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

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

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 7th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Recently, a topic was started here which made the controversial proposition that women's suffrage should be revoked. Unfortunately the tone of the conversation started to deviate from the spirit of the rules of the forum sufficiently that it was locked. But I'd like to try to restart an aspect of that discussion and see if it can be kept reasonably rational and civilized.

Numerous changes have happened in most western societies in recent decades. One of them is the gradual recognition of the right of people to be treated equally, in law, irrespective of gender. Another is a general decline in the number of couples getting married. There are, of course, many others, but the OP of the other topic concentrated primarily on these two and proposed quite simply that the former was the cause of the latter, and that the latter was an unambiguously bad thing, and therefore the former was a correspondingly bad thing.

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.

In societies where divorce is forbidden even in abusive relationships, extra-marital sex is illegal and women are regarded as the property of first their father and then their husband, marriage rates stay high. In societies where homosexuality is illegal (perhaps punishable by death), homosexuality is less externally visible. In societies where child abuse is not recognized as a problem, child abuse appears externally to be less prevalent. In societies where belief in anything other than the prevailing religion is censured, belief in the prevailing religion appears to be higher. etc. It seems obvious why these things would be true. The more freedom people are given, the more they will exercise it. The more injustices are exposed and addressed, the more visible and apparent they will be. Since human beings are all individuals with individual views, desires and needs, the more freedom they are given from the uniformity of tradition the more fractured society will appear to be.

In many countries, the right to vote has gradually been extended to more and more people over the past few centuries. Past restrictions (at least where I live) took into account religious belief, property ownership, age and gender. For much of the past only protestant, land-owning old men could vote. These restrictions have all gradually been removed or (in the case of age) relaxed. There has also been an expansion of education. This gradual enfranchisement of a larger and larger proportion of society appears to correlate with less and less natural deference towards authority figures, including religious authority figures, and a wider range of lifestyle choices. In short: freedom.

Is it in any way possible to unambiguously decide the "correct" balance between this kind of individual freedom and societal cohesion? Or will it always be a matter of individual taste?

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

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

Post by Spectrum » January 7th, 2018, 11:38 pm

Yes, it is 'changes' but what are the specific changes.

I believe morally there must be equality within humanity at least at the level of basic human dignity.

As for equality, I believe it should be considered within 1. intrinsic equality and 2. extrinsic equality.

Extrinsic equality is where equality is demanded based on merely observations and gross emotional feelings. This is what the current feminists are demanding, the feminists want to the same as males in whatever possible terms they 'feel' they deserved.
Now females are demanding the same pay as male regardless of the inherent capabilities and merits, same toilets, etc.
This is where feminists are taking matters to the extreme most rather than the Middle-Way.

Intrinsic equality is where equality is deliberated upon taking into account all relevant factors to a situation.
I believe we all have a sixth or perhaps common sense, male and females are never equal in various forms and contexts. As such where rewards are concern, they should be based on merits on an objective basis.
The problem is where results are very subjective. In this case, humanity should strive to make these very subjective views more objective to avoid 'perceived' unfairness.

The main problem I note is those from the regressive-left [libtards] who seem to be more powerful and influential and the drawback is such a group do not provide room for debates and refined reasoning but rather rely on might of the majority.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 7th, 2018, 11:54 pm

Spectrum wrote:Extrinsic equality is where equality is demanded based on merely observations and gross emotional feelings. This is what the current feminists are demanding, the feminists want to the same as males in whatever possible terms they 'feel' they deserved.
Now females are demanding the same pay as male regardless of the inherent capabilities and merits, same toilets, etc.
This is where feminists are taking matters to the extreme most rather than the Middle-Way.
I disagree with the suggestion that there are homogeneous groups called "feminists" or "females" who are all demanding the same thing. Different people have different views about such issues as rights and obligations. I don't know of anybody who is demanding equal pay regardless of capabilities and merits. I have heard some people expressing the view that, as far as possible, pay should depend only on such things as capabilities, merits and the market value of the worker's skills, rather than depending on other things such as the worker's gender. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I don't know why you tacked the separate subject of toilets on the end there.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » January 8th, 2018, 1:26 am

Spectrum:
The main problem I note is those from the regressive-left [libtards] who seem to be more powerful and influential and the drawback is such a group do not provide room for debates and refined reasoning but rather rely on might of the majority.
Libtards? A juvenile catchphrase. Disappointing Spectrum. By all means, reveal your "refined reasoning" on how women push their extrinsic equality agenda. Examples?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2659
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 8th, 2018, 2:00 am

Steve -

I think ì topics are shut down on these subjects it is generally a bad thing.

I would like to say that I think the OP is too skewed in one direction. The problem is when it comes to statistical data it is quite easy to pull the wool over one's eyes. I think some of the things you posted in the OP were neither necessary nor transparent - but it is precisely the nature of those statements that are VERY worthy of discussion. For example I find it difficult to make any conclusive statement about what you've said about things like homosexuality and such. The reason things like this are seen less is precisely because the laws in place mean those groups must hide.

My view is that society is adjusting to the information revolution. We see a great deal of agendas being pushed on both the left and the right side of the political spectrum. The sensationalist element of mass global media, and social networking, makes certain topics seem far more large than they really are.

On the sids of the feminist movement I do believe it has run its course now. This is not to say I believe there is now complete gener equality, but that there is no such things as gender equaity in the sense that some people (the more fringe extremists) wish to push for. Men and women are different and have different tendencies; and this, of course (I hope you and others see?) doe snot mean that all women act like the average woman, and that all men act like the average man. This is where our understanding of statistics can be very useful and we can see in all categories of human action that men and women do cross-over in certain areas (we wouldn't argue about the height of men being greater than that of women, yet to suggest subtle differences in mentality is often met with knee-jerk reactions.)

The feminist movement was a success and women were liberated (due to the societal stability set up by men.) In the recent debate on transgenderism it is clear, to me at least, that it has nothing to do with equality and more to do with certain minority groups actively trying to push any advantage to undermine the political and social establishment. Just like when we see some fellow countryman on TV protesting about this or that we do not take them as a representative of ourselves.

There is a climate of wilfull ignorance around, and this is being enforced by playing the victim at every opportunity. The saddest thing is we find ourselves more and more in a "Cry wolf" society and those pushing us toward such a dangerous abyss of unreason and misinformation are winning.

The underlying stupidity of the naïve is believeing that "FREEDOM" means "SAFETY." It is such a backward view, but on the surface it looks like a reasonable proposition. I believe if most people really thought it through they'd see the fault in this self-righteous mentality.

The more free we become the more safety is stripped away. This is not a bad thing becasuse it instills suffering, and in turn, wisdom with which to guide ourselves and others, The ideologue believing that "freedom" means "an end to all danger" will simply spiral into a pit of infantile toy throwing and tantrums when what they so fervently sought out turns out to be something of serious potential "harm."

Wisdom comes from being hurt and understanding that hurt is part of life and that th eone to blame is likely yourself rather than some extrinsic "societal demon." Society is not perfect ... that is why it is perfect ... kind of contrary, but I think it is correct if we look at society as a state of balance between safety and danger. Each human revolution produces a certain strain on the structures in place. The funny thing is I think those pushing for "freedom" and "equality", if they truly go ttheir way, would produce tyranny and inequality on a scale that would cause mass genocide by way of war, famine and fear.

So, in response to your question ... I really have no idea! We have stumbled along well enough and we live in an historically "safe" period of human history and the most "equal" period of human society. I am of course talking purely in terms of material wealth and health, but when it comes to less "material" points of human concern I am not quite so sure; but also see many great and optimistic advances being made here and there in terms of the over all "betterment" of the human race. It is a delicate balance and perhaps the modern comforts of the world have created a climate of confusion about what "freedom" means and what is truly "dangerous."

Anyway, I've said enough for now. Great topic! I do think you may have upset some people with the OP though. If you have I am glad. It is okay to have views that others find offensive and when the day comes that you are not even allowed to voice these concerns then they go underground and fester until they explode by attaching to some popular ideology (this would relate to the whole KKK thing. They latch on to any current social controversy in order to push their agendas and recruit the disgruntled to their cause by scapegoating and targeting certain socio-political groups - be they imaginary or not.)
AKA badgerjelly

Burning ghost
Posts: 2659
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 8th, 2018, 2:04 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 8th, 2018, 1:26 am
Spectrum:
The main problem I note is those from the regressive-left [libtards] who seem to be more powerful and influential and the drawback is such a group do not provide room for debates and refined reasoning but rather rely on might of the majority.
Libtards? A juvenile catchphrase. Disappointing Spectrum. By all means, reveal your "refined reasoning" on how women push their extrinsic equality agenda. Examples?
I am not defending Spectrums playful label .. but, as an example look at the recent law passed in Iceland. It is very much a case of flogging a dead horse. Feminist succeeded, but sadly some members in the extreme end of the group wish more than simple equality, they want equality that favours them over others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iaOk9QTHM
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 6:07 am

Burning ghost wrote:I would like to say that I think the OP is too skewed in one direction. ... I do think you may have upset some people with the OP though.
Comments like this (near the beginning and end of your post respectively) suggest that I've said something controversial in the OP. Just to clarify: What is it you think I've said which could be regarded as controversial?
Burning ghost wrote: I think some of the things you posted in the OP were neither necessary nor transparent - but it is precisely the nature of those statements that are VERY worthy of discussion. For example I find it difficult to make any conclusive statement about what you've said about things like homosexuality and such. The reason things like this are seen less is precisely because the laws in place mean those groups must hide.
That was exactly the point I was making. Societies in which (for example) homosexuality and divorce are forbidden will appear to be full of stable monogamous heterosexual marriages. We can look around the world today at societies that have similar kinds of restrictions and try to judge for ourselves whether they are genuinely happier or healthier. Difficult to do, from a distance, in the absence of genuine freedom of expression for all.

A more general lesson from this is that we can't necessarily judge by appearances. One of the points made by Dachshund in the topic I mentioned in my OP was that the great achievements of Western Civilization were largely achieved by men, not women. If you look at the history books this appears to be factually true. But since, for most of our history, women have been excluded from the kinds of activities mentioned, it is a meaningless fact. It may of course be true that men are naturally better at all kinds of things than women, but we can't know that from history. It would be like concluding that rich, independently wealthy men with access to education have historically been innately better at making scientific discoveries than poor peasants with no education, and that therefore it's not worth trying to educate anybody except a small wealthy few. The view that it isn't worth educating women was, of course, widely held in our society for a long time, because of this kind of reasoning.
Burning ghost wrote:My view is that society is adjusting to the information revolution...
I agree, but that's not what I was talking about in the OP. It's too recent. I'm considering slightly longer time scales of perhaps a couple of hundred years and considering the effect of the enfranchisement of larger and larger sections of society (through such things as voting rights and education) during that time.
Burning ghost wrote:Men and women are different and have different tendencies; and this, of course (I hope you and others see?) doe snot mean that all women act like the average woman, and that all men act like the average man. This is where our understanding of statistics can be very useful and we can see in all categories of human action that men and women do cross-over in certain areas (we wouldn't argue about the height of men being greater than that of women, yet to suggest subtle differences in mentality is often met with knee-jerk reactions.)
Yes, of course there are all kinds of general trends of mental and physical difference between women and men. If we believe in the idea of a completely "free" society, then we allow the market to decide what effect that has. For the purpose of work, we judge people purely on the ability to do the job, and if that does actually result in men and women, generally, tending to do different jobs, so be it.

The question I asked at the end of the OP was about the extent that we believe in this kind of freedom. I don't think any of us believe in it entirely. I think we're probably all on a spectrum.
Burning ghost wrote:The feminist movement was a success and women were liberated (due to the societal stability set up by men.)
In what sense do you think that societal stability was setup by men? Do you think it's possible to quantitatively assess the contributions to societal stability made by men and women? If so, how would you do it? Would you use Dachshund's method of counting the number of great men and women listed in history books (and concluding that it's mostly men)? Do you think that method works?
Burning ghost wrote:I am not defending Spectrums playful label .. but, as an example look at the recent law passed in Iceland...
I don't have time to watch the whole of that video you posted. I googled it briefly and gather that Iceland has enacted laws to make companies prove that they are not paying women less than men for the same work. I don't know the details of how this legislation works. I didn't previously know that Iceland was so pro-gender-equality. It's perhaps an interesting experiment to see what kind of society results from this kind of thing?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2659
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 8th, 2018, 11:07 am

I won't comment on the "controversy" unless it is opened up by someone else. If you're curious enough I can PM you what could very easily feed the need for someone's wrath.

The patriarchy gave rise to the feminist movement. The patriarchy created a safer and more stable world in which women were then able to push for more independence from under male protection.

Iceland is likely the most gender equal society on Earth, and has a history of being so (the first country to have a female leader was Iceland, as one example.) The thrust of the video was that they are trying to "enforce", as much as possible, the delusion that equality means that both men and women will earn the same amount of money. They have worked off statistics that don't take into account the difference between job choices of the sexes and the amount of hours worked by each sex relative to each other. They have essentially enforced a pointless law - but I guess it is at least a nice sign. The video also notes that Iceland has been pushing for at least 50 years to dissolve the pay gap between men and women. It cannot be done because they simply choose jobs that require less hours (they have children and such, and an inclination for wholly different categories of interest.) I would also argue they are not driven to be successful like men are, because men compete for the attention of women, not the other way around - and women generally select partners that earn more money than them rather than less.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 12:13 pm

Burning ghost wrote:I won't comment on the "controversy" unless it is opened up by someone else. If you're curious enough I can PM you what could very easily feed the need for someone's wrath.
That's strangely cryptic. I'd rather you didn't PM me about it. If you think I said something in the OP that would generally be regarded as controversial I'd rather you just say it openly. I can't spot it myself, so I'm just curious. I'm sure it's not something to be coy about.
Burning ghost wrote:The patriarchy gave rise to the feminist movement. The patriarchy created a safer and more stable world in which women were then able to push for more independence from under male protection.
By protecting women against the violence of other patriarchies? I guess so. You could say that about any group who are not directly involved in armed conflict, though. I'm an engineer. The patriarchy (by which I mean my country's military and policing services) created the safe space in which weak and nerdy engineers can flourish without being robbed or murdered. That's not specific to feminism or women's rights. It's the nature of civilization. There's a hard outer core and a soft squishy interior. Like most people (male and female) I'm part of the soft squishy interior that makes stuff. (In my case, I partly make stuff for the use of the hard outer core.)
Burning ghost wrote:The thrust of the video was that they are trying to "enforce", as much as possible, the delusion that equality means that both men and women will earn the same amount of money. They have worked off statistics that don't take into account the difference between job choices of the sexes and the amount of hours worked by each sex relative to each other.
If the aim was to ensure equal hourly pay for the same skills, I don't see how the number of hours worked would be a problem. If there is any effort to enforce same pay for same skills, then it seems to me a no-brainer that it should be based on hourly pay. Clearly, regardless of gender, it would not be right for a person who works 20 hours per week to get the same pay as a person who works 40 hours per week doing the same tasks. If it was, then I'd be pushing to work 1 hour per week!

If you're right in saying that the statistics don't take into account job choices, then I agree that they're being silly. Obviously it would be mad to insist that people doing completely different jobs get paid the same amount (unless you're a firm believer in Communism).
Burning ghost wrote:They have essentially enforced a pointless law - but I guess it is at least a nice sign. The video also notes that Iceland has been pushing for at least 50 years to dissolve the pay gap between men and women. It cannot be done because they simply choose jobs that require less hours (they have children and such, and an inclination for wholly different categories of interest.) I would also argue they are not driven to be successful like men are, because men compete for the attention of women, not the other way around - and women generally select partners that earn more money than them rather than less.
I think, as a generalization, you're right that men tend to want to do different jobs to women and about the whole competing for attention thing. But I still don't see why that has to be relevant to the concept of same (hourly) pay for the same skills, regardless of gender, or any other irrelevant factor. The only difficulty there (and it is quite a big difficulty) is accurately assessing and comparing the values of skills. In theory, of course, this can only be decided by the "invisible hand" of the market. But of course the market consists of individual people with natural biases. If human nature means that there tends to be a natural tendency to value one group over another, regardless of their skills, then the market is naturally going to pay that group more. "That's life pal. Suck it up." the market will presumably say. (I believe that's the way that markets talk.)

Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 12:21 pm

(Error: When I said "hard outer core" I should probably have said "hard outer shell", for the metaphor to work properly.)

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » January 8th, 2018, 2:04 pm

Burning Ghost:
I am not defending Spectrums playful label .. but, as an example look at the recent law passed in Iceland. It is very much a case of flogging a dead horse. Feminist succeeded, but sadly some members in the extreme end of the group wish more than simple equality, they want equality that favours them over others.
Spectrum was not playing. His choice of words exhibits a real distaste for progressive social movements and his thoughts about feminism are just the tip of the iceberg, I suspect. Remember, he thinks the are genetic zombies that dictate who are what we should do.

Anyway, you think women are taking things too far in Iceland? Perhaps. When you're trying push against long standing institutions that have had centuries to work their way into the collective unconscious of, what is fairly described as a global society, and you are politically struggling, don't expect any linear progression with all the rights steps well conceived and everyone exercising reason calmly. These things, and the "dialectic" of their progress, are very messy. See Foucault on this, in many things ,like Madness and Civilization. The point I would make is this: If you want a meritorious system, which is what Spectrum argues for, fine. But it hasn't been meritorious for centuries. So putting aside the battles won, lost, ill conceived, a bridge too far, and so on, are you on one side or the other in the emerging war against gender discrimination in the workplace, in government and politics, in the model of woman's place in society we collective are exposed to, educational opportunities, in respect for persons, and so on?

Spectrum is into the idea that there is a fixity in social structures regarding what women should and shouldn't do that should not be challenged.

Steve3007
Posts: 5408
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

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

Post by Steve3007 » January 8th, 2018, 2:11 pm

Spectrum is into the idea that there is a fixity in social structures regarding what women should and shouldn't do that should not be challenged.
I don't think there's enough evidence in Spectrum's single post in this topic to be able to say that about him.
Remember, he thinks the are genetic zombies that dictate who are what we should do.
As I recall that's just a way to have a pop at religious people. I don't think it says anything about his views on women or feminism.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » January 8th, 2018, 3:08 pm

Steve3007: read his zombie ideas. Conservatives maintain there are certain fixed features of social roles, though they more often than not get their dogma from popular religions. Zombies do the same job. Read past posts.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1959
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

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

Post by Hereandnow » January 8th, 2018, 3:22 pm

It does occur to me to add that anyone who uses a term like 'libtard' carries a certain resentment against progressives across the board, and this encompasses a great number of issues, issues that separate conservatism and liberalism. On the feminist matter, conservatives resent women's rise to equality. They of course deny this. But pressed to examine and justify, forget it. They're male chauvinists.

User avatar
Maldon007
Posts: 396
Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am

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

Post by Maldon007 » January 8th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Is it less correct to use "libtard" as a show of resentment agaist progressives across the board, or to label conservatives, as a group, male chauvinists? (Especially given that 20 to 25 percent of conservatives are female.)

As to the op, I think most harmful societal erosion can be traced back to government intrusion or overreach. Women gaining the rights they deserved has surely resulted in changes, some good, some possibly bad, but whatever the outcome it is better than inequality. Governments have no business determining anything by gender, or skin color for that matter, or by any matrix that assumes a need, behavior, victimization, based on broad categorizations.

Post Reply