Since Women Were "Liberated"

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by simplicity »

Happiness aside [as this is a matter of maintaining personal balance], let's take a look at where we stand as a society some 100 years after women have been on the liberation warpath. After all, isn't the true measure of society's success defined as how we are doing as a group? Is it not the case that empowered individuals foster empowered communities which make up society as a whole? Or should we allow the success of the very few to blind us into believing skewed data that fails to distinguish between mean and median?

While individual women have certainly been afforded greater opportunity in nearly every aspect of Western life, the result of this social transformation has been utter disaster for the group. The bedrock of any society [the nuclear family] has been devastated by divorce, absentee mothers, disappeared fathers, technology, a host of metal health disorders, and other factors that have rendered this institution a mere phantasm of its former self. Contributing to this precipitous decline has been an egregious lack of support from other institutions, particularly Education.

So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:05 pm So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?
It's not just "society." Let's look at the metric "women" themselves.

Even if we assume that, in some way, "liberation" has proved less than optimal for, say, children and men, or for the dynamics of the economy, or whatever else we pick -- leaving all that aside -- we should ask, "Are women markedly happier, better and more fulfilled nowadays than previously"?

And we should ask them, and see what they answer.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Impenitent »

mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by mickthinks »

simplicity poops another bigotted turd and the forum blowflies settle in to gorge and oviposit ...

:roll:
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by simplicity »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:36 pm
simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:05 pm So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?
It's not just "society." Let's look at the metric "women" themselves.

Even if we assume that, in some way, "liberation" has proved less than optimal for, say, children and men, or for the dynamics of the economy, or whatever else we pick -- leaving all that aside -- we should ask, "Are women markedly happier, better and more fulfilled nowadays than previously"?

And we should ask them, and see what they answer.
I have worked very closely with many women physicians over the years, most who were attempting to do it all...profession, mother, wife, etc. All were caring, really nice people...but incredibly miserable. I don't know how they did it.

I remember reading a study done by a group in Australia that found that [as a group] women professionals [with families] were the most unhappy folks out there by far.

You simply can not have your cake and eat it too so this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

As an aside, when the family structure deteriorates, your society is circling the drain right above it.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by simplicity »

mickthinks wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:01 pm simplicity poops another bigotted turd and the forum blowflies settle in to gorge and oviposit ...

:roll:
If you have something to add, please do. Otherwise, take your junior high school comments elsewhere.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

simplicity wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:39 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:36 pm
simplicity wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:05 pm So what have we gained [as a society] from the liberation of women?
It's not just "society." Let's look at the metric "women" themselves.

Even if we assume that, in some way, "liberation" has proved less than optimal for, say, children and men, or for the dynamics of the economy, or whatever else we pick -- leaving all that aside -- we should ask, "Are women markedly happier, better and more fulfilled nowadays than previously"?

And we should ask them, and see what they answer.
I have worked very closely with many women physicians over the years, most who were attempting to do it all...profession, mother, wife, etc. All were caring, really nice people...but incredibly miserable. I don't know how they did it.

I remember reading a study done by a group in Australia that found that [as a group] women professionals [with families] were the most unhappy folks out there by far.

You simply can not have your cake and eat it too so this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.

As an aside, when the family structure deteriorates, your society is circling the drain right above it.
We might ask, are women managing to get more or less of the things that women themselves think are important in life? And the answer, for many of them, seems to be "No." But we can ask.

For example, almost universally, women seem to want a partner and kids at some point. Not in their twenties, maybe, but certainly in their thirties and forties. We might want to ask how that's working out for them. Women seem highly motivated by opportunties to "nest" or "web," meaning, "have a home they can control" and "have patterns of meaningful relationships and friends." Men, also, but less so, it seems. We might wonder if they're getting more or less of those things. Are they happy?

Kids are a whole other metric. In many ways, they're suffering like dogs under the selfishness of both the men and women of modern society. But nobody cares about them much, so we can leave them until later.
simplicity
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 5:23 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by simplicity »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:12 pm Kids are a whole other metric. In many ways, they're suffering like dogs under the selfishness of both the men and women of modern society. But nobody cares about them much, so we can leave them until later.
No doubt that kids have bared the brunt of the narcissism that has laid waste to Western culture.

The "lost generation" moniker barely scratches the surface of what's happened to produce a generation of young people who are a complete mess.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Scott Mayers »

I think that the problem is the disrespect of not noticing that women, as well as men, co-contribute to the problems equally. But the tendency today is to demand exclusive classifying of victims versus predators and the present extremes are pushing not for 'equality' but for maximum dominion of power between those who exclusively prefer patriarchy or matriarchy.

And the manipulation of statistical interpretations by these extremes do not notice that the actual statistical issues that differentiate between victims and predators are wealth-based, not cultural. The conservatives of the Right tend to point to a loss of family values but ignore that 'family' leads to clan favoritism uniquely that tends towards fascism (at worst) and the supposed 'liberals' of the Left tend to point to a need for cultural respect in a false sense of 'diversity' that neverless is expected to be defined upon extreme distinctions of (selective) group isolationism that fosters a multi-fascist alternative that collectively agree to target the stereotypes of the opposing extreme 'fascism'. Both extremes likely do not represent the average but the actual power on both extremes are dictated by the more extremely wealthy who treats everyone else like pawns in some private game among them in their exclusive communities. They only disagree on which method of approach is best to 'conserve' their own power.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

simplicity wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:13 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:12 pm Kids are a whole other metric. In many ways, they're suffering like dogs under the selfishness of both the men and women of modern society. But nobody cares about them much, so we can leave them until later.
No doubt that kids have bared the brunt of the narcissism that has laid waste to Western culture.

The "lost generation" moniker barely scratches the surface of what's happened to produce a generation of young people who are a complete mess.
No question. I have so many stories about that actually happening. But back to what the women themselves think...because really, that's what Feminism cares about.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:50 am ...the present extremes are pushing not for 'equality' but for maximum dominion of power between those who exclusively prefer patriarchy or matriarchy.
I think it's simpler than that, Scott.

The terms "patriarchy/matriarchy" imply systems of rule. It makes it sound as if these selfish people care which political ideology drives the system. But I think they have little actual concern for other women/men, so they don't care if anybody else but themselves is granted prestige and allocated benefits. Their advocacy of either option is strictly defined by whether or not it serves their own interest. It's devoid of any larger vision than that.

But you're right: "equality" isn't even a word they use anymore. They say "equity," by which they mean something quite different. "Equality" would mean, "Give everybody the same opportunities and treatment." But "equity" means, "Give me privileges to make up for all the things I think I''m owed but haven't been getting....freebie me up."

Equality can be quantified: everybody gets the same.

Equity is determined by nothing more real than the imagined "unfairnesses" perceived in some idiot's head, and is actually defined as unequal treatment aimed at balancing some alleged "scales" of unfairness.

Equality is "Nobody is descriminated against on the basis of race, colour or creed." Equity is "Favour me especially, because my skin's the right colour."

Equality is, "You all have an equal shot at this job." Equity is, "Sorry, you're the wrong gender, and we're short on our quota."

They use the term "equity" in the hope that you'll mistake it for "equality": because equality is something nobody objects to. So they try to transfer the apparent reasonableness of equality to the perverse anti-virtue of equity, in order to dignify their deliberate discrimination.

This is all standard CRT stuff.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 4:09 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:50 am ...the present extremes are pushing not for 'equality' but for maximum dominion of power between those who exclusively prefer patriarchy or matriarchy.
I think it's simpler than that, Scott.

The terms "patriarchy/matriarchy" imply systems of rule. It makes it sound as if these selfish people care which political ideology drives the system. But I think they have little actual concern for other women/men, so they don't care if anybody else but themselves is granted prestige and allocated benefits. Their advocacy of either option is strictly defined by whether or not it serves their own interest. It's devoid of any larger vision than that.

But you're right: "equality" isn't even a word they use anymore. They say "equity," by which they mean something quite different. "Equality" would mean, "Give everybody the same opportunities and treatment." But "equity" means, "Give me privileges to make up for all the things I think I''m owed but haven't been getting....freebie me up."

Equality can be quantified: everybody gets the same.

Equity is determined by nothing more real than the imagined "unfairnesses" perceived in some idiot's head, and is actually defined as unequal treatment aimed at balancing some alleged "scales" of unfairness.

Equality is "Nobody is descriminated against on the basis of race, colour or creed." Equity is "Favour me especially, because my skin's the right colour."

Equality is, "You all have an equal shot at this job." Equity is, "Sorry, you're the wrong gender, and we're short on our quota."

They use the term "equity" in the hope that you'll mistake it for "equality": because equality is something nobody objects to. So they try to transfer the apparent reasonableness of equality to the perverse anti-virtue of equity, in order to dignify their deliberate discrimination.

This is all standard CRT stuff.
Yes, I agree with this point too. My point implies that these are selfish interests of those in power (or appealing for power) who advocate in exclusive interests....but of the 'group' or class that defines their 'family' of interest. As such, the extremes of feminism today advocate for that 'equity' (a good term of distinction) and merely want to flip the whole paradigm to an 'alternate' status of power. Both extremes would interpret that they speak for whole classes (like 'races') but are actually relatively privileged (in some capacity) when they get their extremes asserted in laws.

I am now treating both extremes as 'fascist' this way where I am defining this as "the predominant view of a belief in some exclusive interests to favor by power in lawmaking (politics) some CULTURAL class as being coequivalent to some GENETIC class."

Thus, a person who strictly advocates for ONE or smaller subset of all distinctly misclassified groups in present traditional power are Right-winged (because they want to conserve the power they already have) versus those who AGREE to the exclusive distinctions but lack the present power as single automous groups, favor MULTIPLE groups in direct opposition to them. The 'democratic' factor on the Left is not of individuals but of those exclusive genetic-cultural classes as distinctly acceptable minimal voter (pluralities). BOTH extremes do not want anyone to notice that wealth/power differences are what is at fault.

The flaw when they use statistics is by seeking out some relatively impoverished class (based upon wealth) that has the largest biological (genetic) plural or majority association of apparent imbalance, and stop short of the stats that actually show the imbalaces are not 'sexist' or 'racist' but strictly due to differences based upon the very wealth and/or power by chance or inevitability.

For instance, if you are say racist or sexist AND you HAVE power, you will favor the extreme Right strategy of pointing out the flaws of cultural degradation and so seek stats that identify how 'liberal' extremes are supporting the relatively absurd calls for identity recognition. The actual 'liberation' is only still realistically coming the wealthier or more privileged classes of those falsely misappropriating genetic inheritance as justifying some environmental or cultural association, like gender identity, for instance. But the Right wing extremes will focus on the Nature of independent free expressions as Un-natural whereas...

if you are racist AND sexist but DO NOT HAVE power, you will favor the extreme Left strategy of pointing out the imbalance of the selective pluralities who tend to be more predominant in the economically more disadvantaged classes (the poor) while dismissing the fact that the asserted genetic classes they are referencing are not biased due to merely cultural biases but to the general class of impoverished people anywhere regardless of race or sex. They then falsely compare how the 'victim' class is non-represented in the wealthier clubs ignoring that no matter what, FAVORITISM of your own is what tends to always concentrate those with wealth and power towards a more dominant genetic class. They intentionally ignore the more minor majorities of the impoverished classes as still of the same stereotype of the conservatives in power.

Both extremes are intolerant and relatively 'fascist' AND both foster MORE discrimination than exists without either interference. Both IMPOSE upon the likely majority of individual towards aligning to one extreme or the other or are forced to sit outside without a voice.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by FlashDangerpants »

simplicity wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:39 pm this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.
Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.
mickthinks
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by mickthinks »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:08 am
simplicity wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:39 pm this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.
Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.
Brothers under the skin! :-)
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Since Women Were "Liberated"

Post by uwot »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:08 am
simplicity wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:39 pm this society is going to have to decide what is more important, the individual or the family.
Kinda sounding like the Taliban there.
Yep. And since January 6th, looking like them.
Post Reply