Re: Changes in society correlated with the rise of women's rights
Posted: January 9th, 2018, 1:03 pm
No, I'm sure all societies will voluntarily feminize, and reforge their swords into cooking utensils.
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15290
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.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.
Factually true as far as I'm aware.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...
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.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".
Factually true as far as I'm aware. The divorce rate is similar in the UK.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.
No evidence that this is as a result of women voting.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...
False. Both men and women pay taxes.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).
I disagree with your characterization of the US Democratic and Republican parties.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 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: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 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".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 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: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 .
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.Dachshund wrote:The solution? Revoke women's suffrage in the West.
Can there ever be too many guns, really? I mean legally own/carried and or stored ones of course.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,
I told you so: THIS is what you get when you encourage foolishness.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.
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.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!
I think that the best of what our civilization has achieved we should attempt to preserve, while clearly examining its downsides.Dachshund wrote:(1) The modern Western civilization...
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:(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 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:(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'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:(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.
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.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.
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?Hereannow wrote:I told you so: THIS is what you get when you encourage foolishness.