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

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

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Burning ghost wrote: January 16th, 2018, 9:05 pm Dlaw -

I was talking in broader strokes about "minorities" and exploring the OP.

I have to admit I do agree that emancipation and suffragette movements certainly coincided. I think both were induced by the general progression of political systems, global knowledge and the beginning of a global community brought about by scientific ideas and technological advantages. Not to mention the effects of various revolutions which undoubtedly led to the masses having more political clout over all.

It is not "silly." I was looking at the role of "voting" in society. Such an exploration would contribute to exploring why it was that men came to be able to vote and women were left behind.
This last sentence seems to me very close to an attempt to mislead through the misuse of the passive voice.

Men decided who voted and who didn't. Men didn't "become able" to vote by any process other than other men changing the law to allow them to vote. Men had to change the sexist laws to allow women to vote. Men held the power and deliberately left women behind, so there's no mystery about the mechanism.

Let us not forget that many suffragettes ceased taking part in the movement once it succeeded in getting them the vote (the primary role.) I am always inclined to look at the broader field of interest rather than get completely myopic about any particular facet of society pulling all the strings. The freedoms of women in society has coincided with the general increase of the freedoms of all.
Tendentious at best, sorry.

You can say that my approach to the question does not deal with the mechanisms for making society BETTER, and I have to agree with that. But since we can be very concrete about what and WHO makes society worse, we should be.
I see you've revealed you are a stay at home dad. Good for you! I can certainly understand you wanting to rile against sexual stereotypes. I think the biggest adjustment between the sexes is due to our huge similarities in many areas of interest (but slightly skewed one way or the other at each end of the bell-curve) and the larger difference of sheer brute force (which no doubt contributes to certain life-style choices and likely are the cause of the differences in behavior and general life interests.)
Nothing will make a man a feminist faster than looking at the world through his daughter's eyes. It's outrageous. Why, for example, is every animal a "he" in every kids' book. We almost never see male bees, spiders, ants, wasps and yet all of them are referred to as "he" in children's books. "This is a worker ant, HE spends his day gathering food for the larvae in the nest." He does?

There are almost NO female protagonists in children's books. Yes, there are female main characters, but that's different. A protagonist is a specific role in literature and girls don't read stories where they can see themselves in this role.

I never saw this before I had my girl.

In a super-liberal city, I see the bad behavior of boys ignored (as if they're just animals who can't help themselves) while girls of exactly the same age are upbraided for being irresponsible, because parents and teachers know scolding works immediately on girls and it's easy.

The typical educational environment is designed to keep the 30-50% of the boys who can't behave in check - lining up, authoritarian voices, loud bells - schools resemble prisons for a reason : they are designed to keep Homo sapiens males of a certain maturity level from misbehaving. Why should girls be subjected to this when they don't need it?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Dlaw -
This last sentence seems to me very close to an attempt to mislead through the misuse of the passive voice.
I recommend you try to assume I am not here to mislead.
Men decided who voted and who didn't. Men didn't "become able" to vote by any process other than other men changing the law to allow them to vote. Men had to change the sexist laws to allow women to vote. Men held the power and deliberately left women behind, so there's no mystery about the mechanism.


You missed the point. Go back in history and you'll see not every man could vote. Keep going back and you'll discover land ownership was the main point that allowed people to have a say in anything. I was simply trying to trace the pattern of who could vote and how things have evolved since Greece.
Tendentious at best, sorry.
How so? Are we only allowed to assume all the good in the world is down to women? To even suggest that other freedom movements were not down purely to womanly ways is completely out of bounds for you? I'm sorry that you continue to blind yourself with utter nonsense and evasion.
You can say that my approach to the question does not deal with the mechanisms for making society BETTER, and I have to agree with that. But since we can be very concrete about what and WHO makes society worse, we should be.
And yet here we are. Society is doing very nicely? Do you not see your double standards? What did you make of Peterson video?
Nothing will make a man a feminist faster than looking at the world through his daughter's eyes. It's outrageous. Why, for example, is every animal a "he" in every kids' book. We almost never see male bees, spiders, ants, wasps and yet all of them are referred to as "he" in children's books. "This is a worker ant, HE spends his day gathering food for the larvae in the nest." He does?

There are almost NO female protagonists in children's books. Yes, there are female main characters, but that's different. A protagonist is a specific role in literature and girls don't read stories where they can see themselves in this role.

I never saw this before I had my girl.

In a super-liberal city, I see the bad behavior of boys ignored (as if they're just animals who can't help themselves) while girls of exactly the same age are upbraided for being irresponsible, because parents and teachers know scolding works immediately on girls and it's easy.

The typical educational environment is designed to keep the 30-50% of the boys who can't behave in check - lining up, authoritarian voices, loud bells - schools resemble prisons for a reason : they are designed to keep Homo sapiens males of a certain maturity level from misbehaving. Why should girls be subjected to this when they don't need it?
Maybe you're getting a little too concerned with how the world serves you and those dearest to you at the expense of everyone else?

Male ants? Male bees? Are you trying to look stupid or is it a natural talent? Or is this a ploy to play the victim and call us bullies? I don't think you understand the point of discussions. I don't really care about your opinions and I care even less if there is nothing of intellectual substance to back them up. You're trolling surely?? Is this a test to dupe us into believing these are serious comments?

Anyway, thanks for the laugh :D
AKA badgerjelly
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Burning ghost wrote: January 17th, 2018, 2:33 pm
Men decided who voted and who didn't. Men didn't "become able" to vote by any process other than other men changing the law to allow them to vote. Men had to change the sexist laws to allow women to vote. Men held the power and deliberately left women behind, so there's no mystery about the mechanism.


You missed the point. Go back in history and you'll see not every man could vote. Keep going back and you'll discover land ownership was the main point that allowed people to have a say in anything. I was simply trying to trace the pattern of who could vote and how things have evolved since Greece.
Ok, so you're trying to slip land ownership in as an objective standard of "merit" rather than a sexist construct. Problem is, rich women had their estates taken away - legally - as soon as they married in most of what we now refer to as 1st World societies. In many societies it's still the case.

Women in India have the vote and yet some are still expected to walk into their husband's funeral pyre.

Where can we find anything like the obverse?

You can say that my approach to the question does not deal with the mechanisms for making society BETTER, and I have to agree with that. But since we can be very concrete about what and WHO makes society worse, we should be.
And yet here we are. Society is doing very nicely? Do you not see your double standards? What did you make of Peterson video?
It isn't a double standard. My argument is that feminism has been hand-in-glove with movements to tamp down MALE antisocial behavior - from slaveholding to alcohol abuse to spousal abuse, whoremongering, abandoning pregnant women. All of early feminism was tied to those other causes and they had a positive effect on society.
Maybe you're getting a little too concerned with how the world serves you and those dearest to you at the expense of everyone else?

What is the expense to "everyone else"??? You see, this is what I don't understand. I see no appreciable harm whatsoever that men have "suffered" due to feminism. The right-wing struggles and struggles to characterize a movement for equal opportunity for the majority of people as some form of selfishness, ignoring centuries of male domineering.

THAT is a double standard if ever there was one.
Male ants? Male bees? Are you trying to look stupid or is it a natural talent? Or is this a ploy to play the victim and call us bullies?
I'm sorry you feel like a bully, but that's on you, not me. Nowhere have I even suggested that anyone on this thread was a bully. At worst, people here are ignoring bullying behavior by men in favor of vague generalities that, for some reason, seem more substantive to them than the plain facts.

What is rational about teaching kids to refer to worker bees and ants as male? The entire mechanism of social insects requires that they all be female - mole rats as well. Do you know that ecologists, for example, rarely even count males when they are studying invertebrates and more primitive vertebrates? There's just no reason to if you're just doing a population and fecundity study. Males don't even matter.

The point is that our cultural view of male and female roles has departed from evidence largely because it's inconvenient to the present power structures. That's why right-wingers so often create the imaginary power structures of their conspiracy theories.
Judaka
Posts: 251
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

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

Post by Judaka »

You're not overwhelming me with evidence and you've cited zero evidence for your side of the argument, which, I assume, is why you've given up.
No need to assume, I told you I have given up from the start. Your latest response is the best reason I could ever receive to give up. I've proven what I set out to and that wasn't that you were wrong. It's that you're too biased and egotistical to create a coherent argument or receive one. The negatives of your behaviour aren't my disapproval, I'm doubtful you don't already deal with them everyday.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Judaka -

You're correct. It is like talking to a wall for the most part. Everything is thrown back at us as if it is wrong of us to suggest any other line of investigation that does fit the bill.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Dlaw -

The problem we're having here is that I am trying to address the OP whilst you're intent on pushing an agenda without any real attempt to address the OP.

Remember the focus of the OP is about the general trends of societal changes with specific focus on the feminist movement. Just because I reel back time to look at the pattern of how votes have been distributed among a population does not mean I am persisting, or desisting, with the enquiry into the correlations between women's rights and societal changes. If you were rational you'd see that I am trying to focus on one particular point at a time.

Society started out without the "common folk" (men or women) having any "vote." We were not born voting, the idea was developed. Prior to this the 'elders' would likely be the main decision makers. If we go back too far we're merely speculating though and the best comparison to such times would be to look at isolated societies today (of which there are very few.)

What I was looking at was trying to point at was the relation between "ownership" and the right to vote. We don't have to go back too far to see that poor people couldn't vote. So the ability to vote essentially lies in the right to ownership, be it ownership of land, people, or produce. What we can now say about women's historical role is that in the past, not too distant past, the force of physical violence has played a major role in societal safety and structuring. Women, being unable to measure up to men in physical combat were always at a huge disadvantage and so they were unable to compete with men because they would, roughly speaking, be brutalized if they tried without the back up of other men.

So the role of women was not in competitive business, but no doubt they played a major role in the management of estates and used their know how to manipulate advantages where they could to better their household - which both men and women benefited from.

Can we in any way compare the ability of the peasant to gain votes to that of women gaining the vote? I don't know. I imagine it would be helpful to look at history and see what happened once the right to vote for certain peoples became part of the political landscape. For the vote dictates what kind of governing body is put in place.

From here we can then consider the political parties starting to understand that they would have to appease the wants and demands of half of the population (although "half" was an unlikely figure I would guess because I think many women would not want to vote or would vote, if at all, as their husbands demanded in some cases for fear of reprisals (I am merely speculating here not stating any facts.) The point here, if you'd followed the reasoning through, actually helps your case ... sadly you're too bloody minded to see it? Perhaps you still are? Have you heard the saying "bite the hands that feeds you?" I wonder if you see what use this could be to your position - and it is a position where I would question, to some degree, what Peterson says; although it is still quite a speculative approach and more digging would be needed.

To the ants and bees ... nothing to do with how changes in society. Worthless and trivial rant for this discussion, but worthy elsewhere I imagine so take it elsewhere rather than make attempts to wed it to the topic at hand. I brought up baboons in reference to group and male aggression ... against the irony is if you knew about this topic you'd also see how it actually leans in favour in the idea of pushing societal changes in favour of lessening aggression ... sadly, yet again, you were too busy reacting to anything rather than thinking it through. I am capable of offering up various argumentation for both sides of a subject matter, are you?

Bullying? No, I was not bullying. That was precisely my point ... can you read anything with an open mind and with an eye to look at different possible interpretations. I was simply making the point because I feel a large degree of victimization being expressed; which I find facile.

If you can present hard evidence that the women's movement protested against slavery and such please do so. Here is some:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/ab ... e_01.shtml

As you can probably see in the above there is evidence both for your general position and some against it. See the first few paragraphs
Although slavery was effectively illegal in England from 1772 and in Scotland from 1778, campaigns to abolish both the trade and the institution have continued ever since. Women participated in the campaign from its beginning and were gradually able to move from the private into the political arena as strategies changed.

Similar strategies were employed and developed during the 1866-1928 women's suffrage campaign, with the same individuals and families active in both campaigns.

In the early years, women influenced the campaign to abolish slavery, but they were not direct activists. This accorded with the prevalent view of women as a moral not a political force. As the campaign gained popularity, many women - ranging from the Whig aristocrat, Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, to the Bristol milk-woman Ann Yearsley - published anti-slavery poems and stories.
As for:
Women in India have the vote and yet some are still expected to walk into their husband's funeral pyre.
How does this relate to the topic? Is this a claim against me stating that in the west the women's movement has run its course and it should perhaps turn its focus toward other countries rather than trying to enforce biased employment rules that give women a leg up ... and if you're careful you'll find my counter argument to my own words in the previous statements ... I am guessing you might be able to see that if you're not too blinkered by your male aggression.

No comments about Peterson's words?
The point is that our cultural view of male and female roles has departed from evidence largely because it's inconvenient to the present power structures. That's why right-wingers so often create the imaginary power structures of their conspiracy theories.
Evidence? What does that first sentence even mean? This is incoherent. I cannot respond to something that makes little to no sense. It is vague. I am sure you actually have a reasonable point to make so explicate further please. There is an ever present danger from both the left and the right. The right are usually bold and forthright and left subtle and more shadowy in their approach. Society is always struggling for a "happy" medium.

One thing that we can attribute to women's rights is the re-evaluation of gender roles in society. I think WWII was a big turning point for women's position is society. I would also say that we're in very new territory regarding women's influence on the political landscape. WWII followed by the Flower Power movement shook up western attitudes quite dramatically.

There is also the matter of population control. In Kerala girls who received a good education were less likely to have several children, this trend was quite clear. So in terms of population management (which is another concern for many) the education of young girls and women is of extreme importance I feel.

Hopefully you have the time to read through what I've said and pick up on the points I've made and follow them through? The point about baboons will require you to look up Sapolsky and what his famous study found out about social structures among baboons (to repeat, this would be a feather in the hat of actively producing a more "feminine" society (meaning surrounded by less aggression.) But this is easily countered by simply equating modern society as already having made such a change. Social aggression has become less and less rare. Which brings into play the ridiculous ideologie sbeing pushed by more radical leftists about the idea of "a right not t be offended," which is an idea we should all be on our guard against IMO.
AKA badgerjelly
Dachshund
Posts: 513
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

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

Post by Dachshund »

Dlaw wrote: January 17th, 2018, 1:16 pm
Steve3007 wrote: January 17th, 2018, 4:16 am Going down this route of pointing out how much more destructive men are, on average, than women will simply invite the assertion that men are also more constructive. It just feeds into this pointless narrative of men as active and women as passive. It's needlessly divisive. I agree with Greta on this one in pointing out that nobody, male or female, is a saint or a devil. We're all individual human beings with individual characteristics, and we're all, equally, in this together. We try to solve the world's problems together or not at all.
The thing is, the jury is still out on whether men are, in fact, more constructive.

Take the medical field. As women have moved towards equality in this field, some areas have actually become majority female. There's no evidence that productivity drops off at all. Quite the opposite.

I think there's a fetish about the benefit of risk-taking in the economy which is increasingly untrue. For example, low-risk, low-marginal-return investment strategies now dominate that business with High Frequency Trading and the dominance of the indices.

So, Dlaw, you claim that the question of whether males, - let's use, say, white, Europid, Western males, for example), - are more constructive and creative than their female counterparts is still sub - judice? That's interesting. I thought that big jury that is constituted of all sound-minded human beings living on planet Earth today had already decided the issue in favour of these white males so considerable time ago? oreover,I was told that their verdict was based on the following evidence...

(1) The history of Western culture/civilization is demonstrably, predominantly the history of the Western mind, and the history of the Western mind is incontrovertibly the history of white, Europid males from Aristotle and Socrates to Copernicus, Kant, Darwin and Einstein and Hawking. In short, generally speaking, the whole Western intellectual tradition has been the tradition of thousands of extremely brilliant men like these; innovating men writing for other men in a patrilineal cultural tradition that began around 500 BC in classical Athenian antiquity and continues to this day in the current collection of advanced industrialized Western democratic societies ( such as the US, UK and America, etc.) that collectively represent modern Western civilization. Taken together, the positive, constructive, creative contributions that Western males have made through their physical and mental labour and sacrifice in the struggle to advance human progress to date, far outweighs the negative, destructive ones, and are the reasons why no sane person alive on on this planet today would disagrees that contemporary Western culture is objectively superior, by far, to any other culture in any region of the world. Here are some items on the list of positive, constructive, life-affirming values, liberating entitlements and material benefits that have been developed and contributed by White Europid males to Western civilisation:



* freedom of speech, freedom to read what we like and freedom believe what we like, freedom of expression, freedom of the print and electronic mass media to publish/broadcast what like , freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, political freedom.

*liberal democracy

* an open and flexible political process that involves "trial and error", open discussion, criticism and self-correction

* the recognition and honouring of man's nature as a rational being who needs to determine and create the kind of circumstances that his survival and flourishing require.

* individualism

* the need for limited representative government and respect for the rule of law

* unparalleled access to economic opportunity in the system of free-market capitalism

* the promotion of reason, the rules of logic and the notion of causality in a universe governed by natural laws that are intelligible to man

* the establishment of levels of health, wealth, productivity , innovation, satisfaction, comfort and life expectancy unparalleled in 6000 years of human history

* stunning scientific and technological achievements, with the West being responsible for every major scientific discovery of the past 500 years from heliocentrism to the telescope to electricity, nuclear fission, the theory of General relativity, space travel and quantum computers. The whole ediface of science and its derivative technology is, in sum, one of the greatestest gifts the West has ever bestowed on humanity.

* the ideas of self-reliance and self-determination based on free will and achievement that have provided freedom to individuals to set the goals and define the contents of their own lives, and decide what meaning to give to their lives

* unprecedented levels of social mobility

* language, art and literature depicting man as efficacious in the world

* the creation by the West of the novel and the sympohony, the West's engendering of the magnificent spiritual creations of Shelley, Milton and Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Van Gogh, Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Schubert

* a valuing of the quest for knowledge and the pursuit of truth for its own sake conducted in a spirit of dispassionate enquiry, free from any political influences or pressures that led to the creation of high quality libraries , research institutes and the an institution that is rarely equally outside the West : the University( including such prestigious, world renowned examples as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Heidelberg and the Sorbonne that attract students from all over the world to enrol in the underdraduate and post-graduate degree programs).

* the development of an exceptional capacity for self criticism, as instanced in the initiative to abolish slavery in the West during the 19th century

* the remarkable achievement that was the ratification of the United States Connstition - the oldest written and codified Constitution in force in the world ( which entrenches, among other things the doctrine of the separation of powers). It is a document that has to date and over many years served as an exemplary model for governments all around the word

* the West has also given us the RSPCA, Amnesty International, The Red Cross," Doctors without Borders", Human Rights Watch, and many other manifestations of the humanitarian impulse, including billions of dollars worth of foreign aid dispensed each year by Western governments to needy persons in the developing world and the provision of safe refuge for those untold thousands of victims of violence, torture and psychological abuse continually fleeing from persecution in brutal, foreign theocracies and totalitarian regimes every year.



Quite an impressive list, isn't it ? Not bad for a group of regressive, unenlightened, conservative, logocentric , phallocentric, patriarchal , "violent", "destructive" male morons !


All of these positive , constructive contributions to civilization were made, as I say, in the overwhelming majority of cases ,by white Western Europid males. THEY , not women, were the principal actors , shapers and determiners of all this cultural, political and economic progress that we take so much for granted today in 2018; THEY, not women, were critical agents of change who struggled to secure these victories. (And) each one of them was hard fought and won through the selfless sacrifice of their collective blood, sweat, tears (and often lives) of Western men on the battlefields both physical and mental of the past 400 years of history.

Throughout over 90% of this four centuries - ( the past 50 or so years being a notable exception, when the influence of intellectually and morally bankrupt feminist academics and political activists succeeded in largely undermining the traditional institution of monogamous, heterosexual and in so doing unleashed catastrophic damage upon the fundamental social fabric which is now indisputably manifesting in a widespread cultural decline of Western civilization ) - the vast majority of women, in contrast, devoted all their physical and mental energies - as rightly they should have (!)- to the business of : caring for their husbands; pregnancy; nursing, childrearing, domestic chores and other family duties.

Of the small minority of women who have made substantial, enduring , constructive contirbutions to Western culture in the modern era ( in the arts, sciences, politics, economics, etc. they tended to be either lesbians, childless or have had recourse to private wealth sufficient, at least, to hire, wet nurses, nannies, governesses, baby-sitters etc; in order to minimize or eliminate the energy sapping and time-consuming details of motherhood and childrearing ( for example, Sappho, Simone de Beavoir, Elizabeth I of England, Emily Dickinson, Virginia Woolf, Oprah Winfrey, Mother Teresa, Queen Victoria, Amelia Earhart, Barbara Streisand, Catherine the Great, Hillary Clinton and such like).

While I do agree that women have been unjustly excluded from some careers and fields of study, nonetheless, male domination of arts and culture is, I believe, far better accounted for as a consequence of men's innately more "Apollonian" ( logical, rational, critical, analytic, reflective, cerebral ,intellectual) - as opposed to "Dionysian") mental attributes/personalities - ( and I will be happy to explicate this in further detail in a separate post, as it involves presenting and explaining a sizable quantity of exciting new research findings concerning the cognitive effects of testosterone on the Executive Functions located in the human frontal lobe's prefrontal cortex, PFC) - than it is by the strong Marxist and social constructionist claims of second wave feminism, which tend to largely deny/ignore basic science and biology.

Finally, while it is true that women have been historically discouraged from entering certain genres, like sculpture , that require intensive studio training or expensive materials. In academic fields like philosophy, mathematics, theoretical physics and, say, literature, the only materials needed are a pen and paper. Male conspiracy theory cannot explain all female failures, and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that, even without restriction there would still never have been a female Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare, Immanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein. Genius is not checked by social obstacles : IT WILL OVERCOME !


Regards


Dachshund.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

EDIT : At the end "aggression in society has lessened." - Oops!
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Sausage Dog -

You'd be better served referring to actual data rather than lists of historical figures. There have been multiple psychological studies made that have established a general view of psychological differences between men and women (Google The Big Five.)
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Dachshund:

You seem to me to contradict yourself in some cases when you list the achievements which you attribute to Western Civilisation. Among the achievements that you have listed are:
Dachshund wrote:liberal democracy ... individualism
You describe these, along with all of the other things you list, as:
Dachshund wrote:positive , constructive contributions to civilization
Liberal democracy:

Your central thesis elsewhere appears to be that liberal democracy is, in your view, not a good thing and will lead to the destruction of Western Civilisation. You have proposed to replace it with a system whereby people's right to vote is dependant on whether a group of which they are a member generally tends to agree with your own personal political views.

Individualism:

Obviously one of the consequences of Individualism is individual choice - individual people being free to live their own lives as they choose. Among the many consequences of this is a higher divorce rate, which you have previously stated that you regard as an unqualified bad thing. It seems to me that this illustrates a conflict between incompatible elements in libertarian-ism and conservatism which afflicts a lot of people who are traditionally regarded as being on the right of the political spectrum. It's difficult to reconcile a strong ideological attachment to individual freedom with a strong desire for people to adhere to traditional behaviours, or be compelled by force to adhere to them if necessary.

Any thoughts on this? How can you regard some features of our civilisation simultaneously as positive contributions and as the cause of what you see as our civilisation's downfall?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

This is much more to the point about the current issues with certain aspects of feminism and why there is strong feeling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER1LOarlgg
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost »

Steve -

They are not contradictory. With emphasis put on one end of the scale the other necessarily reveals itself.

By turning on the lights you also notice the darkness.

The problems come when you're either blinded by the glare of the remorseless light or flung into eternal darkness. Neither one alone is a satisfying position unless you pine for ignorance for the sake of ignorance rather than ignorance for the sake of knowledge.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

BG: I don't really know what you mean by your light/dark metaphor.

I think this is actually the wider subject of the thread, as I stated it towards the end of the OP. It is about the trade-off between individual liberty (and the consequent apparent fragmentation of society going along with an emphasis on personal responsibility) and respect for/enforcement of the traditions and rituals which bind society together and make it more than just a collection of individuals who happen to be in the same geographical place.

The reason I referred to it as a contradiction when it arose in Dachshund's words is because he doesn't appear to recognise it as a trade-off, with a balance to be struck whose correct position on the spectrum is open to debate. He seems to simultaneously advocate for and condemn both ends of the spectrum. Hence the contradiction.
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Steve3007 wrote: 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.
I think society really has been fractured by Feminism and that's perfectly ok. Pagan societies were fractured by Christianity and Islam. The question is whether Feminism is a new and vital movement which is developing societal cohesion around it - I would suggest it is - or if it's a destructuve misstep.

But in and of itself, there's no particular reason to regard the changes in society with alarm unless the demographic evidence shows us things are going badly wrong. Among more affluent people, so far, so good. Among poorer people, the jury is still out. Will working men find a place in this new
social reality?

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?
The right balance can't be struck unless we deal with the reality as it is and as it was. The male-dominant order is viable, but it has also promoted violence and criminality as a norm. That's no longer viable. Feminism - particularly lately - has been a direct protest against this violence and criminality. We can't judge the benefit of feminism without looking at the downside of male dominance in a realistic way.
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

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

Post by Dlaw »

Dachshund wrote: January 18th, 2018, 4:33 am Europid,

Dachshund.
Those are really the only two words you need to read here.

Racist nonsense plus its purveyor. The rest is eyewash. Lots of eyewash.

Canards, one and all.

Sorry.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021