0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Where have I made any argument for keeping the status quo, about anything?
how we should seek to solve the problems of tomorrow.
Reading your past comments, I seem to read that women's fortunes, both past and present, have not been all that bad. Indeed, your first comment involves the word 'myth'.
QuoteWhere have I made any argument for keeping the status quo, about anything?That seems, precisely what you have been doing; justifications and explanations with no comments as to the morality of the situation. A lot of the problems suffered by women are explicable in terms of social history - but are they excusable, from a modern standpoint? Is this not a forum to discuss morals?
Quotehow we should seek to solve the problems of tomorrow.OK, let's do just that.But the fate of women will still be a problem unless the situation is sorted out by our trying to solve the problems of today. We could start with the dowry problem, female infanticide and the obscene practice of 'honour killings'. Then there is 'rape as a form of ethnic cleansing'. . . .You might, at least, feel able to condemn such things rather than to explain them in terms of their history.
So is there any point in trying to change things?
don't judge others badly merely because they are not in your shoes, nor you in theirs
How about certain "religious" organisations where the man can have multiple wives, who benefits from this? The same religion, when the man is excommunicated his wives are either shared out amongst the other men or given to one single man, who benefits from that situation?
Quotedon't judge others badly merely because they are not in your shoes, nor you in theirsI don't have to be in the shoes of a woman, who has been set on fire by a husband because she has transgressed in some way, to know that the practice is just not right. Battered husbands is only a significant occurrence in disfunctional sectors of our own society, remember. Like male rape - it is nothing like as common as the other way round. and cannot be used as a counter argument. Male rape is 99.99% male-on-male, in any case.But, really, A-S, you are just kidding us.You really do have some empathy with the oppressed,You don't really excuse abuse on the grounds of tradition.Do you?
But that would imply that historic societies were 'broken' societies - and while all societies (including our own) are imperfect, it would not make sense to regard them as 'broken'.
oops, i did mean to add that some of the "extra" wives are between the ages of 11 and 17. Simply put it does not matter if the "wife" is a child. This does still happen, and is happening right now in places in the US.
No, don't think I said that. I think what I said was that it wasn't ideal. What I meant to imply was that, as with so many things, technology has now moved on and we ought to be able to do better.
I take your point about the difference between intention and outcome, but I would say that if we're going to compare systems at all it has to be the outcomes and not the intentions (in whatever woolly way we define intentions... whose intentions? those of the writers of the rules? those of the people implimenting the rules?)
And about independence vs responsibility... don't see how you can have one without the other...
The whole thing is about spheres of influence. Women, often older women, may have dominance in the home (not sure how this applies in different cultures), especially where several generations live together, but if men have control over who leaves the home and when then they have a much more important form of power.
But, really, A-S, you are just kidding us.You really do have some empathy with the oppressed,You don't really excuse abuse on the grounds of tradition.Do you?