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
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 9th, 2018, 1:03 pm

No, I'm sure all societies will voluntarily feminize, and reforge their swords into cooking utensils.

Burning ghost
Posts: 1836
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 9th, 2018, 1:20 pm

Women, generally, don't seek power. It is not in their interests to gain and wield power. Women don't strive to become CEO's of companies because they generally don't want to. Only men are slaves to accumulating power and wealth, because that is how they get women to mate with. It's not generally obvious on an individual level, but when you take a step back and look at basic evolution and the development of the human species it is not so easy to ignore. It is not merely a case of accumulating wealth and power. The one's that rise to the top do so because they are very competent at what they do, this attracts mates.

Iceland is the MOST gender equal society (by far.) Women simply don't want the jobs men have, and women simply like to have children and care for them rather than cast their children aside and pursue careers above and beyond the call of duty.

I would recommend you listen to someone like Camille Paglia.

Testosterone does a hell of a lot more than cause aggression (you can probably do a quick search to see how important testosterone is for the brain.)

It is quite clear how Trump got into power. People were sick of hearing softly spoken nonsense and PC speech.

If the world is turing into such a mess then we could argue that this is because women now have a poltical role. Which one is it? Is the world now safer because men created a safer world for women or is the world now more dangerous because men created a safer world for women? Either way it will take some serious argument to suggest that women came to gain the vote because they physically forced men to allow them to vote.

YouTube was made by men? What kind of gibberish is that? Are you insane? Those goddamn aggressive men going around inventing things and making the world better! How dare they! It's disgusting! Be serious.

If your position is "the world is ****" because men created a stable planet and halfed global poverty in within, what was it? A decade or so? Then I guess we should go back to the good old days of raging wars and child malnutrition.

Wake up!
AKA badgerjelly

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 9th, 2018, 2:37 pm

I took a total guess that you might be wrong (Maybe not wrong, but partly wrong), in that female "equality" is highest in Iceland... But I'm specifically speaking of women doing traditional "men's" work, or in general working as much as men. My guess was, in the poorest counties, women work their asses off, because they have to, because there is no buffer of wealth, it's work or starve.

https://qz.com/931253/the-highest-share ... countries/


I would also guess that in these types of societies, women's average lifespan is not significantly higher than men's, as it is in developed countries.

We all have our strengths, when I dug ditches, no woman could keep up!... Ok, almost none wanted the job.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1450
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 9th, 2018, 3:36 pm

Sounds a lot like the only answer to too many guns is more guns. You've got to be kidding! But better to your point: I never said bury all the guns. Usually responses like yours are of the straw man variety: a softer touch in government makes us vulnerable, timid people and we would be eaten alive in this dog eat dog world. And so forth.

First, no one recommended being stupid about it. Second, it is this kind of fear that conservatives love to spread, that is, aggression only

I never said anything like ensuring they never return to power. Whether I want this is not part of my position. My position is that the female persona should rise to power and that issues about the feminist movement going to petty extremes on occasion are of little consequence,

Steve3007
Posts: 4389
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 9th, 2018, 6:32 pm

Final section of my reply to Dachshund's recent post:
Dachshund wrote:Because the United States in the modern era is arguably the jewel in the crown of Western civilization - i.e. Western civilization's most refined and sophisticated product, I will use the American experience of women's suffrage and the catastrophic social damage it has brought to bear in America today to illustrate my point.
A side point: I admire much about the USA and many of the principles on which it was founded. But I think it's best for us all to be realistic. Give ourselves and others credit when due, and refrain from doing so when it's not. I think unqualified support for the home team should be confined to the football terraces.

For example, a global democracy index which uses various factors to rank the countries of the world, places the USA 21st, putting it near the top of the range of countries that are described as "flawed democracies".

No one society has yet found the unambiguously best solutions to the many problems of how to govern. The US is one of many that are trying. But nobody has all the answers.
Dachshund wrote:Women's suffrage became a reality in the US in 1920 when the 19th amendment to the American Constitution was ratified. Roughly 50 years later the feminist movement had begun, in earnest, to establish itself as a material entity on the national political scene...
Factually true as far as I'm aware.
Dachshund wrote:...Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s feminists in the US fought hard, amongst things, for the right to be freed from that horrible hierarchical/patriarchal construct that is called marriage - which one prominent feminist of the time, Betty Friedman, described as "a comfortable concentration camp".
In ironically using the phrase "that horrible hierarchical/patriarchal construct that is called marriage" and that quote from Betty Friedan I think what you're doing here is using a very common technique of suggesting that the views of a very large group are fully represented by those of a much smaller sub-group.

A quick Google search of Betty Friedan suggests that she had an unhappy and violent marriage. Some people do. Some don't. Clearly her individual experience coloured her view when she made that remark.

In a marriage in which one side has more power than the other, then presumably it is possible for it to feel like a comfortable or an uncomfortable concentration camp. In a marriage where both sides have freedom and therefore stay together because they want to rather than because they are compelled to I think it's much less likely that it will feel like that. As a general principle, I don't think that compelling people to stay together is a good way to increase the probability that they will.

Relaxation of the marriage laws is just one aspect of the general trend towards personal, individual freedom. But as I said in a previous post, with freedom comes choice and diversity. In my view, the relevant debate is about the trade-off between individual freedom versus convention and tradition. This is not specifically about women's rights.
Dachshund wrote:In 1970 they finally got their way and the no-fault divorce was legislated in California. California then set the trend that all of the other US states would soon follow with the triggering of a rapid no-fault divorce domino wave across the nation. With the arrival of the no-fault divorce, divorce rates sky-rocketed, with now almost 40% of marriages ending in divorce.
Factually true as far as I'm aware. The divorce rate is similar in the UK.
Dachshund wrote:With the threat of poverty, loss of medical insurance and housing, plus the image of despair from the single mother, barely making it, driving women to seek security, they found it in the next reasonable place they could - government. That is one reason why, since the early 1970s government spending in the US has veritably gone through the roof. Spending on welfare, public housing, child-care, healthcare prisons to house the products of broken homes and so, now consume a huge percentage of GDP in the United States...
No evidence that this is as a result of women voting.
Dachshund wrote:...(And who pays for it BTW ? Men, through higher and higher taxation levied on the little guy- the Western "beta male" corporate wage slave).
False. Both men and women pay taxes.
Dachshund wrote:But it is not just the issue of the no-fault divorce that pulled politics in America hard to the left and the creation of "Big Daddy" government. Gallop poll statistics clearly demonstrate that women innately prefer to vote for left -of -centre, socialist political parties and big government/State as opposed to freedom in the form of smaller government under Conservative administrations, and they have indeed done so - turning out in strengthto vote Democrat as opposed to Republican in the United States ever since the 1972 federal election.
I disagree with your characterization of the US Democratic and Republican parties.
Dachshund wrote:This post is getting long, so let me "cut to the chase". In short, the point is this: that for whatever the exact reasons actually are that women choose to vote for the tyranny of big government over freedom THEY DO.
I presume when you say "tyranny" you're talking about political parties like the US Democrats. Obviously the vast majority of people, regardless of their gender and which party they support, would consider it absurd to describe a mainstream political party like that in those terms - tyranny: a cruel and oppressive dictatorship. So that's your personal, not widely shared opinion. You wish to prevent people with anything other than that opinion from expressing their opinions via the ballot box. So, without any obvious irony, you're proposing your own kind of dictatorship to prevent the election of a government which you inaccurately claim would form a dictatorship.
Dachshund wrote:They are voting more and more for big government - the "Big Daddy" State - at the expense of the individual. They are voting for dependence rather than independence. They are voting for a government cheque before a paycheque. And while we can sit here and debate about whether or not this is the price we have to pay for equality, or whether maybe men were wrong this entire time and it means that we should now try a different approach. They (women) ARE doing precisely what we feared.
I think it's best to clarify that it is what you feared. You should remember that throughout all of this, your position is that you want to stop a particular group from voting because you believe that, in general, they tend to disagree with you. In other words, in your view, the qualification for voting is that the voter votes for the party approved by you. In other words, you wish to replace Democracy with "rule by the type of government chosen by Dachshund".

Tell me if you disagree with the above.
Dachshund wrote:They are in the process of undoing what all of human history fought for these past and painful 6000 years. They are undermining freedom. They are destroying Western civilization .
I disagree. Western civilization is constantly changing, for sure. It may also yet be destroyed by various things. Women's suffrage is not one of them.
Dachshund wrote:The solution? Revoke women's suffrage in the West.
You are proposing that anybody who disagrees with your choice of government should be prevented from voting. You characterize moderate, mainstream political parties with which you disagree over matter of taxation as tyrannies and propose to prevent them from gaining power by setting up your own dictatorship.

I disagree with these proposals.

Given that it seems likely the vast majority of the population (male and female) also disagree with you, presumably you don't propose to achieve your aims democratically?

Perhaps next you could explain in more detail how you propose to achieve them.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

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 10th, 2018, 1:58 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 9th, 2018, 3:36 pm
Sounds a lot like the only answer to too many guns is more guns. You've got to be kidding! But better to your point: I never said bury all the guns. Usually responses like yours are of the straw man variety: a softer touch in government makes us vulnerable, timid people and we would be eaten alive in this dog eat dog world. And so forth.

First, no one recommended being stupid about it. Second, it is this kind of fear that conservatives love to spread, that is, aggression only

I never said anything like ensuring they never return to power. Whether I want this is not part of my position. My position is that the female persona should rise to power and that issues about the feminist movement going to petty extremes on occasion are of little consequence,
Can there ever be too many guns, really? I mean legally own/carried and or stored ones of course.

I missed the straw man argument, who made it? But yeah I would say a softer touch in foreign relations would make us more vulnerable. History is replete with weaker nations falling to stronger ones.

As far as females rising to power, if one comes up for a vote, who I agree with politically, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her. I would have voted for Carly Fiorina over any of the other candidates, would that have worked for you? If she had won?

Steve3007
Posts: 4389
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 10th, 2018, 3:26 am

A very brief mention of the toilet "issue":

Complaints about men splashing our urine around have been around for a very long time and are, in themselves, nothing to do with feminism. Just part of the normal battle of the sexes. Long ago my grandparents ran a boarding house (a cheap hotel). I remember when visiting as a little kid, a very long time ago, my Granny putting a sign in the bathroom saying "if you sprinkle while you tinkle, please be sweet and wipe the seat". Seems very twee now. My Granny was not a feminist!

it's a jokey issue that has nothing to do with the main point of the topic and has more to do with the marketing opportunities for makers of novelty items, like the companies making devices that play recorded messages in funny voices when the toilet seat is raised, mentioned in this funny article on the subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking ... -down.html
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Burning ghost
Posts: 1836
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 10th, 2018, 4:10 am

Steve -

What do you think about the idea that populations are so large now that governments should be more localized? It seems, especially in Europe, that there is a very polarized opinion about this. Some people want greater integration and other want the exact opposite, are more focus on nationalism.

The argument from the right says that the "women" favour disproportionate equality and open inclusion for all, where the left says the "men" want to put up walls and kick out anyone with ideas that don't bend to their will.

The two extreme views do seem to lie on the principles of measureable psychological dispositions of the sexes. The "agreeable" femininity and the "disagreeable" masculinity, both taken to their relative extremes. One passive and open, the other aggressive and cloistered.

I think if we accept this VERY general differences we'll see benefits and problems with both attitudes. What is interesting is that "aggression" has more negative connotations, but aggression can also be seen as a dynamic force for change, where passivism can equally be seen as "stagnation", which ALSO, and ironically, adheres to a more conservative view.

It looks to me that any big changes in society come about most readily and successfully when there is stability. On a global scale humanity is more able to communicate than ever before (you decide upon the positives and negatives of that!) and there is less war, less disease, less murder, less starvation, and less poverty. If there is a better time for radical change to take place then I guess this is the time for it. Given that human civilization has never been in such a position before caution wouldn't be such a bad idea.

On both sides of the fence I think there is a common ignorance about the state of the world at large. If an alien human race landed and started telling us how to live our lives we're be somewhat resistant. I do believe that no matter where you are in western society the monumental changes that have happened in many countries around the world (and is still happening) has yet to come to fruition. What is hard for both those on the right and those on the left to realise is that the steady progression of western culture has been a steady progression and even for us the changes are happening faster and faster. Think back to your parents and grandparents view of the world; now imagine such a change happening within a handful of years ... that is essentially unimaginable and yet the position of most foreign societies where there is an extreme polarization of global knowledge between the youth and the older generations.

If I am not seen as being bigoted and hateful, as well as open and loving, then I must be doing something wrong.

Wisdom seems to be the way forward. My definition of "wisdom" is to do and act not only toward the good for me but good for everyone at large, and knowing how to do so, and how to perpetually refine this idea, I call the pursuit of wisdom.

For now I think acting seldom and listening a lot, and when I act to act with brute force to make the point as hard hitting and sustainable as possible. It seems that that is somewhat like the manner in which humanity is acting out at the moment so I am suspiciously optimistic.
AKA badgerjelly

Dachshund
Posts: 75
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund » January 10th, 2018, 10:34 pm

You should remember that throughout all of this, your position is that you want to stop a particular group from voting because you believe that, in general, they tend to disagree with you. In other words, in your view, the qualification for voting is that the voter votes for the party approved by you. In other words, you wish to replace Democracy with "rule by the type of government chosen by Dachshund".


You are proposing that anybody who disagrees with your choice of government should be prevented from voting. You characterize moderate, mainstream political parties with which you disagree over matter of taxation as tyrannies and propose to prevent them from gaining power by setting up your own dictatorship.

I disagree with these proposals.

Given that it seems likely the vast majority of the population (male and female) also disagree with you, presumably you don't propose to achieve your aims democratically?

Perhaps next you could explain in more detail how you propose to achieve them.
[/quote]


My dear fellow,

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that my business on this forum (in the recent OPs I have published on the matter of women's suffrage) is to argue for the establishment of some kind of tyrannical, despotic "Dachsocracy" wherein I, from my desk in the "Oval Kennel", am empowered to issue official ukases stipulating who is, or is not, permitted vote in my society, purely on the basis of my own arbitrary predjudices !

So let me tell you first and foremost that this is absolutely NOT the case. Rather, The case I am arguing can be summarized in point form as follows:

(1) The modern Western civilization in which you and I live presents the pinnacle of human achievement in mankind's 6000 year history of painful struggle to prevail over both tyranny (the enslavement on men and women by other human beings) and the oppressive limitations of natural privations like hunger, thirst, famine, disease, exposure to extremes of temperature, animal predation, etc . The awe-inspiring sophistication, refinement and of the culture we have developed, the beauty and power ofits products and the magnificent human freedoms that we, as individuals enjoy in nations like the United States, United Kingdom and Australia are things, I believe that are well worth preserving and defending.

(2) In my opinion, and that of many others, Western civilization has now entered a potentially terminal phase of decline; a phase of civilizational decline that will,if not promptly remediated, destroy it precisely the same way - and for much the same basic reason - as the great Roman Empire was ultimately destroyed.

(3) I believe that the one of the major causes of the current decline of the West has been the inherent ( and inherently virulent) decadence of the various feminist/women's rights movements that first began to emerge as material entities on the political landscapes of the major Western nations roughly around the start of the 1970s. These movements , as I will explain in due course, have been responsible (both directly and indirectly) for bringing catastrophic damage to bear on the fundamental moral, cultural and social fabric of Western societies over the past 50 years to date.

(4) I believe, (again, as do many others) given the gravity of the current situation, and what is at stake, that such a radical measure as the summary revocation of women's suffrage in the West has now become justifiable.

So, you see, I am not calling for a Dachshund dictatorship, rather, I am in the process of endeavouring to setting out a logical argument for the repeal of women's suffrage in the West based on what I believe are the demonstrable facts that Western civilization in now in a state of decline and that this decline is, if not solely, then at least very largely a consequence of 50 years of feminist activism.

Now that I have, hopefully, set you straight on this matter, I will turn to address your request that I take my own advice and "PUT OR SHUT UP" with regard to providing EVIDENCE in support of my claims. I will commence doing this in a separate post below.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1450
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 11th, 2018, 12:08 am

Now that I have, hopefully, set you straight on this matter, I will turn to address your request that I take my own advice and "PUT OR SHUT UP" with regard to providing EVIDENCE in support of my claims. I will commence doing this in a separate post below.
I told you so: THIS is what you get when you encourage foolishness.

Burning ghost
Posts: 1836
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 11th, 2018, 1:29 am

You may as well argue that people should live longer. Arguing for such a thing is not going to change the reality of the situation.

The evidence is circumstantial. I would say it is more a case of what Steve has highlighted. The growing freedom of the global population and the access to information more readily than ever is a very potent force for world change.

The backlash is already gaining moment with the attempts at cultural integration. A natural balance will be met or things will tip over the edge and we'll either face authoritarian rule and societal destruction at the hands of the far right or the far left. Then it'll be a case of rinse and repeat. Personally I think enough people are screaming about these issues on either side to allow modern society to stumble through this period.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 4389
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 11th, 2018, 4:00 am

Dachshund wrote:ou seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that my business on this forum (in the recent OPs I have published on the matter of women's suffrage) is to argue for the establishment of some kind of tyrannical, despotic "Dachsocracy" wherein I, from my desk in the "Oval Kennel", am empowered to issue official ukases stipulating who is, or is not, permitted vote in my society, purely on the basis of my own arbitrary predjudices!
You have stated that your personal political view is that you dislike high tax/spending governments. You have also stated that women, in general, tend to vote for such governments and that men tend to vote for low tax/low spending governments. On the basis of this, you have proposed to ban women from voting.

Therefore, you propose to make a group's right to vote dependent on whether they have a tendency to agree with your own personal political leanings. It's really no different from banning any other group for the same reason. As I've stated earlier, you could get a similar effect (a greater effect in the UK) by increasing the minimum voting age, because older people tend, in general, to be more likely to vote for the political parties approved by you.

So it seems to me beyond any dispute or doubt that you are proposing a form of "rule by Dachshund".

If people disagree as to the most beneficial level of taxation and public spending the usual thing to do in our culture is to debate it and see, at the ballot box, who wins the debate. You are proposing an alternative. Instead of debating with those who disagree with you, you are proposing to silence them at the ballot box.
Dachshund wrote:(1) The modern Western civilization...
I think that the best of what our civilization has achieved we should attempt to preserve, while clearly examining its downsides.

We seem to disagree as to the best form in which "freedom" should take. You do not appear to believe in any concept that I would define using that word unqualified.
Dachshund wrote:(2) In my opinion, and that of many others, Western civilization has now entered a potentially terminal phase of decline; a phase of civilizational decline that will,if not promptly remediated, destroy it precisely the same way - and for much the same basic reason - as the great Roman Empire was ultimately destroyed.
I think lots of people are concerned about the fate of civilization in general for lots of different reasons. I think relatively few agree with you that it is feminism that is the reason and specifically that feminism has caused a decline in the number of people marrying/staying married and that that is the mechanism for the decline.
Dachshund wrote:(3) I believe that the one of the major causes of the current decline of the West has been the inherent ( and inherently virulent) decadence of the various feminist/women's rights movements that first began to emerge as material entities on the political landscapes of the major Western nations roughly around the start of the 1970s. These movements , as I will explain in due course, have been responsible (both directly and indirectly) for bringing catastrophic damage to bear on the fundamental moral, cultural and social fabric of Western societies over the past 50 years to date.
I doubt whether you will be able to convincingly disantangle feminism, specifically, from the many other changes in western society that have tended to move us towards greater individual freedom and libertarianism.
Dachshund wrote:(4) I believe, (again, as do many others) given the gravity of the current situation, and what is at stake, that such a radical measure as the summary revocation of women's suffrage in the West has now become justifiable.
I'd be interested in you giving a more precise definition of the word "many" here. I had a quick search but couldn't find any opinion polls asking people if they agreed with the statement "women's right to vote should be immediately removed". I suspect that the percentage of people agreeing with that statement would be small.
Dachshund wrote:So, you see, I am not calling for a Dachshund dictatorship, rather, I am in the process of endeavouring to setting out a logical argument for the repeal of women's suffrage in the West based on what I believe are the demonstrable facts that Western civilization in now in a state of decline and that this decline is, if not solely, then at least very largely a consequence of 50 years of feminist activism.
You are very clearly calling for a Dachshund dictatorship. You misunderstand what it means to "set out a logical argument". On complex matters of politics, it is not possible to prove logically and beyond doubt that you are right, as if we were dealing with pure mathematics. You can express opinions and cite evidence in support of those opinions and seek to persuade others, male and female. You can then test whether you have succeeded in persuading them using such things as opinion polls and elections.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Steve3007
Posts: 4389
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 11th, 2018, 4:07 am

Hereannow wrote:I told you so: THIS is what you get when you encourage foolishness.
What do you mean by "encouraging foolishness"? In this topic, I disagree, so far, with Dachshund's opinions and assertions but I think so far it's been a reasonably civilized discussion. Would you class any discussion with a person who disagrees with you as "encouraging foolishness"? Or does it depend on the severity of the disagreement? If the disagreement is severe and the views are extreme, do you think there is (as former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher put it with reference to SInn Fein and the IRA) a duty not to give the other side the "oxygen of publicity" by engaging with them?
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1450
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 11th, 2018, 11:01 am

No wait. Wasn't there are post by Dachshund that was about repealing women's suffrage? There was. I thought that was this.

Dlaw
Posts: 387
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw » January 11th, 2018, 1:41 pm

I go with (I think) Veblen's view that essentially all oppression begins with the oppression of women.

Post Reply