Gender Feminism is one of the main reasons that Western civilization has now, I believe, clearly entered a into potentially terminal phase of decline. If not arrested as a matter of urgency, the continuing decline of Western society and culture will, I believe, annihilate our civilization in the much same way that the Roman Empire was finally destroyed from within.

I have made the controversial suggestion on this forum that one way to counter the virulent destructivity of gender feminism -( which has, I believe now largely taken on "a life of its own" in the late West and morphed into a rampant, and seemingly irrepressible, "Frankenstein Monster") - would be to take the radical measure of repealing women's suffrage in advanced industrialized Western nations like the USA, UK , Australia, France, Germany and so on. My logic being that desperate times call for desperate measures. To be frank, however, I very much doubt that ,say, successfully revoking the 19th Amendment in the US, for instance ,is likely to become a realistic political option at any time in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, there you go ! I have now provided you with an answer to your query: "Do I think there is anything POSITIVE about feminism ?" In short, my answer is a qualified "Yes". A "Yes", in the sense that I think the Equity Feminist movement was a perfectly reasonable, desirable and welcome human project that in successfully achieving it basic goals made the Western society a better - more civilized and decent place - to be for both men and women. But Equity Feminism has done its work - feminism's "First Wave" has come and gone. The enemy we face now in the West is Gender Feminism, and Gender Feminism is an insane ideological movement that is, as I said above, a totally different ball of wax to Equity feminism. Gender Feminism, in short, is a profoundly malevolent and incredibly destructive social/political/cultural force, and if it is not somehow "knocked on the head" as soon as possible it will totally destroy Western civilization as we now know it.


Regards


Dachshund .
Dachshund
Posts: 513
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund »

So women: Be noisy! Be everything that these fascist attitudes (and I wouldn't use that word if it was not appropriate), which apparently still exist all over the world, don't want you to be. I never thought I could ever describe myself as a feminist, but maybe there really is still a battle that needs to be fought.
[/quote]


Steve

Have listen to this:

https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiESisEL43c


Regards


Dachshund
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Just one point for now. This is from an earlier post of yours and my reply to it:
Dachshund wrote:Note: for each of the bullet points I will set out below, any claims that I make can be supported by hard, empirical evidence in the form of either citations from the relevant, reputable mainstream academic literature or in the form of references to published government statistical analyses, etc.if requested.
Steve3007 wrote:I will take just the first bullet point for now:
Dachshund wrote:The vast majority of mothers in the US today, now believe that absent or uninvolved fathers can be easily replaced by another,...
Steve3007 wrote:...and ask for the hard empirical evidence that has been offered. If the hard empirical evidence can't be provided then the "Note:" and the bullet point are falsehoods.

Obviously "hard empirical evidence" means no opinion and no ambiguity - descriptions of reproducible experiments. The hard empirical evidence will first need to quantify what is meant by the term "vast majority" (e.g. 95%). It will then need to consist of properly conducted independent opinion polls which ask US mothers to state whether they agree or disagree with this statement:

"An absent or uninvolved father can easily be replaced by another man who is not the father of my children."

or something very similar. For the bullet point to be true, the number of mothers for which the term "the vast majority" stands (e.g. 95%) must agree with the statement.
You've attempted previously to counter my point that you seek to impose a dictatorship of your own personal political views by claiming that they are not simply your own political opinions but are hard facts - with hard empirical evidence, as you did above. You therefore seek to present the repeal of women's suffrage as simply an essential fix to an objectively obvious problem, a bit like fixing a problem with a car engine. In that way you can attempt to avoid the charge of dictatorship. So I see the test of whether you are indeed presenting hard empirical evidence or merely partisan political opinion and polemic, testable at the ballot box, as quite important.

In your more recent post you addressed the above point about that first bullet point with this:
Dachshund wrote:Moving on , you asked for evidence regarding a claim I made in a the same recent post. Here it is: (1) "Mama Says", a national survey conducted by the University of Texas Office of Survey Research, authored by N. Glenn Phd and B White. Published by the National Father's Institute (NFI), 2009, pp16 - [/b]22). If you want more, I have it and will post it for you if requested, but, this post is now starting to become rather lengthy. So I will conclude it here.
I found that "Mama Says" survey on the "National Fatherhood Initiative" website. Here:

https://www.fatherhood.org/mama-says-survey

The key findings of the survey do not, as far as I can see, in any way support the assertion of yours in that first bullet point which was that the vast majority of US mothers believe that a father can easily be replaced by another man who is not the father of their children.

Please could you direct me to the specific survey, or part of that "Mama Says" survey, which shows this. Thanks.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

In your earlier post you used the term "vast majority". There was this in the key findings of the survey:

"9 in 10 mothers (93%) agree that there is a father absence crisis in America today."

This appears to suggest that 93% (the vast majority?) of US mothers believe the opposite of what you claimed. Far from believing that a father can easily be replaced by a non-father, this brief summary seems, on the face of it, to suggest that they believe that it is not a good thing to replace fathers with non-fathers.

Could it be that reversing the meaning of this sentiment serves your purpose of portraying women in general as fickle, ditching the father of their children in favour of a higher status male wherever possible? What are your thoughts on that theory?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

For reference, here's the relevant quote about fickle women. Several other adjectives were also used.
Dachshund wrote: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. 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.
I presume it was the above opinion of women that you had in mind when you made the assertion in the first bullet point.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Sausage Dog -

Okay. I would suggest you made this plain and clear in the future rather than work merely to provoke ... then again, provoking does often allow some people to come out and say what they really think and show their colours (dangerous game, but what isn't a dangerous game!)

Steve Pinker goes along with this too, and perhaps positions himself as more favourable toward the movement in the 60's. I am generally against the "helping hand" attitude. I am not sure where I sit about the movement in the 60's because there was a whole multitude of civil rights movements and whilst some bad coe out of them some good did too.

I do think in today's society the sexes generally have expectations of each other that are a combination of being delusional and too high. I am very much thinking along the lines of Jung here. I've seen it in myself and recognized certain obsessions in my life where I've projected the "anima" on to other people. Other people are gripped by other archetypal forms, mine was certainly the "anima." Maybe you've no idea, or too superficial an idea what that means, but I do see these patterns in society at large and think these archetypal forms are presented in various ways in social movements and the morphology of how huamns group themselves.

Right now I still kind of see the human race as being psychologically underdeveloped and the mass communications recently brought to bear on the "global society" is not completely appealing and many are shying away from looking at themselves - apologies for my rather dubious psychoanalysis of the WHOLE human race! haha!

What I am unsure about is the impact of the overreaching of feminism (and in some ways it certainly has, as any successful social movement eventually does.) I am in the habit of look at it as a repercussion of something greater; as effect rather than affect.

When I was a teen I used to think of men as women with dicks and women as men without dicks. I still think it is an interest way to view things because by taking up that thought it made me realise that we didn't create "roles" we merely recognized them and tried to work with them. Do we have an optimal system? I don't think so. Is it better than two thousand years ago? Over all yes, but there are so many factors to take into account it is hard to say what is better. I agree that the primary movement of feminism was over all a good thing for society at large. Given it's been merely a century since that point we're handling it reasonably well on top of the traumas of the 20th century and technology has given a helping hand too (something I would really like to look more closely at in the future regarding the shifts made in the demand for literal "manpower")
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

I note that the forum's resident woman-hater had no answer to a prior post:
Yes, the west is still a long way from catching up with the world's leading patriarchies - Afghanistan, Congo, Pakistan, Nepal, Iraq, Guatemala, Mali, Saudi Arabia and Somalia.

Australia is already in danger of following "failed feminist states" like Iceland, Norway, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland. May the god of misogyny save us from such a dreadful fate!
Note that the countries that adopt Dachshund's ideas are corrupt and failed patriarchies on the path to disaster. The countries with most equality are amongst the most peaceful and prosperous, and with the best future prospects.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta:

I think Daschund's reply to that point was where he brought in the subject of the average IQ of various ethnic groups. He stated his view that the patriarchal societies which still exist today, such as Afghanistan, cannot be fairly compared to western societies because it is his view (as I understand it) that this alleged lower average IQ makes them more aggressive. Or some such thing.

That was why one of my recent posts' aim was to demonstrate the invalidity in this ethnic-group-IQ theory of his and therefore refute his claim that the comparison is unfair.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Dachshund wrote:The Western Europid patriarchal tradition is a completely different ball of cultural and civilizational wax to , say the Congolese patriarcy or the Australoid patriarchy that exists among native Australian aboriginals and blacks in Papua New Guinea. In the case of the sub-saharan black African States like Somalia or the Congo or indiginous Australia we DO observe a patriarchal ordering of the family and broader society, but the males who preside over these patriarchies have, on average very low IQs, hence the culture overall remains very primitive and barbaric...
I think this is where he started to make that point. As I said, this is what prompted me to show the point to be invalid in a post shortly afterwards.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021