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
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

Judaka, it's not a "hard-line view" it's the plain fact. Women ARE NOT capable of violence to the same degree men are, on any sort of population/probabilistic basis. Your argument assumes what cannot be assumed since men are clearly responsible for essentially all of the violent crime on a percentage basis.

Do women commit violent crime? Yes, but to suggest they are equally capable as men is an equivocation and simply, provably untrue.

The larger philosophical argument here might be summed up as moving from an individual-level theory of ethics to coming up with an individual and a species-level ethics.
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. Same way Dachshund ignored all criticism and instead made a childish retort at Greta, you feel you can make the strongest argument about the percentages of crime rates. Clearly women are less inclined to violent crimes than men are and clearly they are capable of violent crime, which makes your argument that women aren't capable/at all inclined to do violent crime invalid. It's as simple as that. My actual argument however was that there's no point debating people like you and Dachshund, an argument neither you or Dachshund have done anything but strengthen.

The only mistake I made was putting Steve in my list of crackpots, the difference in value between what he and BG write compared to you and Dachshund shows that even if you had all the time in the world, there still wouldn't be enough to warrant debating people with your kind of conviction to lack of evidence ratio.
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 »

Judaka -

At the very least it is good writing practice! ;)

Forums, pubs and universities are always going to possess elements that are more useful than others in understanding ourselves, others and the world at large. If you don't see the use in talking to someone in the slightest then don't. Even when I post here, like right now, I am really just registering and clarifying a certain way of thinking in my own head probably more so than I am actually addressing you or anyone else.

I guess the burden of intellectual pursuits is finding people intellectually inclined. If you know of a place online where the discussions are better than here and more productive then please PM me with details.

Thanks
AKA badgerjelly
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

I don't have any suggestions for a place where discussions are better, I am sure there are plenty of people who come here that are capable of giving worthwhile arguments and probably there's no place devoid of people who aren't. However identifying these people is a valuable skill, even more so irl than on a forum. Similarly as with you, I write to improve my ability to express my views and see how my views look in a debate format, I've learned quite a lot here. I have a tendency to say more than needs to be said and I set myself the goal on being as concise as I can be, a problem I didn't appreciate before I had started posting here.

However arguing against the wrong people will make it seem as though it's just impossible to get your points across and you won't be able to say anything but the most obvious retorts to badly thought-out statements and ideas. It's not necessary for you to clarify in your own head that women aren't sub-human degenerates and that the existence of men is the source of every problem in the world. If you've run out of interesting people to talk to here then perhaps visit multiple sites, any reason for being here would be better served that way than by talking to these crackpots.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

Isn't the source of every problem* also if you do visit another forum, let it be one that allows you to edit your posts.
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 15th, 2018, 1:12 am
Dlaw wrote: January 14th, 2018, 3:14 pm

On the micro level - home and school, e.g. - women are unquestionably the "actual" leadership of decision makers.

But by your standard, women have yet to have serious political influence. The very few female leaders worldwide - mostly in Europe - (Christine Lagard, for example) are playing the same role as men and have not had the opportunity to influence the culture of the offices they hold.



I think women became impactful politically some time in between the abolition and women's suffrage movement - approximately, but I don't think that feminism has much influence in the halls of power yet.
By "my standards" meaning what standards? Please note you then go on to say that feminism doesn't have much influence in the halls of power yet. This begs the question as to why it is that world poverty, child malnutrition and armed conflicts have all dramatically reduced since 1945. If feminism has a tiny influence then the world is already getting better without it.
I would say that the world is getting better BECAUSE of social theories inevitably partnered with feminism. In fact, I'd suggest that feminism is the original cause of these liberal movements.
I can question the influence over the household though in some instances. Even Aristotle said the women ruled the house, and given that they are the primary carers for babies and children this is generally common sense. Today is a different world and due ot feminism men do more to maintain the household than they used to most probably. Not quite sure what your point was though?

What we do know is that men are more likely to rise to high positions because they take more risks. And the other end of the scale men are more likely to fall to the lowest positions because they are more inclined to take risks. It makes some kind of sense for women to be risk averse if they have to nurse babies.
You get right to one of my favorite points, here. When the economics of Raiding changed, it became highly advantageous to have men in your society who were very alienated from child-rearing. Because successful raiding includes killing, kidnapping, enslaving and raping of minor children, it really helps if the raiders don't identify with them.

That economic reality unfortunately raised the status of psychopaths in human society. And in America we certainly see that that trend continues.
My position is that over all we can do little more than speculate and disagree about the correlations of womens rise to more influential power and change in society.
Yes but your position is plainly wrong. Whatever is the force that has reduced the level of violence in human society, we know that the remaining violence is centered among men. All the laws and customs that have improved society have been associated with teaching MEN not to be violent.

Never in my knowledge has there ever been a need to teach women not to be violent.
The question itself is unanswerable because when women's positions change in society, society will change. If we frame the question to ask how women voting has effected society at large, I would say over all that is has had a positive effect.

I don't see why the feminist movement has any more movement to make in the west compared to other places around the globe.
I think you're trying to equivocate and be vague here, but I think the association is very strong and the fundamental problem is very clear.

Men = violence

Reduce dominance of men, reduce dominance of violence.

The mystification of violence and evil I think comes from the fact that men don't admit (and some don't understand) and women just don't understand where human violence comes from. Homo sapiens males show a predisposition from an early age to gratuitous violence. In other words, in our species there is a strong gender dimorphism when it comes to fighting behaviors.
Zizek describes himself as a stange kind of Marxist. From what I have heard from him he means he found the psychological implications of this thoughts interesting (regarding things like self value in the work place.) He does openly say he is a Lacanian. I do think there is good value to be had in exploring psychoanalytic philosophers.
Zizek is very interesting on the psycho-culture of capitalism. I think Zizek is indeed a strange kind of Marxist although he now represents the eclectic approaches taken by Marxists and post-Marxists.
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 »

Judaka wrote: January 15th, 2018, 4:32 am
Judaka, it's not a "hard-line view" it's the plain fact. Women ARE NOT capable of violence to the same degree men are, on any sort of population/probabilistic basis. Your argument assumes what cannot be assumed since men are clearly responsible for essentially all of the violent crime on a percentage basis.

Do women commit violent crime? Yes, but to suggest they are equally capable as men is an equivocation and simply, provably untrue.

The larger philosophical argument here might be summed up as moving from an individual-level theory of ethics to coming up with an individual and a species-level ethics.
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. Same way Dachshund ignored all criticism and instead made a childish retort at Greta, you feel you can make the strongest argument about the percentages of crime rates. Clearly women are less inclined to violent crimes than men are and clearly they are capable of violent crime, which makes your argument that women aren't capable/at all inclined to do violent crime invalid. It's as simple as that. My actual argument however was that there's no point debating people like you and Dachshund, an argument neither you or Dachshund have done anything but strengthen.

The only mistake I made was putting Steve in my list of crackpots, the difference in value between what he and BG write compared to you and Dachshund shows that even if you had all the time in the world, there still wouldn't be enough to warrant debating people with your kind of conviction to lack of evidence ratio.
Judaka, did you note that I'm ignoring the oldest Straw Man in the book: "Oh, well, you just can't be convinced."

In fact, I gave you an clear example of engaging with evidence - evidence presented by Dachshund of all people!!!

Feminism is breaking up the traditional marital structure. That has had a lot of negative effects. But on a societal level, we see that the negative effects of the high divorce rate are much less obvious in countries with a more developed welfare state and more tolerant, feminist attitudes generally.
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 »

Also, Judaka, this may be news to you but sometimes people on the Internet use some hyperbole to make their points more strongly.

It doesn't mean they are immune to evidence - not by a long shot.

But reading my Twitter account, I can see why one would come to believe that the Internet is just one, giant closed mind.
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 »

Dlaw -

Your position seems to be the complete opposite to Sausage Dog's. He wants no votes for women and you want no votes for men (neither position is likely to be implemented.) If you cannot reduce the dominance of men, which you cannot because more men will always fight harder than women to rise to the top, then what do you propose?

In our species the gender dimorphism is strong compared to precisely what species? Certainly not any other primate, but you're likely correct if you choose to compare the human species to arachnids.

I was being vague because social mechanisms are incredibly complex. It was an offering to your position. It still seems shaky though because given that you've said women don't hold positions of influential power (even today), then I can only conclude that the feminist movement was propagated by the conditions brought about by the patriarchy. If the influence of women is so slight then the decrease in wars, famine, poverty and general increases in global economic equality have nothing to do with feminism (which was instigated only on the back of the production of a stable society by the developments and achievements of the patriarchy.) It seems to me that you want to associate what is good about society with feminism and what is bad with patriarchal society.

You cannot have it both ways. You may say the changes in society are because of feminism, but you also say that women have no power. So which is it? Do women have power or do they not have power? If they do are then what is all the fuss about? If not then why is the world making such amazing strides, albeit with some serious cultural scars left by WWII?

WWII is famously associated with moving women out of the home and into the factories. If there was a point where women stepped up to the mark it was likely during WWII. Technological and scientific advances are much more prominent causes of societal changes than mere feminism. I think it is blinkered to say otherwise. It has certainly had some influence because we're talking about it now and attitudes have been changing ever since religion began to slip away from the centre of societal structure (again, due to science and technology not feminism.)

Your "favourite point" doesn't quite make sense to me. Men alienated from child rearing? My point was more along the lines that men don't produce milk and take care of the mother whilst the mother takes care of the baby - that is generally how it works in between wars and during times of warring. If not the women would simply die along with their children.

What do you think would happen if you put a group of women and a group of men on an island and left them to it? Which group would be happier and more productive?
AKA badgerjelly
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 15th, 2018, 3:30 pm Dlaw -

Your position seems to be the complete opposite to Sausage Dog's. He wants no votes for women and you want no votes for men (neither position is likely to be implemented.) If you cannot reduce the dominance of men, which you cannot because more men will always fight harder than women to rise to the top, then what do you propose?
Obviously I never suggested for a moment that men should be disenfranchised as a rule. The point is to inject some reality into this discussion.

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.

I think the rash of sexual misconduct scandals among powerful men is reminding people that men come to positions of responsibility with a greater inherent risk of massive failure than women do. On a risk-weighted basis, female workers are more valuable.
In our species the gender dimorphism is strong compared to precisely what species? Certainly not any other primate, but you're likely correct if you choose to compare the human species to arachnids.

I was being vague because social mechanisms are incredibly complex. It was an offering to your position. It still seems shaky though because given that you've said women don't hold positions of influential power (even today), then I can only conclude that the feminist movement was propagated by the conditions brought about by the patriarchy. If the influence of women is so slight then the decrease in wars, famine, poverty and general increases in global economic equality have nothing to do with feminism (which was instigated only on the back of the production of a stable society by the developments and achievements of the patriarchy.) It seems to me that you want to associate what is good about society with feminism and what is bad with patriarchal society.
What I want to do is point out that any argument which doles out responsibility for violence at all equally between men and women is an equivocation, a canard AND a lie.

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.

The story is in the demographics.
You cannot have it both ways. You may say the changes in society are because of feminism, but you also say that women have no power. So which is it? Do women have power or do they not have power? If they do are then what is all the fuss about? If not then why is the world making such amazing strides, albeit with some serious cultural scars left by WWII?

WWII is famously associated with moving women out of the home and into the factories. If there was a point where women stepped up to the mark it was likely during WWII. Technological and scientific advances are much more prominent causes of societal changes than mere feminism. I think it is blinkered to say otherwise. It has certainly had some influence because we're talking about it now and attitudes have been changing ever since religion began to slip away from the centre of societal structure (again, due to science and technology not feminism.)

Your "favourite point" doesn't quite make sense to me. Men alienated from child rearing? My point was more along the lines that men don't produce milk and take care of the mother whilst the mother takes care of the baby - that is generally how it works in between wars and during times of warring. If not the women would simply die along with their children.
Your story is already wrong. Pregnant and nursing women are "taken care of" almost exclusively by other women - on a historical basis. 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".
What do you think would happen if you put a group of women and a group of men on an island and left them to it? Which group would be happier and more productive?
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?
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 15th, 2018, 3:30 pmWhat do you think would happen if you put a group of women and a group of men on an island and left them to it? Which group would be happier and more productive?
If they are on the same island, and incredible amount would get done as males and females strive to make a good impression (or at least avoid a bad one) on each other. Groups consisting of all the same sex tend to be less happy and functional than mixed groups.

Give the genders separate islands and the blokes would have soon located fermented fruits and aromatic herbs and would set up a little world full of sport, drunkenness and sex. The women, rather, would facilitate workshops where 4,682 items would be deemed to be addressed urgently, of which 15 would be attended in the next five years, and half would die of boredom. The smartest members of each group (whose opinions would naturally be ignored in favour of those in the middle the Bell Curve, as always) would lurk at the fringes in quiet despair. **

Deliberately ignoring the talents of half of the population is a pointless handicap for a society to inflict upon itself. It's no accident that the most wealthy countries per capita are those with the most equality. There is far more difference within genders than between them. Aside from intimacies and some physical tasks, if a person is intelligent, responsive to reason and kindly, does the wrapping much matter?



** You are right to suspect a healthy measure of artistic licence and satire, but at least some of you will know what I mean :)
Littlemoon
Posts: 51
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

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

Post by Littlemoon »

Greta wrote: January 15th, 2018, 5:41 pm
Burning ghost wrote: January 15th, 2018, 3:30 pmWhat do you think would happen if you put a group of women and a group of men on an island and left them to it? Which group would be happier and more productive?
If they are on the same island, and incredible amount would get done as males and females strive to make a good impression (or at least avoid a bad one) on each other. Groups consisting of all the same sex tend to be less happy and functional than mixed groups.

Give the genders separate islands and the blokes would have soon located fermented fruits and aromatic herbs and would set up a little world full of sport, drunkenness and sex. The women, rather, would facilitate workshops where 4,682 items would be deemed to be addressed urgently, of which 15 would be attended in the next five years, and half would die of boredom. The smartest members of each group (whose opinions would naturally be ignored in favour of those in the middle the Bell Curve, as always) would lurk at the fringes in quiet despair. **

Deliberately ignoring the talents of half of the population is a pointless handicap for a society to inflict upon itself. It's no accident that the most wealthy countries per capita are those with the most equality. There is far more difference within genders than between them. Aside from intimacies and some physical tasks, if a person is intelligent, responsive to reason and kindly, does the wrapping much matter?



** You are right to suspect a healthy measure of artistic licence and satire, but at least some of you will know what I mean :)

Greta, I think women would probably bad mouth eachother and stab eachother in the back hahaha. Also, talk badly about men not being able to put the toilet seat back down again :P
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 »

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.
[/quote]


Steve,

You have posted quite a numbers of objections and requests for further evidence/clarification to a number of claims I have made in this thread to date. I could not deal with them all in one post as this would result in a massive "wall of text", and I am aware that such are not viewed favourably on this forum, which , I think, aims to encourage a relatively brisk and lively exchange of opinions through that are expressed in as succinct and to-the-point manner as possible. Therefore I shall deal with addressing your concerns one by one and in as parsimonious a fashion as I realistically am able.

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.

Every person reading this post will be familiar with the terms postmodern and postmodernist. The era that we in the West are now living in is commonly referred to as the postmodern era and is typically viewed as having begun between the mid and late 20th century.The postmodernist world - view is basically grounded on the notions that: 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. Postmodernism is skeptical about any weltunshaaung - or any paradigms; the postmodern paradigm is, if you like, anti-paradigmatic; it denies the view that there could be a compelling, comprehensive world-view. For man in the postmodern West life is intrinsically fraught with doubt and uncertainty - he is cast adrift amidst the shifting sands of a widespread skepticism and agnosticism. It is assumed that truth is revealed equally in different doctrines (even if they contradict each other) and on this understanding everything is reduced to a matter of subjective "interpretation" or mere opinion. What was a legitimate plurality of of ideas has, in Western postmodernity, given way to an undifferentiated pluralism based on the assumption that all positions are equally valid.

The founders and leading thinkers of postmodernism were all Left in their politics and often hard Left. With hindsight we can clearly identify these men, they were four french intellectuals, namely: (1) Michel Foucault (a member of the French communist Party in the first half of the 1950s, who declared himself a Maoist in 1968); Jean - Francois Lyotard ( who spent 12 years working with and writing for the radical Left group " Socialisme au Barbarie"; Jacques Derrida ( closely associated with a group focussed around "Tel Quel", a far left journal and sympathetic to the French communist Party); Richard Rorty, an American Democrat (who cited the Socialist Party candiate and leader Phillip Randolph as one of his great heroes).

Thus I provide a compelling argument evidence to substantiate my claim that the current era of postmodernity in the West is a world-view that has it origins predominantly in (hard) Left political ideology and remains a leftist, liberal /"progressive"/culturally relativist/ egalitarian/equalitarian philosophical, social, epistemological and moral paradigm; a paradigm robustly underpinned by the Marxist rationale and concepts of: oppression ( of minority/disempowered /disadvantaged groups) inequality ( between the genders and, for example , between the Western white Europid race and the coloured ( black African/latino/hispanic/Australoid , Mongoloid, etc;) races; revolution and the nation of Marxist-Leninist (capitalist) imperialism AND that this is not,, as it happens, merely one man's (one Dachund's !) opinion.

I will deal with another one of your many objections to my arguments on this thread in my next post and so, one by one until I have dispatched them all.


Regards


Dachund
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 »

Dachshund, it's not postmodern to consider your post above to be just more pointless rationalising of the irrational.

You strike me as one who is a member of a far right group. Which one or ones?
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 15th, 2018, 6:54 pm
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.
Steve,

You have posted quite a numbers of objections and requests for further evidence/clarification to a number of claims I have made in this thread to date. I could not deal with them all in one post as this would result in a massive "wall of text", and I am aware that such are not viewed favourably on this forum, which , I think, aims to encourage a relatively brisk and lively exchange of opinions through that are expressed in as succinct and to-the-point manner as possible. Therefore I shall deal with addressing your concerns one by one and in as parsimonious a fashion as I realistically am able.

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.

Every person reading this post will be familiar with the terms postmodern and postmodernist. The era that we in the West are now living in is commonly referred to as the postmodern era and is typically viewed as having begun between the mid and late 20th century.The postmodernist world - view is basically grounded on the notions that: 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. Postmodernism is skeptical about any weltunshaaung - or any paradigms; the postmodern paradigm is, if you like, anti-paradigmatic; it denies the view that there could be a compelling, comprehensive world-view. For man in the postmodern West life is intrinsically fraught with doubt and uncertainty - he is cast adrift amidst the shifting sands of a widespread skepticism and agnosticism. It is assumed that truth is revealed equally in different doctrines (even if they contradict each other) and on this understanding everything is reduced to a matter of subjective "interpretation" or mere opinion. What was a legitimate plurality of of ideas has, in Western postmodernity, given way to an undifferentiated pluralism based on the assumption that all positions are equally valid.

The founders and leading thinkers of postmodernism were all Left in their politics and often hard Left. With hindsight we can clearly identify these men, they were four french intellectuals, namely: (1) Michel Foucault (a member of the French communist Party in the first half of the 1950s, who declared himself a Maoist in 1968); Jean - Francois Lyotard ( who spent 12 years working with and writing for the radical Left group " Socialisme au Barbarie"; Jacques Derrida ( closely associated with a group focussed around "Tel Quel", a far left journal and sympathetic to the French communist Party); Richard Rorty, an American Democrat (who cited the Socialist Party candiate and leader Phillip Randolph as one of his great heroes).

Thus I provide a compelling argument evidence to substantiate my claim that the current era of postmodernity in the West is a world-view that has it origins predominantly in (hard) Left political ideology and remains a leftist, liberal /"progressive"/culturally relativist/ egalitarian/equalitarian philosophical, social, epistemological and moral paradigm; a paradigm robustly underpinned by the Marxist rationale and concepts of: oppression ( of minority/disempowered /disadvantaged groups) inequality ( between the genders and, for example , between the Western white Europid race and the coloured ( black African/latino/hispanic/Australoid , Mongoloid, etc;) races; revolution and the nation of Marxist-Leninist (capitalist) imperialism AND that this is not,, as it happens, merely one man's (one Dachund's !) opinion.

I will deal with another one of your many objections to my arguments on this thread in my next post and so, one by one until I have dispatched them all.


Regards


Dachund

This is really quite a compilation of thrown-together rhetoric trying to pose as arguments. The main clue that it's nonsense is the way no single argument emerges with any clear, refutable statements.

Meanwhile, despite the supposed scourge of "post-modernism" (a harmless, hapless theory of cultural critique, hardly a political ideology) the world economy has raced ahead. Dachsund's only "argument" about post-modernism is indecipherable. In that time, sociology and political theory have run into trouble, mainly because a deadened right-wing consensus dominates all discourse simply because of its VOLUME.

Roughly ALL of the predictions the conservatives made in the 80's about how the world would turn out have proven false. The worst and most recent prediction was that global Central Bank policy would inevitably lead to inflation. No such luck.

I particularly like the the silly racialist words at the end. It's relaxing to read those words because you know there's no reason to go back and try and untangle the knot you've just read. It's so empty of content relative to word count, it will have no meaning.

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.

Dachsund, have you ever written on male-female relations and marriage as possession? How men are somehow unfairly forced to partner with older, unattractive women/harpies?
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

Judaka, did you note that I'm ignoring the oldest Straw Man in the book: "Oh, well, you just can't be convinced."

In fact, I gave you an clear example of engaging with evidence - evidence presented by Dachshund of all people!!!
As with Dachshund, I did it while simultaneously showing why your argument is biased and unsubstantiated and as with Dachshund I'm not saying you're completely wrong. The fact is that you have taken an extremely complicated topic that you clearly know as much as the average lay person about and tried to simplify it to a point where you feel you can make an argument. You could present exactly the same ideas but with more impartiality, complexity and evidence and I would consider you to be engaging with the evidence and being worthwhile debating. Every single comment of yours, you don't realise how big the comments you are making are with your argument-making hyperboles and without even the slightest attempt to present evidence.

Just take a look at some of this crap:
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".

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.

Even this criticism, I have no doubt, you will be unable to accept in the slightest. The reason for that is that your level of conviction to low-evidence ratio is so high that I don't think it matters. I don't think it's hyperbole either, you don't entertain the idea of being wrong and that in of itself is the problem.

Mortality rates: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP ... view=chart
Worker Reliability?? Don't know what you even mean but show me where it is: http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2006/Are ... orkers.pdf
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