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

[Steve3007]

Let me start with the criticism above that my claim postmodernism is a leftist, liberal "progressive world -view in the West is merely one of my personal political views. It is not.

Here you are again falling into the trap of thinking that it is possible to demonstrate beyond doubt that your political view is true, as if it were a mathematical proof, you commit the "begging the question" logical fallacy of simply asserting as a premise the thing you seek to demonstrate and you incorrectly equate a period of time with a set of beliefs.

You assert that a particular period of time should be labelled "postmodernist" and that this period of time holds various beliefs with which you disagree. You state these beliefs in the form of your own highly distorted parodies, or you simply misrepresent them. You then go on to assert that this period of time was founded by four french men.

Obviously this is absurd. Periods of time don't believe things and are not founded by Gallic quartets. People believe various things, and there are lots of people in the world all debating them.

So, you assert that, thanks to four french men, the late 20th Century to the present time believes (among other things):

the attainment of universal/absolute truth is impossible, because all truth is relative; that no ideas or truths are transcendent; that all ideas such as "race" and "gender" are purely culturally or socially constructed; that historical facts are unimportant/irrelevant; that ideas are only true if they benefit the oppressed.

The above list of propositions is not believed by the abstract concept of a period of time and they are not believed by groups of people. They are yours, bearing as they do the unique signature of Dachshund. They are simply your personal distorted and inaccurate parodies of particular political views with which you personally disagree.

"Historical facts are unimportant/irrelevant", for example, is not a statement with which any sane person would agree. It is yours. It is your equivalent of Trump complaining about "Fake News". i.e. some people have interpreted some historical events in a way that you dislike so you therefore assert that they are making it up because (you assert) they don't care about facts. If they shared your rhetorical style, they could then say precisely the same of you because they similarly disagree with your interpretation of history. So, essentially, you shout "liar" at each other, and you claim you've proved something by doing so. This is not an argument!

You've demonstrated nothing except, once again, your own personal political views, your opinions of people who disagree with you and your tendency to distort and misrepresent their views.

[Burning ghost]

Dlaw -

My story is not wrong. Science and technology has done a whole lot more toward changing society then women being able to vote. Men in todays western society do take care of pregnant women, and in the past they were still essential to the survival of women. To exaggerate your position (simply to express what I mean) it is ridiculous for women to say men do nothing when they provide food and shelter and an environment safe enough for women to live - I am not saying YOU are saying that only striking a balance between the idea of women not having to rely on men or being completely dependent upon men.

My point was that science and technology are far greater when it comes to changes in society than women's votes. I would argue quite strongly that the reason women came to gain political status is because of science and technology, and economic developments. I was trying to show you that any suggestion that women's votes have caused greater social success and stability for the human race is rather a dubious point to put it mildly. I would argue the very same point against Sausage Dog because it is bloody hard to deny as far as I can see.

Almost any random correlation can be made. It is far from black and white, but we can at least see the astounding scientific and technological advancement of the 20th century as being quite extraordinary. Women's votes are small fish.

I find it crass that you push the obvious which has been repeatedly stated. YES, men are more violent/aggressive than women. It is part biological and partly cultural. If we had complete sexual equality you'd still end up with men doing more violent and criminal acts than women. If we saw men and women committing equally violent and aggressive acts I would suggest that it would be because men have been repressed by being forced to take hormonal therapy to reduce the testosterone balance. Ideally it would be fitting to find a better outlet for aggression (this is where sports come into play.)

There is also the difference in physical strength to consider against this point. If I punch a woman hard enough I could kill her, but if she punched me it would take an extraordinarily strong women to kill me. The most prominent differences between men and women are physiological strength and size. It is not "sexist" to be taller than women, nor is it "sexist" to be stronger or more aggressive than women - not that I am saying you are saying this, just emphasizing what we mean when we talk about "equality."

I am still waiting for what "species" you were comparing the human species to? If you were comparing humans to our closest relatives you are very, very wrong and you'd not be able to find any behavioral biologist to back up such a claim. Compared to species of fish, birds, or spiders and you'd be correct ... but we're hardly comparable to those species. The animal kingdom is full of interesting nuances. Here is an extremely interesting talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En26p6GvtHw

Don't go conflating my criticism of your points to me making some sweeping statement in order to give weight to some negative view of the feminist movement. I see the movement as a fraction of a greater political attitude brought about by a whole cacophony of different interlaced pieces - the main clash being (as far as I can tell) being science and technology and the dissolution of religious doctrine ... I believe the whole "religious" area, or what I would more broadly call religiosity, has yet to balance out properly and mesh back into the current technological information age.

What changed was people's understanding that equality does not create disorder. Looking at society in, say, the 19th century, you would naturally conclude that the most glaring inequality was between men and women. As equality progressed, so progressed democracy, peaceful global intercourse, individual rights and feminism.

If you're looking to push an ideological stance then of course you'll only see equality as a factor that fits your purpose. I would say economic equality was a huge problem, race relations, and education would also be drastically disproportional. Just because we are addressing feminism we should perhaps not make out that sexual inequality is the only significant inequality.

Equality means EQUAL opportunities. What people do not like is when they have equal chances and equal opportunities, but then lack the abilities to be successful as others with more talent in certain areas. To force your own idea of what "equality" is means to force inequality. This is where a large proportion of the feminists in the west find themselves. They want protection and safety and uninhibited freedoms with leg ups in certain areas of employment where they are employed even if there are better men for the job simply to meet the targets of "equality." Such a position will end very, very badly.

There's no question who would, because the experiment has been run thousands of times, every time there was a major war. It's even referred to in the Old Testament. Of course we know that women would be happier and more productive. How many college sororities do you see getting closed and kicked off campus?

Is this meant to be funny?US culture is US culture, it is not a global phenomenon. The alcohol laws are ridiculous (see Camille Paglia for her thoughts there.) You think the Old Testament is evidence for what would happen if a group of men and a group of women were left on the island to fend for themselves? When it comes to basic survival physical strength makes a HUGE difference; women in a basic survival situation simply don't measure up. The biggest physiological differences between men and women give one a larger advantage in such areas. In an arm wrestle women will lose. There is no denying this.

I agree with Greta. Together men and women work better together than apart. Both compliment each other well enough to have kept the species going this long.

[Steve3007]

Without a doubt the most interesting thing I've encountered on this forum is the nature in which people respond only to what they perceive to be the weakest element in an argument...

They/we don't just do this within the arguments of individual people. We have a tendency to pick the weakest poster. This is, arguably, what we're all doing in talking to Dachshund. Picking and enjoying the low-hanging fruit. Obviously we can all see that Dachshund's parodies of the views of people with whom he disagrees (and the presentation of those parodies as if they are value-free factual statements) is easy to "pick", as it were.

So the weakness that you have spotted and found interesting, or a form of it, is one that I certainly do fall prey to myself. If I had to try to analyze why I do so, I'm afraid it probably just amounts to cost versus benefit. Relatively large payoff for relatively small effort. I post messages on here for various reasons, including an interest in the way that other people think (especially if they appear to think differently from me) and an attempt to see how my words and ideas work (or fail to work) when exposed to the criticism of others. But I have to admit that there is also probably a large element of wanting the satisfaction of having "beaten" an opponent, childish as that is. I have had discussions with various people on here, and many of them do actually present rational well presented arguments. The trouble is, the more they do that the less there is to argue about! On the underlying points we tend to simply, broadly, agree. There have been exceptions. There have been people who make interesting arguments for positions with which I fundamentally disagree. That is a great opportunity to examine one's own assumptions in a new light. But it is relatively rare.

Perhaps the lesson is to simply stop posting so much!

[Steve3007]

One example of a person with whom I disagree politically but who makes good arguments that it's possible to properly engage with and learn from: the poster called G E Morton, on another thread. That poster clearly seems to have libertarian views which lead him/her to believe that taxation should be kept to an absolute minimum and the only public services that should be funded by it are those which protect the individual from immediate harm - it's the "everyone should be left alone" political philosophy. Usually (but simplistically) associated with the right of the political spectrum. I disagree, but respect that poster's arguments. So I'll go and debate with him/her instead!

[Burning ghost]

Dlaw -

In sexist societies (the most common examples for Western people are conservative Muslims and Jews) men and women are divided, women attend to women and men lose status if they do "women's work".

And then we have the other end of the spectrum ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUSFF4NI_Us

[Burning ghost]

Dlaw -

Dachsund in this post assiduously avoids the central argument of the thread, his side having been trounced by the simple fact that roughly ALL violent criminality arises and has always arisen with men and NOT women.

How does such a point TROUNCE his side of the argument? I am not defending his position, but when you start making out that men being more prone to violence is somehow an argument for ... what?

Again, you side-side that correlation between testosterone and risk taking. The cons of more "aggression" are countered by the other end of the scale where genius and extreme hard work reward society with the advances we have. I can certainly agree that if society was better managed we'd be able to learn to manage the lower end of the spectrum.

Men are physically stronger, larger and more aggressive than women. So what? The central argument of the thread is being conducted around the influence of freedom on society at large.

To repeat, greater freedom means greater responsibility and more danger.

Note what steve says in the OP:

For me, a large part of philosophy is standing back and searching for general truths. It seems to me that the crux of the issue here is the more general problem of the trade-off between individual freedom and societal structures and traditions. Women's rights are only one aspect of this.

He then goes on to open up the question to us about the "correct" balance. So the CENTRAL ARGUMENT of this thread is, in a roundabout way, asking about the effect of greater freedoms throughout society, with emphasis on the correlation of feminism with social change as the main presented example of this. Note you previous said feminism gave rise to all these other social freedoms, but no mention of the effect of the emancipation of slavery which preceded women's votes.

The progression of votes is probably a more interesting subject to focus on here rather than simply looking at women's votes. Perhaps such an approach will reveal certain false presumptions? The main reason it appears that women never initially had a vote was because they didn't own estates, the only ancient exception I know of would have been Sparta where if a woman's husband died in combat she was left to manage the estate and owned it; quite a unique case, but neither men nor women had a right to vote in Sparta. If Sparta had flourished and become democratic then we may well have seen a very different world today, or maybe not.

Today things may appear to be different, but really it is still a case of "residence" being the main factor in being able to vote. As populations grow the smaller minorities grew in size and so their voice became harder and harder to ignore. There is always, as Pinker points out, the rise of a minority group running its course and then outstaying its original purpose. Once one thing is achieved the political movement is left with momentum and no cause, so in part it over reaches (it is a necessary means to understand the limits of any movement and only history will tell when its job is done.) Given that the political landscape is anything but static it may take some serious distance before we can delineate between what is actually happening now compared to the greater extent of humanities story.

[Judaka]

The trouble is, the more they do that the less there is to argue about! On the underlying points we tend to simply, broadly, agree. There have been exceptions. There have been people who make interesting arguments for positions with which I fundamentally disagree. That is a great opportunity to examine one's own assumptions in a new light. But it is relatively rare.

I don't believe people view this forum as inconsequential and small, some people are here to incite real change in the world and whether it's misguided or reliance in the butterfly effect I don't know. If we are talking about true philosophy and not basic history and sociology then disagreements should occur because differences in values and perspectives will lead to different conclusions. If you agree with most people when it comes to philosophy, that's more indicative that you share the same value system with the people you're talking to than something like being logical or perhaps because you're not going deep enough into the meat of philosophy which are values. Most philosophy here doesn't challenge values or perceptions though, which makes this a good place for improving your writing and learning to express yourself but it's unlikely to challenge your way of thinking even if you're open minded. Perhaps all philosophy in a public sphere, must begin with assumptions that we can use widely accepted premises in order to debate something.

Most people aren't interested in irrelevant topics but unless you're actually challenging how people think about a well-known topic and not simply asking for opinions about it, you're just going to get a debate about facts and evidence because everyone has accepted the premises. Which just leads to a discussion about validity which involves evidence. The evidence is supposed to be relevant because the correlation is already accepted, people just end up having arguments about validity. For example a discussion about Trump's presidency, might end up being a discussion about what makes a good president, which might end up being a discussion about one of those points like "A president should xxx" and then once it gets down to that purely value based level, you will start seeing interesting and thought-provoking, real philosophy.

[Dachshund]

Let me start with the criticism above that my claim postmodernism is a leftist, liberal "progressive world -view in the West is merely one of my personal political views. It is not.

You assert that a particular period of time should be labelled "postmodernist" and that this period of time holds various beliefs with which you disagree. You state these beliefs in the form of your own highly distorted parodies, or you simply misrepresent them. You then go on to assert that this period of time was founded by four french men.

Obviously this is absurd. Periods of time don't believe things and are not founded by Gallic quartets. People believe various things, and there are lots of people in the world all debating them.

the attainment of universal/absolute truth is impossible, because all truth is relative; that no ideas or truths are transcendent; that all ideas such as "race" and "gender" are purely culturally or socially constructed; that historical facts are unimportant/irrelevant; that ideas are only true if they benefit the oppressed.

The above list of propositions is not believed by the abstract concept of a period of time and they are not believed by groups of people. They are yours, bearing as they do the unique signature of Dachshund. They are simply your personal distorted and inaccurate parodies of particular political views with which you personally disagree.


Steve,

I do not wish to belabour the question of postmodernity as it is a relatively peripheral issue wrt the concerns of the OP.

But to say that we in the West are currently living in a period of time in history, an era, that has been referred to by countless thousands of contemporary philosophers, sociologists and historians as "postmodernity" does not exist, and to argue that this era is not characterised by a pervasive, epistemological,moral and cultural relativism and widespread skepticism is pure nonsense !

Let's look at what a standard source of reference like "Wikipedia" has to say ( I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is an absolutely unimpeachable, definitive authority, but it is generally regarded as a reasonably reputable basic reference and frequently cited by many posters on this forum).



" Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the mid - late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism. Postmodern thinkers assert that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodernism is broadly characterised by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism (and) pluralism...postmodernism includes skeptical critical interpretation of culture...feminist theory..."



The Wikipedia article goes on to list Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty as four of the most influential contemporary postmodernist thinkers.


Now, don't you feel a "tit" ?


Regards


Dachshund

[Steve3007]

Note what steve says in the OP:

"For me, a large part of philosophy is standing back and searching for general truths. It seems to me that the crux of the issue here is the more general problem of the trade-off between individual freedom and societal structures and traditions. Women's rights are only one aspect of this."

He then goes on to open up the question to us about the "correct" balance. So the CENTRAL ARGUMENT of this thread is, in a roundabout way, asking about the effect of greater freedoms throughout society, with emphasis on the correlation of feminism with social change as the main presented example of this.

Yes, it was a bit of a rambling OP but that's the question I ended with.

Since before the Victorian era there has been a decline in such things as natural deference to authority figures and unquestioning acceptance of various traditional rituals. I think most sensible people would recognise that there are both pros and cons to this trend. Benefits and drawbacks. But any examination of what life was like for people without power or genuine access to justice would surely conclude that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Among the benefits are that more people can take control of their own lives and don't have to tolerate the abuse which invariably goes with unchecked power by one group over another. For example, in countries such as Afghanistan where divorce is still very difficult to obtain for women and where women have very little power or independance to support themselves after a divorce...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afgh ... 1Y20090722

...suicide is a route taken by many women to escape from abusive husbands. It wasn't so different in western countries up until relatively recently. The social commentary in such things as the novels of Jane Austen illustrates that the powerlessness of women meant that marriage was usually the only way to gain status and wealth (via the husband). That situation has only gradually improved.

When women really were treated like children, as Daschund proposes should still be the case, both groups were routinely abused by those who knew they could get away with it and wouldn't face justice.

But one drawback, I think, of this increasing personal freedom, independence and lack of deference that we all (men, women and children) now enjoy is probably anxiety, uncertainty, fragmentation and the need for personal responsibility. It's the same when any kind of dictatorship is removed. Similar in a way to the fragmentation of the Balkans in the 90's or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The progression of votes is probably a more interesting subject to focus on here rather than simply looking at women's votes...

Yes. Increasingly larger sections of the population have been given the right to vote. In the UK, for example, Catholics were banned from voting for a long time because of their perceived allegiance to the Pope and therefore their perceived lack of allegiance to the Protestant Monarch. Other religiously categorised groups were also excluded at various times. 100 years ago this year a subset of women (those who owned property and were over 30 years old) were given the vote, and, at the same time, more men were allowed to vote for the first time. It wasn't until 1928 that the voting age for men and women was equalised. And gradually, through the 20th Century, the minimum voting age was lowered. The most recent change was in 2015 when it was lowered to 16 (for some purposes) in Scotland.

[Steve3007]

Dachshund:

Describing postmodernism as:

"a broad movement that developed in the mid - late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism"

is not the same as saying that our entire political and social environment - "our world", as you put it - is entirely defined by that particular movement. It does not follow from the definition of postmodernism that, for example, the policies of the UK government can be described as "postmodern".

When you then go on to parody that movement (and therefore, in your mind, our entire modern world) with descriptions that bear no resemblance whatever to what anybody except you actually believes:

the attainment of universal/absolute truth is impossible, because all truth is relative; that no ideas or truths are transcendent; that all ideas such as "race" and "gender" are purely culturally or socially constructed; that historical facts are unimportant/irrelevant; that ideas are only true if they benefit the oppressed.

it's about as clear a case of the common phenomenon of attacking a "straw man" as I've seen.

As I said in the previous post, you've constructed your own parodies and then attacked those parodies. If, for example, you wish to debate the proposition:

"ideas are only true if they benefit the oppressed",

go ahead. But don't pretend that you're debating anything that anybody other than you has said.

[Steve3007]

Footnote:

After a quick search, your assertions, quoted above, about the modern western world (via your assertions about postmodernism) look as though they come from here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BPv ... ed&f=false

So I stand corrected. Your ideas are shared by one Edward Wayne Younkins. I guess that's two people, at least. A start.

[Dlaw]

What changed was people's understanding that equality does not create disorder. Looking at society in, say, the 19th century, you would naturally conclude that the most glaring inequality was between men and women. As equality progressed, so progressed democracy, peaceful global intercourse, individual rights and feminism.

So your view of history is, "um well people started to understand equality doesn't create disorder and um, they started to go for equality and then we got democracy".

Judaka, this strikes me as exactly the same level in which others were engaging. I see no battles of evidence vs. evidence in your posts. These are generalities at this point because we're not even agreeing on those. For example:

And your sociology lessons:

The dominance of men is falling away naturally. Higher mortality rates, higher rates of imprisonment and thus disenfranchisement. Men who cling to outdated gender roles fail to find work in the new economy and the lack of reliability of male employees relative to female employees are all well-recognized trends.

The dominance of men is falling away naturally? Higher mortality rates... Are you kidding me? The lack of reliability of male employees, you do not define reliability, you do not provide sources, you do not provide any argument. It's the same with Dachshund, I can't even talk to you without having to question every single thing you're saying because of the hyperbole, misinformation and general carelessness in your arguments.

I was talking about male mortality rates vs female mortality rates. Look again.

Men are imprisoned at rates many multiples of the rate for women in every society and there has never been a time that wasn't true.

Disenfranchised people in the U.S. are vastly disproportionately male.

As for employee reliability, here's one chart:

https://www.sap.com/integrated-reports/ ... ender.html

Finally, as to the Berkeley paper: you might try actually reading what you're citing before you spout off about "crap". That Berkeley paper makes my point for me.

So, thanks for that?

[Dlaw]

Dlaw -

Dachsund in this post assiduously avoids the central argument of the thread, his side having been trounced by the simple fact that roughly ALL violent criminality arises and has always arisen with men and NOT women.

How does such a point TROUNCE his side of the argument? I am not defending his position, but when you start making out that men being more prone to violence is somehow an argument for ... what?

I'm glad you asked.

The point is that you can approach the question from the obverse direction: That is, what has typically caused societies' problems and what reduced that?

Coming from a Neo- or Post-Marxist approach, I would even stipulate that the first question is always economic. So here Judaka and I start from a point of agreement. Whether or not a society can generate surplus, how much and how much of that returns to the economy as what might loosely be called "credit" is the primary concern.

But especially now that technologies spread so rapidly we see a huge difference in culture among societies and fast-migrating individuals that are pretty similar in technology level. For example, there is a whole generation of Indian women who never saw any women in any but traditional roles who have gone to the famous universities in India and become breadwinning citizens of the world and shot up the socioeconomic ladder.

I had an experience of talking about being a stay-at-home father with some Indian women of this generation and they just found it hilarious. Both of them were full-time high-tech workers and the very idea of their husbands, any man in the family or indeed any adult man's taking care of children, was hilarious - as if it was just a set-up for slapstick comedy.

Point is, these women can see what doesn't work in their parents' generation easily, even though they don't feel their parents are bad people or really wrong per se. These Indian women are palpably liberated from a culture of savage sectarian violence (perpetrated by men), sexism and traditions being overturned to a net benefit for all.

Again, you side-side that correlation between testosterone and risk taking. The cons of more "aggression" are countered by the other end of the scale where genius and extreme hard work reward society with the advances we have. I can certainly agree that if society was better managed we'd be able to learn to manage the lower end of the spectrum.

Men are physically stronger, larger and more aggressive than women. So what? The central argument of the thread is being conducted around the influence of freedom on society at large.

To repeat, greater freedom means greater responsibility and more danger.

Note what steve says in the OP:

For me, a large part of philosophy is standing back and searching for general truths. It seems to me that the crux of the issue here is the more general problem of the trade-off between individual freedom and societal structures and traditions. Women's rights are only one aspect of this.

He then goes on to open up the question to us about the "correct" balance. So the CENTRAL ARGUMENT of this thread is, in a roundabout way, asking about the effect of greater freedoms throughout society, with emphasis on the correlation of feminism with social change as the main presented example of this. Note you previous said feminism gave rise to all these other social freedoms, but no mention of the effect of the emancipation of slavery which preceded women's votes.

My point was that the abolition movement was the direct predecessor of the women's suffrage movement, involving many of the same, Protestant communities and particularly leading women in them. You can't look at these movements separately.

The progression of votes is probably a more interesting subject to focus on here rather than simply looking at women's votes. Perhaps such an approach will reveal certain false presumptions? The main reason it appears that women never initially had a vote was because they didn't own estates, the only ancient exception I know of would have been Sparta where if a woman's husband died in combat she was left to manage the estate and owned it; quite a unique case, but neither men nor women had a right to vote in Sparta. If Sparta had flourished and become democratic then we may well have seen a very different world today, or maybe not.

Silly.

Women's estates immediately became the de facto property of their husbands and fathers in most societies. Women didn't own estates because they weren't equal citizens - not the other way around.

Today things may appear to be different, but really it is still a case of "residence" being the main factor in being able to vote. As populations grow the smaller minorities grew in size and so their voice became harder and harder to ignore. There is always, as Pinker points out, the rise of a minority group running its course and then outstaying its original purpose. Once one thing is achieved the political movement is left with momentum and no cause, so in part it over reaches (it is a necessary means to understand the limits of any movement and only history will tell when its job is done.) Given that the political landscape is anything but static it may take some serious distance before we can delineate between what is actually happening now compared to the greater extent of humanities story.

Women (the majority) are a "minority group"? What madness are you talking here?

[Dlaw]

But to say that we in the West are currently living in a period of time in history, an era, that has been referred to by countless thousands of contemporary philosophers, sociologists and historians as "postmodernity" does not exist, and to argue that this era is not characterised by a pervasive, epistemological,moral and cultural relativism and widespread skepticism is pure nonsense !

Let's look at what a standard source of reference like "Wikipedia" has to say ( I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is an absolutely unimpeachable, definitive authority, but it is generally regarded as a reasonably reputable basic reference and frequently cited by many posters on this forum).



" Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the mid - late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism. Postmodern thinkers assert that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodernism is broadly characterised by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism (and) pluralism...postmodernism includes skeptical critical interpretation of culture...feminist theory..."



The Wikipedia article goes on to list Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty as four of the most influential contemporary postmodernist thinkers.


Now, don't you feel a "tit" ?


Regards


Dachshund

My prediction is that Dachshund's replies will get weaker and weaker until he goes away, this reply's being a case in point.

The only decipherable point here is to trap Steve0037 in a pointless canard about whether or not we "live in a Postmodern era" to reinforce an unsupportable generalization and straw argument. Dachshund needs to keep the argument a vague debate about postmodernism because his anti-feminist argument is silly and obviously doing terribly in the debate.

If you locate the problems of society with feminism, you must first be sure that you have prioritized the problems correctly. High divorce rates are a problem, but are they a worse problem than violence and sexist behavior? I don't think so.

It's really that simple.

[Sy Borg]

Dachshund believes that it's postmodernist to posit the genders as equal - because men are obviously so superior.

The irony is that the only way misogynists and racists like Dachshund will be able to find a relationship is if they choose an Asian bride, who are more inclined than western women to humour their husband's delusions for the sake of security. Western women generally would not tolerate someone with such attitudes.