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
Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw » January 12th, 2018, 2:07 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 12th, 2018, 10:53 am

If you have some conclusive evidence and solution to all the problems of humanity then please share with us ;) I don't really think we're in a horrible place right now over all. Caution is always needed and taking selective data can support almost any claim. I generally see all this as part of humanity coming to terms with the information explosion. I could present several different opposing arguments as to why feminism has been good or bad for the stability of the planet, so what?
See, I don't think you can.

Where is the example of feminism's causing violence and instability?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 12th, 2018, 2:48 pm

Dlaw -

No imagination and clichés. I don't view radical feminism as a cause, but rather as a symptom. I can completely understand that with a generalized view of the world where you're looking specifically at the political climate and women's rights along with other rights being pressed for, that you can add up some more negative impact.

I have listened to Pinker debate with a fellow colleague about this. He says he is a feminist, but also says he thinks a lot of what has been pushed in the public sphere is more a reflection of radical feminism and that he celebrates that freedom women have gained over the past hundred years.

No need to make me out as overreacting by typing BOLD. I was simply expressing thoughts and different views, and feeling out what motivations people may or may not have. Correlations are not hard evidence for anything, and when it come sot social sciences things are often very sketchy.
AKA badgerjelly

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw » January 12th, 2018, 3:02 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 12th, 2018, 2:48 pm
Dlaw -

No imagination and clichés. I don't view radical feminism as a cause, but rather as a symptom. I can completely understand that with a generalized view of the world where you're looking specifically at the political climate and women's rights along with other rights being pressed for, that you can add up some more negative impact.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that the negative impacts are negligible and the societal re-think is extremely beneficial. Basically, feminism is part of going from a top-down model of society to a bottom-up, and that's been a good trend.

Again, tyranny and criminality are terrible blights inflicted on the world almost exclusively men. It's a shame to say that as a man but it's just the fact.
I have listened to Pinker debate with a fellow colleague about this. He says he is a feminist, but also says he thinks a lot of what has been pushed in the public sphere is more a reflection of radical feminism and that he celebrates that freedom women have gained over the past hundred years.

No need to make me out as overreacting by typing BOLD. I was simply expressing thoughts and different views, and feeling out what motivations people may or may not have. Correlations are not hard evidence for anything, and when it come sot social sciences things are often very sketchy.
I apologize for being snarky and using bold type. Bad habits from Twitter, no doubt.

Things are indeed "sketchy" and correlations are evidence but not dispositive evidence, as you say.

What you don't deal with is that fact that one sex commits basically all the criminality and oppression. That fact can't be swept under the rug any more. Again, it's a correlation and not dispositive about any individual man, but it is a terrible pathology associated with maleness and not femaleness.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 12th, 2018, 3:18 pm

Dlaw -

I would never dispute that men are more aggressive and physically violent than women; generally speaking. Given that this topic is about feminism I didn't see the need to.

The human species is new to domestication and civilization in general. Of all the apes human males are extremely passive and maternal. There are plenty of plus sides to testosterone, it is not merely a hormone than exists for pure violent aggression. I wouldn't call men pathologically oppressive or aggressive anymore than I would call women pathologically taking on the role of oppressed or passive.

And again, the world is now safer and that safety arose how? Did the women suddenly stand up and physically fight, or was feminism a male device? If not then how did women gain any kind of rights? There are certain historical factors that gave rise to the possibility of feminism in the first place. These are the things that interest me regarding this whole topic.
AKA badgerjelly

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw » January 12th, 2018, 4:14 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 12th, 2018, 3:18 pm
Dlaw -

I would never dispute that men are more aggressive and physically violent than women; generally speaking. Given that this topic is about feminism I didn't see the need to.

The human species is new to domestication and civilization in general. Of all the apes human males are extremely passive and maternal. There are plenty of plus sides to testosterone, it is not merely a hormone than exists for pure violent aggression. I wouldn't call men pathologically oppressive or aggressive anymore than I would call women pathologically taking on the role of oppressed or passive.

And again, the world is now safer and that safety arose how? Did the women suddenly stand up and physically fight, or was feminism a male device? If not then how did women gain any kind of rights? There are certain historical factors that gave rise to the possibility of feminism in the first place. These are the things that interest me regarding this whole topic.
No, men and women stood up and physically fought, time and again, against the kind of oppressive violence you seem not to be interested in.

Again, the problem is not that men are merely *more* aggressive than women. The problem is that men commit essentially all the oppression and violence.

Consider what would be the effect if the US (or any country, but we're having a big debate here) admitted ONLY women. The rule would apply equally to all populations (not sorted by sex), and would not be discriminatory in that way, but it would essentially eliminate the worry of importing criminals and terrorists.

There are currently zero female lawmakers, top executives and celebrities accused of serial sexual harrassment.

There are currently zero female despots.

There are currently zero women accused of masterminding genocide.

There are currently zero women heading major crime cartels.

Why do women seem to choose every profession but violent criminality?

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 12th, 2018, 4:45 pm

It would be interesting to see. It would be VERY interesting to see a country run mostly by women, with women in control of corporations and businesses more than men.

Where there is more sexual equality, and the playing field is more levelled, what I would expect to happen (and there is evidence to back this up to some degree) is that the differences between the sexes would become more exaggerated. The thing is this has already played out for the human race and globally roughly the same social order has been going on for at least 6,000 years; probably longer. Right now the playing field has shifted in the western world and as equality grows we'll see a natural order emerge in some form or another.

I reckon it will take another century before the rest of the world is in roughly the same situation as the west is now, but by then the west may simply collapse under the weight of change.

What "oppressive violence" do I seem not to be interested in?

Do you think women have had any major role to play in the political sphere over the past 100 years? If so when did they begin to have a major impact?
AKA badgerjelly

Dlaw
Posts: 424
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw » January 12th, 2018, 5:49 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 12th, 2018, 4:45 pm
It would be interesting to see. It would be VERY interesting to see a country run mostly by women, with women in control of corporations and businesses more than men.
It's already happened in some fields and in many workplaces. Results all good as far as I can see. Certainly no notable disasters.
Where there is more sexual equality, and the playing field is more levelled, what I would expect to happen (and there is evidence to back this up to some degree) is that the differences between the sexes would become more exaggerated. The thing is this has already played out for the human race and globally roughly the same social order has been going on for at least 6,000 years; probably longer. Right now the playing field has shifted in the western world and as equality grows we'll see a natural order emerge in some form or another.
Yes, I think we're seeing that now. I think that feminism is part of a reclaiming of society from violent psychopaths.

Men are behaving much better now than they ever had (per Pinker, anyway). Women, of course, seem to have no attraction to violence and oppression.
I reckon it will take another century before the rest of the world is in roughly the same situation as the west is now, but by then the west may simply collapse under the weight of change.
I think it will only take that long because men will resist feminism the way little boys refuse to engage with "girl stuff" while girls are far more even-handed.
What "oppressive violence" do I seem not to be interested in?

Do you think women have had any major role to play in the political sphere over the past 100 years? If so when did they begin to have a major impact?
I'm surprised if you're a woman. I think women have been the backbone and sinew of human society since the beginning and it's really only for the last 5 thousand years that violent men have played such an important role. I think it came when the economics of raiding neighboring societies became enormously rewarding with agricultural surplus.

Up until then, slaves (usually kidnapped "brides") would quickly become just more members of the community.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 12th, 2018, 8:22 pm

Dlew -

Let me clarify please. You are saying that women have had no serious political influence in the world for the past 5000 years yet you say the change has happened "in some fields and in many workplaces." I was not asking about the "backbone" of society, I was asking about actual leadership and political decision making.

When was it that women made this change? 1900? 1945? Have women been free for 100 years, 50 years or 20 years? Was in the 60's?

I guess you mean only recently we've seen this shift? By this I assume you mean women still don't have any significant political power? If not then around when did they become impactful if they've been out of the picture for 5000 years?
AKA badgerjelly

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka » January 12th, 2018, 10:35 pm

What are talking about? Extremism on both the left and right was predominant throughout WWII. More people died at the hands of the left extremists, but that is mostly ignored (as far as standard education anyway.)
I agree but Russia does not view the USSR negatively and the only geopolitical impact from the USSR seems to be that former states do not trust Russia. Nazi Germany's geopolitical impact on the other hand is immense and it's the same for Japan, it doesn't have anything to do with how many people died.

Also neither this forum thread or the debate between alt-right and moderates against feminists are representative of the world and all its problems, I don't even recognise this debate as being at all intellectual, it's the product of narcissism. If the world is doing fine it's despite this nonsense and this isn't about finding "the best way" it's about asserting "my way". Jordan Peterson doesn't say anything controversial, his positions are so popular because we have someone intelligent and articulate arguing what most of us thought was obvious to begin with, they're relatable. Despite that, he's losing his battles, Canadian law have implemented the regulations he was fighting against. His opposition physically assaulted his rallies, vandalized his property and tried to silence him at every turn. Politicians in Europe are using the police to sweep migrant problems under the rug in a process which essentially undermines democracy.

This forum thread is just as much about people butting heads in their self-righteous glory, every solution is sexist and divisive. There's nothing realistic even being discussed here. Dlaw says he's not a part of that. Then you argue stuff like:

"I think it will only take that long because men will resist feminism the way little boys refuse to engage with "girl stuff" while girls are far more even-handed."

So in other people's view, this constitutes an intellectual point of view? I think it's an embarrassment. How in your view BG, do you think you are going to reason with someone like that? Dlaw I honestly don't believe that you came up with your argument before you arrived at your position, "Why do women seem to choose every position but violent criminality?"

You absolutely are not stupid enough to believe that women do not partake in violent crime, there's no way that you are blind to the reason there are no female despots which is sexism in countries where despots exist. Women are perpetrators of domestic abuse against children, where their victim is smaller than them and without the ability to defend themselves as a man can against a female. There are multiple ways of interpreting all of this information but like so many others, you chose to take the most extreme view you could and you don't appear to have a reason why. Even if you did, if you are aware of the interpretability of the information, why would you come to such a hardline view in the first place? I don't get it.
Sorry if the Internet bores you. I can usually find something I'm interested in.
I don't think you care about the validity of what you say, I don't think you try to say things on the basis of whether they are valid or true, if it isn't just to inflate your ego, I can't see the point.
I don't know who the two crackpots are, or how their conversation can simultaneously be interesting and boring.
I think we got more than two by this point and also it was sarcasm. The only interesting thing about this debate is that it's occuring in a philosophy forum.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 12th, 2018, 11:36 pm

Judaka -

Who are you talking to? We are not a collective. Attach names to who you quote and direct your words at the people you wish to speak to.

What do you have to offer to the discussion? The topic of the discussion is quite clear. I am trying to address the OP not push the discussion in this or that direction. I want to hear broad ranged and honest opinions.

I don't know if I can bring everyone around to question their own views. I believe it is in my interest, and their interest, to do so. Even after such an attempt fails I hope there is at least some field of respect created from which we can simply disagree strongly, but still be willing to listen to and consider what the other person has to say - of course there are limitations, and given that I've never spoken to Dlew before I am not going to stop talking to them.

note: It may say philosophy forum, but like many such places online there is a lot chitchat and general whimsy. There are some people here though who do get more involved with actual philosophical studies and have actually read some books. I do sometimes find some useful points or references here.
AKA badgerjelly

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund » January 13th, 2018, 3:09 am

Dachshund wrote:or little two -sentence broadsides. By the later, I mean the volley of unsubstantiated and unjustifiable "pot shots" decrying the innate immorality, etc; of patriarchal government/society or announcing the "fact", for instance, that human progress in the West over the past century (and to date) is largely a direct consequence of our having granted of EQUAL political, economic and social rights to women.
You may disagree with the assertion that there is a correlation between progress in the West and equal voting rights, and that there is a causal relationship between the two. But at face value, until evidence has been produced, it is not any different from your assertions, in the OP of the other topic, that the opposite is the case. Your main point in the OP of the other topic was simply to state your opinion that western civilization is in decline and that this is caused by female suffrage. Since, in that OP, you presented no evidence to support that opinion, if you wish other people to provide substance/evidence for the opinions that they put forward, you should also be prepared to do the same for your own.



Steve,




OK , message received ,and, I agree 100%. If I am making a proposal on a public forum- in particular, a provocative and controversial one, then I am absolutely obliged to back up any claims I make along the way with the very best evidence I can find in support of what I am saying.


So, let me get down to down to the business of providing some evidence to back up my claims. My claim, in brief, being that the granting of woman's suffrage in the West - ( and I am using the example of the United States , as it is undoubtedly the most powerful and arguably most refined and sophisticated product of modern Western civilization ) in 1920 was the original means through which the feminist movements that began some 50 years later, was given real political "clout" and that the feminist/women's liberation movement has played, and continues to play a major role in the current process of civilizational decline in the West. I totally reject your assertion that there is any kind of correlation or direct causal relationship between social/culturalprogress ( i.e.civilizational advance) in the West and the passage of women's suffrage.


The evidence I will be citing in support my case is, I must tell you, limited to evidence from research conducted in anthropology and some historical scholarship. As you and I are both qualified scientists (myself a pharmacist/pharmacologist, yourself an engineer,) we are both fully aware that evidence and data gleaned from research investigations in fields like cultural anthropology and the humanities is inherently rather soft and woolley ( and always best taken with a healthy grain of skeptical /critical "salt"). I mean It is not as hard and reliable as the concrete, objective, empirical data collected by professional research chemists and physicists, for instance, in the structured experiments they construct to test their (scientific) hypotheses. Given the nature of subject matter we are dealing with however,( politics, feminist/gender equity theory, broad-scale patterns of changes in social demographics etc;) it is, I'm afraid, the best that I can do.

To begin with, almost exactly 100 years ago, the German philosopher and historian, Oswald Spengler published the first volume of his work "The Decline of the West" (1918). In this book, Spengler argued that the Western world as we have known it in modernity is coming to an end, and we are now witnessing the what he referred to as the final season, the "Winter", of "Faustian"/ Western civilization. To date, many of the predictions Spengler made in "The Decline of the West" have proven to be extraordinary (even uncannily) accurate.


He foresaw, for instance, the inevitable rise of a pervasive socialist utopianism in Western societies, 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. I have focussed my criticism on feminism because I believe that it is (1) innately and profoundly decadent and (2) has therefore, over the past 50 years, been one of the strongest catalysts of Western civilizational decay in general.


Much of the damage to Western societies wrought by the feminist movement/s has been a consequence of the way they have successfully undermined the traditional institution of marriage as a strict, life-long commitment to heterosexual monogamy in the relationship between a man and a woman focussed on the nurturing of a stable "nuclear" family unit; that unit which has, for millenia, been the fundamental building block of all civilized societies.


As I have already mentioned, it is an incontrovertible fact that since the late 1960s/early 1970s the number of marriages ending in divorce has sky-rocketed and currently stands at a level of about 40% (!). The reason for this is that the vast majority of feminists have been consistent in stridently condemning the cultural imposition of female monogamy in wedlock as a form of patriarchal oppression. They ultimately succeeded in undermining the notion of marriage and in consequence the past restrictions on female sexuality in the West were swiftly lifted, creating a promiscuous feminized sexual market place that catered ideally to women's innately hypergamous instincts. There was a substantial loosening of sexual restraint among women and pre-marital, post-marital and homosexual relationships began to rapidly proliferate as did rates of cohabitation.


EVIDENCE THAT THE UNDERMINING OF MARRIAGE BY FEMINISM WILL CAUSE CIVILIZATIONAL DECLINE


Thirty years before the advent of the "women's liberation" movement, a British anthropologist J.D. Unwin warned that feminism would destroy the West. In his classic work, "Sex and Culture", Unwin published the findings of his research into the patterns that led to the downfall of 80 major tribes and world civilizations (including the Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Anglo-Saxon) across 6000 years of human history.


He found that although the societies he studied lived in different geographical locations and belonged to different racial stocks, the history of their marriage customs was the same. Without exception, when restrictions on sexuality were lifted, especially female sexuality, every society destroyed itself from within and was later conquered from without. Whenever strict heterosexual monogamy was practiced in a society, Unwin discovered that the society attained its greatest cultural energy, especially in the arts, sciences and technology. However, when people rebelled against thesexual prohibitions placed upon them and demanded greater sexual opportunities there was a consequent loss of creative energy, which resulted in cultural decline and the eventual destruction of the civilization. Remarkably, he dis not find any exception whatsoever to this trend.


Unwin concluded that the fundamental fabric that holds a society together was sexual in nature. When lifelong, heterosexual monogamous relationship (i.e. marriage) is practiced, the emphasis is placed on the care and nurturance of the family and energy is expended to protect, plan, build up and manage the individual family unit. This extended to the entire society and generated a strong society focused on preserving the strength of the family.
Though when controls on sexual opportunity were loosened the social energy always dissipated as individuals focused more on short term sexual gratification than long term future social good. As old-fashioned as it now sounds in the modern West, heterosexual lifetime pair bonding is the only condition that supports the stable, healthy growth of the human family and the advancement of cultural progress.


Throughout the history of Western civilization many of its greatest thinkers from Aristotle to Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche have been unanimous in warning the women are morally deficient relative to men due to their relatively more limited capacities for rational and logical thought. All of the above philosophers observed that women are more emotionally labile, fickle, unpredictable, untrustworthy, disloyal, disingenuous, inherently disposed to dissimulation, dissembling and chronic lying, cunning, manipulative and duplicitous; in short they are like naughty , mischievous children who need the firm supervision and guidance of man if they are not to generate, mischief, mayhem, trouble and grief. And this is precisely why marriage evolved over the millenia; to make it difficult for women - who possess naturally hypergamous instincts - to "monkey branch" to a higher status male or abandon her partner and provider altogether whenever an exciting new bad boy comes along. The term husband means house - bond, in which the male becomes the band that holds the domestic home together. It is a "band" or a bond in a patriarchal society that women cannot abandon unless culturally they will be outcast and/or economically destitute. Unfortunately in the West today these harsh (but culturally advantageous and productive) realities no longer exist because women are insulated from their poor choices by a gynocentric welfare state funded predominantly with revenue from the tax dollars of beta males !


Let me conclude with the following quotation from Nietzsche which, I think, nicely summarises the truth of the nature of women very nicely, and ,how any wise man should ideally endeavour to manage his relationship/s with them...


"To blunder over the fundamental problem of "man and woman" to deny here the most abysmal antagonism and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, perhaps to dream of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and duties: this is a typical sign of shallow-mindedness, and a thinker who has proved himself to be shallow on this dangerous point - shallow of instinct ! - may be regarded as suspect in general, more as betrayed, as found out: he will probably be too "short" for the fundamental questions of life, those of life in the future too, incapable
of any depth.

On the other hand, a man who has depth, in his spirit as well as his desires, and also that depth of benevolence which is capable of hardness and severity and is easily confused with them, can think of woman only in an oriental way - he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property with lock and key, as something predestined for service and attaining her fulfillment in service - in this matter he must take his stand on the tremendous intelligence of Asia, on Asia's superiority of instinct, as the Greeks formerly dis: they were Asia's best heirs and pupils and as is well known from Homer to the "Golden Age" of Pericles, with the increase in their culture and amplitude of of their power, also became step by step more strict with women, in short, more Oriental, How necessary, how logical, how humanly desirable even , this was, let each ponder for himself".



Regards


Dachshund

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka » January 13th, 2018, 4:25 am

What do you have to offer to the discussion?
I'm already offering my point of view on the discussion... If you want me to engage with the actual discussion then you're missing my point, which is that this discussion has no value. People are taking one piece of easy to understand information and using it to formulate a world view because they are too lazy to actually study history, sociology or whatever else in depth. The information being produced by Dlaw, Hereandnow, Steve and Dachshund to name a few. Here's a new post by Dachshund so let's address that.

Here he cites philosophers and historians which have condemned women as lessers to men, proposes societies rely on the institution of marriage and a bunch of other things regarding how marriage restricts the chaos women create and manages creativity in the right direction and all of this. He says America and the West are on a clear decline because of this. Although he posted a huge wall of text, it's actually a very simple and one dimensional argument and let's take a look at why we don't NEED to debunk it. The real problem here is that all of this information is extremely interpretable and because Dachshund wants to interpret it in a certain way, he chooses to ignore a lot in order to come to this conclusion.

Firstly let's talk about marriage and the breakdown of the institution of marriage. How great really was America before this occurred? In the 19th century they were extremely isolationist, in the 20th century they were part of the single greatest human created threat to human existence in the multiple instances in the cold war where nukes came close to being launched.

In the 21st century, America has solidified itself along with England as being the largest cultural influence in the globe, possessing the largest economy, at the head of NATO and other alliances which span the globe, at the forefront of scientific development and so on. The 21st century has been relatively peaceful compared to any other century in recent memory, this is the "downfall of Western civilization". China has and India is going to overtake many western countries economic power, due to the fact their population is far greater than the entirety of Europe this is not really a surprise.

Countries which still have extremely tight restrictions on marriage and sexuality such as many in Africa, the middle east, Eastern Europe and Asia are all markedly backward in every measurable way. Culturally, economically, geopolitically - you name it, there is a recognizable pattern between restrictions on women with poverty and backwardness. To what degree there is a causal relationship is irrelevant, certainly we are not seeing the institution of marriage creating a golden age for these civilizations.

He says women are all of these bad things, yet I don't see how that leads to the fall of western civilization. How does women being duplicitous equate to the destruction of western civilization? I just don't get it.

There's nothing in here that indicates forcing women to stay in marriages would improve or degrade society beyond essentially, a book which studied ancient civilizations. Ironically the only western country to have faced destruction recently, Germany, was extremely right-wing and traditional. In the end i'm not saying that his argument is 100% wrong, here's what I do know though.

Dachshund has come to a belief with such a limited amount of evidence and proof that I don't think evidence matters, his belief appears to be so strong and certain but it's quite obvious that the information he is dealing with is highly interpretable and does not substantiate the claim. If somebody has such a strong belief with so little evidence, you 100% cannot reason with them. I don't see how Dachshund's view can be proven wrong to him, I can't disprove an interpretation. If he lacks the wisdom to recognise that his entire argument should be a "here is one take on things, unsure to which degree it is true however" then what are you going to tell him? Hopefully someone else will read this and understand what I'm saying and learn from it but there's no value in debating people like this and I hope you will come to terms with that before you waste too much time on them.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2618
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » January 13th, 2018, 6:16 am

Judaka -

I agree. The exception would be I believe people can, and do, change theirs minds. He mentions books he's read (or I presume he's read them) and I understand the power of a well written book on someone's mind especially if they come to it wanting to believe this or that.

HE didn't really give evidence and his citations were vague at best. As for Dlaw I guess you could see precisely where I was going with my line of questioning. I also understand that people use forums to argue the opposite of what they think in order to help strengthen their positions.

The advantage is I am interested to read more about Spengler. I am always fascinated by those kinds of topics.

I always find it a very curious thing to be skeptical about issues and yet always hold a degree of bias in this or that topic. Even if the evidence and information is not compelling enough for one side or another in any conclusive manner we should still act with some conviction I believe. If we don't act with conviction then we'll never see where we're going wrong.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7217
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Greta » January 13th, 2018, 6:18 am

Well, that's me completely objectified as an inferior second class human being. Darn and blast.

As an inferior being, I am not qualified to offer an opinion but to merely bow and scrape to my masters, no matter how much less bright than me they are because they possess ... THE PENIS. This remarkable meat cylinder apparently imbues wielders with special mental powers that non penis owners cannot even imagine.

Meanwhile, Borat, like Dachshund, observed that women's brains are in fact around the size of a squirrel's. Each have impeccable sources ...

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka » January 13th, 2018, 6:36 am

Even if the evidence and information is not compelling enough for one side or another in any conclusive manner we should still act with some conviction I believe. If we don't act with conviction then we'll never see where we're going wrong.
It's the opposite, you don't need to look much at society to recognise that. If there was some other practical benefit to acting with conviction, like in the situation that indecisiveness could cost you something then we could agree but instead Dachshund isn't in that situation, more likely he feels despair and frustration about the fall of western civilization and is a clear misogynist, he doesn't need to do all that to see the flaws in his arguments. He needs to have an open mind and a good hard think, conviction is what stands between him and that.

Post Reply