The Titantic was Politically Incorrect... Feminism vs Respect for Females.

[HLGStrider]

This is more a question of Political correctness than Politics in government.

I have heard women say that men opening the doors for them, offering them their seat, or trying to help them when their car breaks down are "patronizing them". Some seem to resent this help.

What about the most politically incorrect shipwreak in the world? Women and children first? Is this patronizing? I can't see those women refusing to be patronized and not getting into a life boat (some did refuse to leave their husbands according to one account, but were forcibly put into lifeboats).

So has politial correctness and feminism gone awry? Should men open the door for ladies?

[Beorn]

Certainly. A man should consider a lady first, under any circumstances. The reason the children were sent on first is obvious, but as for why the ladies were sent on, I belive it's because the men felt that it was their duty to protect the women. Since men are generally larger and stronger, men usually protect women, and that was what they were doing on the Titanic.

[HLGStrider]

Do you believe the same applies to giving up one's seat on a crowded bus or opening doors?

[Rangerdave]

Well I for one certainly do.

There are a couple of downsides though. The worst has to be when opening a door for someone, the whole herd expects you to just stand there and continue to hold the door until everyone is out. Grrrrrrrrrr!

Also, I have encountered the occasional woman who takes offense at my showing courtesy. They somehow feel that I am oppressing them or something. One even went so far as to demand why I open the door for her. I calmly explained that I took this action not because she was a lady, but rather because I was a gentleman.
and the promptly let the door close on her shoes.

I make it a point to open doors, give up seats, push in chairs and all the niceties, but if they want to get hostile, then all bets are off.

RD

[DGoeij]

Call it patronizing if you want, I call it being nice. And half of it is common sense too. I'm in this scout group, both boys and girls. The girls in our group are free and independent women, but somehow they prefer mopping the floor above putting 40 pound tents in the storage room. I'm very sure this does not mean they subdue themselves to me. :rolleyes:

[Legolam]

I like it when anyone opens the door for me, male or female. It's just a common courtesy and I would do it for anyone else. I don't think it's patronising to women in any way, it's just polite.

[Gloer]

Gentlemanly behaviour towards women originates from the chivalric code. The knight would treay a woman as a lady and hold her on a pedestal (or in a castle tower for that matter). The admiration of the lady was a trophy of the joust. But why did theknights always let the ladies enter first through the doorways?
Well, it was often dark in the castles and especially when visiting strangers it was better to first send the untouchable - the lady - through the doorways to make sure no-one would be hiding behind the corner with bad things for the knight in mind.
Soon this became a general habit and as such expected of the knights accompanied by ladies. And all led to fewer ambushes against knights accompanied by a lady. But the ladies have never understood the true nature of things. ;)

[Aerin]

Doesn't that make you feel just wonderful that women were sent in the door first to save the men's arses? :rolleyes:

I think it's common courtesy to hold the door open for people behind you, or to give up your seat to an elderly woman on a crowded bus.
I don't find it in the least patronizing or rude to have someone hold the door open for me; in fact, I usually appreciate it because I'll have my hands full and cannot negotiate a door along with what I'm carrying.

Outside of my immediate family, I can only remember three instances when the door was held open for me by someone under 30. Except for the time when I cut in front of another girl to get out the door because I was in a hurry, I appreciated the door being held for me.

As for the Titanic, what use would the women have been on the ship while it was sinking anyway? Most, if not all, had no idea how the ship worked, or anything they could do to help the crew; therefore, they were placed on the boats first. I know my father would have done the same if we had been onboard the Titanic.
(And if you're refering to the movie Titanic, I was sincerely hoping that both Rose and Jack would drown in the ocean at the beginning of the movie, not to mention when the ship was sinking. :D)

[ReadWryt]

I think the Door Opening thing arose from the period when women were forced to wear all manner of expensive, relatively fragile and in some cases oppressively tight clothing. Men didn't want them to damage their goods, so to speak...*blink*...well, it was *A* theory, if not a good one.

Joseph Campbell (Oh GAWD, here he goes on about that guy again!) would say that this aspect of Wetern Culture is part of the reason our society is going to hell in a handbasket. In ancient times when a boy became a man there was usually some ritual involved that helped educate him in his responsabilities...sometimes involving all the "old men" taking him aside and explaining all this to him before sending him off on some spiritual quest or putting him through some sort of trials. Even Women have a built in Biological Rite of Passage of sorts, but the line of distinction between Boyhood and Manhood has blurred. Are you a Man at 18 when you can be Drafted, Smoke and Vote?

Pile on top of this having some women tell you all the things that you were supposed to do as a show of respect toward the opposite sex and headlines full of acts of Rape, Sexual Harrassment and other abuses of the "fairer sex" and it's no wonder that young men who lack a moral compass become "Deadbeat Dads" or use such horrible pajorative terms for Women today.

It's a hard call...I know that when I have some woman tell me that I suffer from "Peter Pan Syndrome" one second and then tell me to get in touch with my "Inner Child" the next *I'm* confused! I just go on being obtuse...opening doors for women, offering assistence and even on formal occasions standing when a woman enters a room...pushing in chairs and the like. I've no idea if there even IS an answer, but so far as I'm concerned I'll err on the side of being polite and getting cussed out...

[Amichi]

I think it's simple courtesy... and I'll hold a door for a man, if that man is coming up behind me. *chuckle* I never understood the disrespect issue, there. It's disrespectful and demeaning to have someone offer you the kind courtesy of not having a door slam in your face? Not likely. This is one of those 'overreact to the small things, ignore the big things' issues.

You know what -I- think is a problem, and rude to women to boot? The selective service program. I'm all about the equality... I think everyone should have to register.

Along those same lines... why can't women fight in combat? That bugs me too... if a woman joins the military, she should be free to pursue and career, including combat roles. Those are real examples of patronizing and male chauvanism.

((This obviously applies directly to the US military. ;-) Other countries' flavors may differ.))

[Beorn]

Originally posted by Rangerdave
I calmly explained that I took this action not because she was a lady, but rather because I was a gentleman.

Check out How to Be a Gentleman (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558535969/qid=1029507104/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7167631-0989613?s=books&n=507846). It is the funniest thing I have ever read. (i.e. 'A Gentleman will always tuck his undershirt into his underpants', 'A Gentleman will never cut his salad', 'A Gentleman exists solely to make the lives of other human beings better'.


Do you believe the same applies to giving up one's seat on a crowded bus or opening doors?
Certainly.

[HLGStrider]

why can't women fight in combat?

There is no rule against them doing so in America and in Isreal they are required to do some Army time... maybe in Switzerland too... Also I think that it makes perfect sense not to draft us females.... Are you female A? I could probably find out if I researched... Researching... I give up... no more research. You are an it... I'm female, by the way.

Think about it. If you have a big war, the type where one is even drafting married men you will be drafting fathers away from children. Now what if we were drafting women too? We will now be drafting mothers away from children... It is bad enough to take the fathers. Also there is the issue of single parents. I don't know how many single fathers there are out there (I mean fathers who are the full time care giver), but there are a heck of a lot more single mothers. Also no man is going to find out two months into battle that he is pregnant. It's all biological, and it makes perfect sense.

If we forced chastity on all our soldiers, male and female, and only took unmarried one, I don't think these problems would be that big a deal... I just don't think we could inforce that sort of law very well.

[Asha'man]

Plus most men aren't raped when they're captured, like women would almost certainly be.

Then there's the "brotherhood" issue. A military unit needs to bond to function at it's best, and it can't really do so if one or more of it's members is female (or gay, for that matter).

Also, what about the sheer physical strength differences? I've seen videos of female firefighter trainees, and they can't manage the same ladders and walls and axes that the guys can. Naturally, there are exceptions, but women in general aren't going to be as strong as men, and therefore will be less able to use that strength when necessary. I'm thinking of hauling your dead and wounded off the battlefield, or dragging equipment around strategically.

Those are the main points I've heard on it, at least.

Asha'man

[HLGStrider]

The rape reason is the only one any feminist is going to except... fortunately, I'm not one, but I wanted to give you a warning about possible retaliations by the Liberal party...

of course, you were probably aware of the dangers....

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by HLGStrider

There is no rule against them doing so in America...

Actually there is. Females are not allowed to serve in Combat Arms Units. These include Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Engineers, Ranger Units and Special Forces. Women are free to serve in any of the Combat Support Units or in the Service Support Units. These include, but are not limited to: Military Intelligence, Supply, Transprotation, and Military Police.

The major problem that faces placing women in Combat Units is that there is a double standard for determining physical fitness. To demonstrate this example, I will use the scorecard for the US Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)

The APFT consists of three events: Push-ups (2 minutes), Sit-ups (2 minutes) and a Two Mile run. The maximum and minimum scores for 17-21 year olds are
Male
push-ups 71,42: Sit-ups 78,53: 2mile run 13:00, 15:54
Female
push-ups 42,19: Sit-ups 78,53: 2mile run 15:36, 18:54

There is parity in the sit-up event, but in both the push-up and run, a maximum score for the females is barely passing for the males.

I will support women in combat when they are held to the same standards as male soldiers.

RD

[HLGStrider]

Thanks for the set-straight, RD... and fairly good points.

[Gloer]

... holding the door open for a woman!

That is merely common good manners!
Once you enter through the door and see someone - any gender, age, or political opinion - it is good manners to help and hold the door open unless that person is not in the immidiate range. No-one can expect you to wait too long.

What I was refering to as chivalric code is a wholly different code:
Ladies first.

Ladies first means that you wait for the lady at the door and let her PASS you and enter first - possibly opening the door herself if it is difficout for you. That might be the case since you enter later and the door might open inwards.

If you really want to open the door to her, you enter first and hold the door open.

But then you run a risk of being ambushed from behind the door.

[Amichi]

As far as women in combat / women in the military...

I believe everyone in the military should be held to the same standards. The military is one of the few employers that routinely employs a double standard. Males are required to do a lot more as far as physical training goes, with the rather weak excuse of 'men are stronger'.

This may be so, generally speaking, but it'd not have a bearing if it was any other job.

A woman who wishes to join the military should have to meet the same standards as a man. Is it harsh? Sure? Would it be hard? Yes. Would it improve our combat forces?

Yes.

Now then... as far as gaving a 'single person only' force, I have to disagree VEHEMENTLY. The military is discriminatory enough towards single people without giving them the means to destroy the lives of independent people everywhere. Along these same lines, why not simply force 'social undesirables' into the military? Maybe we could use 'problem children' from high school. No, no, and no.

Using 'women might have children' as an excuse is unacceptable. The draft does make exceptions, when it is implemented, and being a single parent is undoubtedly one of them, just as being unfit physically is a disqualifier. So.. women would be perfectly capable of being drafted in the same manner as men are. Even if it is not, women should be subjected to the same hardship as a single parent as a single father would be subject to.

That being said, the reasoning for women not being required to register is very... circular in its logic. A quote:

DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view.

So in the government's eyes... their first discriminatory policy allows the injustice to exist. Yay.

As a citizen of the United States, one should be prepared to defend it.

[Amichi]

Incidentally...

I am 25, a former military member, and was male last time I checked. I do believe that this should take me out of the 'it' category. ;-)

The implied question begged a response. *chuckle*

[HLGStrider]

The military is discriminatory enough towards single people without giving them the means to destroy the lives of independent people everywhere. Along these same lines, why not simply force 'social undesirables' into the military?

I wouldn't say that being single ranks one as anything close to a social outcast. Most military personel (I'm thinking of soldiers on the front lines) are going to be younger men who will not have married yet. Come on, I think it makes sense to take single. The military seperation is harder on families and where the heck are the children going to go?

If the military destroys people's lives, I would think you would be working to outlaw the draft totally instead of broadening it to include women. It's like saying that because this person has to suffer I want this person to suffer too... more fair that way.

[Amichi]

Most military personel (I'm thinking of soldiers on the front lines) are going to be younger men who will not have married yet.

In a draft, that's a given.. as those are the key candidates for the draft. But why does that have to be the case?

The military seperation is harder on families and where the heck are the children going to go?

Have you ever been seperated for a long period of time? It's as hard, if not harder, on a single person. As for a family... I have already stated that I do not think single parents should be required to participate in the draft. So... perhaps the child can be cared for by the other parent, male or female.


If the military destroys people's lives, I would think you would be working to outlaw the draft totally instead of broadening it to include women. It's like saying that because this person has to suffer I want this person to suffer too... more fair that way.

I never said it destroyed lives.. but if I'm going to be required to sacrifice my life so that my fellow citizens can live free... shouldn't every other citizen of the country be prepared to do the same for me, if the need arises?

[HLGStrider]

It's as hard, if not harder, on a single person.

Whom are they being seperated from? Parents, yes, maybe a girlfriend... Not kids... And I think a father could care for the kids, but as I said the amount of single mothers in this country makes this harder... besides, give most kids a vote about which parent they'd rather be cared for by and see what you get.

The thing you were saying about
The military is discriminatory enough towards single people without giving them the means to destroy the lives of independent people everywhere
I took to mean that you thought it destroyed their lives, what did you mean?

[LadyGaladriel]

Im a female (for those that haven't guessed , if not why no?!:D) and I belive in common courtsey. When out shopping if I walk through a door and someone is right behind me , no matter if they are fat, ugly , old or got two mothers I will hold the door open . If a man opens a door for me . I smile and say thank you and move on . Its only people who are looking for a fight and a reason to say its discriminating to kick off .




If we are talking about the titanic then we are dealing in another time when men veiwed woman as inferior and incapable of looking after themselves . It was also seened as being a proper Gentleman ifn you "Sacraficed" yourself to save a lady .

[Amichi]

besides, give most kids a vote about which parent they'd rather be cared for by and see what you get.

I offer, as a rebuttal: Give most single men a vote on whether or not they think it fair to be forced into the military by virtue of their independence, and see what you get. Fact is, a child's desire to stay with 'mommy' should not be a deciding factor in a wartime situation. If mommy were called to to fight, then mommy should fight, regardless.

Think about what you're implying, here... you're implying that single men are less valuable then married men. You're also implying that they should be prepared to die for no other reason than their maleness and their singleness. On the married side... you're also implying that a father is of less value than a mother, and is thus more expendable.

the amount of single mothers in this country makes this harder

I've already agreed that a single parent should not be forced into war. That should no longer be a factor in this conversation.

I took to mean that you thought it destroyed their lives, what did you mean?

It was a response to your earlier statement about all single men having to serve in the military.. and die in war, should it come up. In that case, you're destroying their lives... and perhaps killing them.. for no reason other than their ability to choose wisely when it comes to marriage / single life.

To be honest? If this rule were implemented, I'd marry one of my many female friends to get out of service, on principle.

[LadyGaladriel]

To be honest? If this rule were implemented, I'd marry one of my many female friends to get out of service, on principle.

thats a bit extremist .

[Amichi]

thats a bit extremist .

No more extremist than forcing me to serve because I'm single, I think. ;-)

[LadyGaladriel]

hey , u could always run away to the swiss mountains singing "the hills are alive with the sound of music........."

[Amichi]

That's too far away... but...

I have been practicing the good ol' Canadian anthem! ;-)

[LadyGaladriel]

Lol





I forgot my manners though . Welcome to the forum.

[Amichi]

*chuckle* Thanks.

I see I'm not the only one with e-mail notification?

[LadyGaladriel]

*snigger*



how long have you liked Lotr?

[Amichi]

Me and Lotr used to fight in grade school, but we became friends when we got to high school. It wasn't until college that we realized our love...

...wait. *snicker* You meant Lord of the Rings... right...

I dunno. Around 12 or 13 years? The hobbit longer than that, I suppose. I'm a gamer, so I have a different relationship with it than a lot of people do... it sorta formed the core of the fantasy roleplaying multiverse.

[HLGStrider]

If we are talking about the titanic then we are dealing in another time when men veiwed woman as inferior and incapable of looking after themselves

This is what I meant, Galadriel. As a woman I don't think that being protected by men and put first by them is being labeled inferior. The men knew that giving up their places meant death. They couldn't take care of themselves but they COULD take care of the women, by sacrificing themselves. It's noble, not patronizing.

[ReadWryt]

...Oh! I just thought that they wanted to make sure that the Escape Boats weren't going to sink...

[HLGStrider]

Using Gloer's logic they probably were... :rolleyes:

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I will support women in combat when they are held to the same standards as male soldiers.
I agree. The key words here being: ‘in combat.’

A woman who wishes to join the military should have to meet the same standards as a man. Is it harsh? Sure? Would it be hard? Yes. Would it improve our combat forces?
I don’t agree. That would be a terrible waste of efficiency and manpower, as there are many many jobs in the military that could be done by women, thereby freeing up you guys to go trampling around the battlefield.
Even so, the women should have reasonable physical standards for their sex, so they could cover some jobs that do take some physical fitness. During the eight years I was in the Air Force, I collected weather data and plotted charts and maps for the Weather Forecasters to be able to brief the Pilots coming through our base. At times I even plotted data received from behind enemy lines. I worked also on the computer systems that brought together the data to make those forecasts. I also, met while at the weather station, the first female Navy pilot, whose job was flying cargo C-130’s. I also, on my off time, when I went to the Arizona Memorial on Oahu, was delighted to be driven out there by a female Navy tug boat operator. (So thank you so much for your gratitude to those of us women who served during the Viet Nam war.)

DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view.
I always thought that if men must be drafted, then women should be drafted also (for the purposes I stated above).
And, additionally, I think ALL people, since they take advantage of the good things about living within their nation, should have to give two years of their life to some form of service to their country, not necessarily the 'Armed' part. That includes rich people, who tend to find ways around it due to their privileged background. Otherwise the military in our country is nothing more than a force of expendable poor people, there to defend the ‘rich people’s American way of Life’.

If the military destroys people's lives, I would think you would be working to outlaw the draft totally instead of broadening it to include women. It's like saying that because this person has to suffer I want this person to suffer too... more fair that way.
As a citizen of the United States, one should be prepared to defend it.
Point 1. If the draft is eliminated, the forces would be filled with only the most desperate of the populace and would exacerbate the problem of in-equal service as referred to above.

Point 2. The only time the military won’t be needed will be when we come together in a World Federalism of Nations, let go of our excessive nationalist attitudes, and start solving our differences in a world court system. At the moment, our country is lagging behind in that worthwhile goal.

[Rangerdave]

Well said Mindy_O_Lluin, and greetings to a fellow veteran.

I have always thought that women can and do provide a valuable service to the military. In fact, in my own personal experience, they have been invaluable. A long time ago in the bad old days of the Cold War, I spent a significant amount of time sneaking my way around an undisclosed Central American country leading a Advisor/Reconnaissance team. As such, I was in fairly regular communication with the Intelligence weenies back in Washington. The only person who ever gave me reliable and relevant data was a DoD analysist by the name of 1Lt. Karen Tindall. Without her information, my team might not have made it back as safely as we did.

But as far as women in combat go, I feel that unless the most Dire need arises, I feel no need to place women into harms way. And even then, I would seek a better way

RD

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I agree, but for selfish reasons. It's horendous enough for men to have to face the vileness of battle, so I don't mind saving half the population from having to face it too. Also, for myself, because I'd end up being a chicken - I don't think I could be brave faced with blood and gore and guts. Those who can, can better serve working in the Army hospitals.

[HLGStrider]

That includes rich people, who tend to find ways around it due to their privileged background

Let's kill all the rich and divide their money up... :rolleyes:

[Amichi]

thereby freeing up you guys to go trampling around the battlefield.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to base the physical standards on job description, then? I should probably take offense at the stereotype of men being good for nothing more than battlefield fodder, but I won't. ;-) It's a stereotype I'm well acquainted with, sad to say.

That being said... my job while in the military was highly technical. I was a Cryptologic Technician (Maintainer), meaning I was responsible for keeping critical equipment online and running properly, without glitches. That's hardly 'battlefield traipsing', I'd think.

As for physical standards based on sex...

NO, NO, and NO. I'd use bold if I thought it would get the point across.

If we make this concession, why not make a concession for less intelligent people to do technical jobs? You know..

"Great news, Mr. Doe! Your IQ is lower than average, but our research into your family background indicates a strong weakness it smarts. So... congrats! We're going to let you work on the Very Important And Fragile Device!"

Sounds goofy, doesn't it? That's what I think about double standards based on sex. Goofy. Nonsenscial. SEXIST.

Basing the physical standards on job, rather than sex, would be much better. Women... or men, for that matter... who could not meet the minimums would be barred from that particular job by virtue of a universal qualification. What's so bad about that?

[HLGStrider]

I'll get back to you after I'm done killing the rich, Amachi...

Seriously, no comment.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Amichi, thanks for bringing up that point, as I had thought of something like that, but didn't mention it -- that there may be some men who are 130 lb. stringbeans and may also not be suitable for the heaviest work. So would that mean they could get out of being in the service or combat, too?

Sorry for being off topic, HLG.

As for the Titanic, I like to think the social mores came out of an unconscious social movement towards survival of the species, since one man can quickly reproduce lots of offspring, but, one woman left could only replace one per year.

Just a thought.

[Amichi]

*nod* Yes, that's right. *chuckle* Give them jobs they'd be capable of physically. Is that so bad? Would surely make me grin with glee at the sensibility of it all..

[HLGStrider]

I like to think the social mores came out of an unconscious social movement towards survival of the species, since one man can quickly reproduce lots of offspring, but, one woman left could only replace one per year.

No. If this were so the more primitive a culture was the better they would treat their women, out of a survival instinct. I find that the opposite is true. The "pagan, primitive" opinion of woman is the offspring one and these cultures normally treat their women worse.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I don't normally post long replys, but here goes one:
:)
Yes. My answer was base. And was meant to be, since I really was not into the original question at the time. I was boiling it down to an animalistic level, but if you add on top of it the humanizing affect of CIVILIZATION, then you see the ‘bad-treatment’ side affects become lessened with it’s advent. Without the Civilizing affect, we still WOULD be behaving animalisticly.

But I went back and read post #1, trying to see what you were really getting at. (I can't be absolutely sure, since, as these forum posts clearly show, we seldom can perfectly understand each other.)

Now I would like to answer that I think we are still in the growth process.
Phases below are my descriptions of the state of male/female relations in
1.) Primitive times thru about the 12th C.
2.) The “Courts of Love” era thru the Titanic time frame and up through the 50’s.
3.) The era from ‘Liberation’ in the 60’s and Feminism in the 70’s thru now.
4.) The future.

Each phase is a step up towards a more idealistic reality, as long as civilization and intellects can remain at work. (Occasionally, a base need for primitiveness strikes out in the form of wars, where all civilizing affects go out the window.)

1.) Primitive: Brawn over Brains / bad treatment of women / overt disrespect for women.
2.) Medieval/Patriarchal: Submission of women / Male control, but with Chivalry to appease / covert disrespect for women.
3.) Modern: Self-determination for women / Feminism / reversion to poor treatment of women (due to freeing up of both sexes and the discomfort with change)
4.) Future (With more and more intellectual enlightenment and civilizing pressures):
Self-determination for women (and men still) / Equality (this does not mean ‘sameness’) / genuine respect by each sex towards the other / genuine kindness and good treatment between the sexes due to enlightened attitudes and less fearful egos.

It may be hard to see the growth effects of something when you are in the throes of labor pains to get it out there and accepted, but there are some people who can envision the glories of that progressed time. I am thinking of many of the futuristic science fiction writers and such, like the creators of the 3 most recent Star Trek series, and the way women are viewed in the movie ‘Wing Commander’ and even Star Wars. Perhaps the technologies may not be attainable in the time frames of the writers projections, but they are obviously touching on socialization changes and improvements based on the current trends with a potential for improved human respect towards each other, as long as we can get through the growth pains. I would not wish to give up, due to the pain of change, before reaching the goal.

[HLGStrider]

Personally I think that, while I don't believe legal rights should be deprived from women, feminism was a misguided movement we could've done very well without. It tore down the family, made my sex into some sort of war machine against the male sex, and really annoys the heck out of me.

Personally, the men were not worried about whether the women they were offering their life boats to could reproduce or not. They saw them as just women, a thing to respect and protect (You can't deny that a woman is normally, and was even more so back then, a bit physically weaker than the males... Especially when males were working more physical jobs than they are now.). I think it was honorable, and I personally wish we could get that additude back.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by HLGStrider


No. If this were so the more primitive a culture was the better they would treat their women, out of a survival instinct. I find that the opposite is true. The "pagan, primitive" opinion of woman is the offspring one and these cultures normally treat their women worse.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. When examining "primitive" societies, meaning pre-literate societies, the great majority of the societies are Matriarchal. This is still the case in the pre-literate groups of Africa and the Amazon.

One of the more interesting cases involves ancient Greece. The earliest know civilization in the area was the Minoans of Crete and the surrounding islands. Strong archaeological evidence enforces the idea that these island cultures shared leadership between male and female equally. Also, the nobility was succeeded through the mothers line. The Minoans were invaded and replaced through conquest by the Mycenaeans (sp?). This culture led to what would become known as the Classical Greek.

Have you ever wondered why Greek mythology is so unabashedly misogynistic? One reason is the the patrichial Mycenaeans needed to downplay the Feminine aspects of Minoan relegion and culture. What better way than by placing the blame for all the world’s evils squarely at the feet of a woman. Namely, women like Pandora and Clytaemnestra.

This is just one example, there are countless others. But surfice it to say that Male dominace of women is not the earmark of “primative” societies, but of educated ones. This is not to say that it is right, only that history supports the practice as usual.

Thanks
RD

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

HLG. You may be too young to have lived under the oppressive weight of that 'attitude,' so I can understand why you are using the word respect in place of condescension. Feminism just removed the finery and pompous clothing from the reality of what existed, so that we can face it and try and get beyond it or make things better. Would you really want to go back into that closet of deception and delusion?
As for families, there are still people who can make a go of families, all different sorts of families. You just have to find those people to associate with and pass by the jerks. (At least now you can IDENTIFY which ones are jerks, so you can make good informed choices for yourself.)
I suspect the men on the Titanic were driven more by Peer Pressure to stick to a phoney code of honor, and if their survival insticts had kicked in, they would have resisted such a stricture.
Intellectually, it should have been, 1. Children first. 2. Young and healthy women next. 3. young and healthy men next. 4. less healthy young women. 5. less healthy young men. 6. old women. 7 then old men. (IMO). But peer pressure, like religion, may be needed to inforce good behavior, when the mind doesn't have time, or the will, to think about it.

(Edit for spelling)

[Amichi]

Intellectually, it should have been, 1. Children first. 2. Young and healthy women next. 3. young and healthy men next. 4. less healthy young women. 5. less healthy young men. 6. old women. 7 then old men. (IMO). But peer pressure, like religion, may be needed to inforce good behavior, when the mind doesn't have time, or the will, to think about it.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't healthy men -and- women go together?

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Well, that option might be good too, if they don't need fight each other to limit numbers. I guess I was incorporating that thing about the less men needed to replenish a population quickly (you know of what I speak!). But on the other hand, men come in handy for the drive to rebuild more than just the population - like buildings and, new and improved Titanics .:D :D :D
So, there is surely an optimum balance somewhere, but I don't feel obliged to calculate it here. But, good feedback!

[HLGStrider]

True, I am young. I decided years ago to live my life the old fashion way. I don't see respect as condenscension. I believe that is a falacy. I don't think older people who are offered chairs because they are older see this as condensacion but as deserved respect. Why should women feel any different about it? This isn't a survival instinct as you put it because older people are perhaps the least valuable in primitive survival terms. I think it is sad that we are gaining a disrespect for older people and women.

My mother actually received a lot of gaff at the time for making a decision to stay at home. I find it sad that we put down homemakers and mothers. These should be the most honorable positions for a woman, just as father and supporter should be so for male. We've grown to see things materially and value people based on money. The best influence a person, male or female, can have is with their family, and I personally will be proud to someday devote as much time as possible to mine.
I have read feministic articles that call this situation unnatural. I believe concentration camp was the phrase one feminist used to describe the home. That is why I reject the philosophy, and personally, I will try to find a man who opens doors for me and thinks that I am of enough value, or that any woman is, to give up a seat on a life boat for me.

oh, RD. Good point. I don't agree with the philosophy, and I was thinking mainly of more modern primitive societies... I guess I'm not a historian... :D

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I hope you do get the respect you want, and I believe you (and all of us) can by using your new freedom and self-determination. I was not implying earlier that old style 'respect' was condescension. I was trying to say real condescension was parading around as 'respect,' when it really wasn't. If you find respectful treatment in this day and age, it will be more sincere, because we have all woken up to the meanings behind our actions.

Good luck to you. And hope you can draw the attention of some of these really delightful and wonderful guys around here who may be looking for a lady just like you. (Well, if you haven't already :D )
I think I saw a thread somewhere about what it means to be a gentleman. (can't remember if here or another site) The men there seemed fully likeable.

[HLGStrider]

Ah... so your problem is not with actions but with additude. I'm fine with that.

Personally, I think that real respect was far more prevalent than you allow. For instance, reading the works written by men of these times... Like Dickens or Scott.. they have an incredible respect for women. They don't put them as warrior princesses, but their female characters are real, virtuous, and amazing. I think that they had respect for us.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
This isn't a survival instinct as you put it because older people are perhaps the least valuable in primitive survival terms. I think it is sad that we are gaining a disrespect for older people and women.

One of the most primitive societies that is still in existence is the Bushmen society of the Kalahari desert in Namibia...

In this society, a matriarchal one, when the women reach the age where they no longer are child-bearing, they basically go into retirement and are taken care of by the tribe. They are *DEEPLY* respected, because they *KNOW* what the younger people need to know to survive -- been there and done that.

It's far different than you'd imagine.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Ah... so your problem is not with actions but with additude. I'm fine with that.

Personally, I think that real respect was far more prevalent than you allow. For instance, reading the works written by men of these times... Like Dickens or Scott.. they have an incredible respect for women. They don't put them as warrior princesses, but their female characters are real, virtuous, and amazing. I think that they had respect for us. [/B][/QUOTE]

BTW: I'm editing this to note right off the bat that I'm a man. :)

Oh, they did! As long as their female characters -stayed in their place-.

It's rather similar to modern society... in my career, I've noticed that a strong man who is very emotional is a "Great leader -- a go getter!" A strong woman who is very emotional "needs to stop being so touchy and sensative"

Come again? It's because the woman wasn't a gentle wilting flower -- because she went beyond what the paternal leadership thinks is appropriate behavior for a 'lady'. IMHO: ridiculous!

In fact, my take on this matter is that the entire notion of equality is ENTIRELY RIDICULOUS.

From a racial perspective, MEN are 99.9999999999999% expendable. We only need ONE fertile man from a reproduction standpoint. Women can do everything that men can do (except . . . well . . . THAT :D), even if they aren't necessarily as efficient, strong, etc.

Women, on the other hand? Very important from a racial perspective. They carry the future of humanity within them.

Women, therefore, should NOT be required to go to war, and deserve every eensy-weensy bit of respect that men can urge from themselves.

I have no real sympathy for those men who whine about the treatment of women, and I feel that women who wish to be treated equally to men are making a grave mistake. Women should NOT be treated equally to men -- they should, in almost every instance, receive PREFERENTIAL treatment.

Now if women WANT to go and fight in combat? Let 'em. But a draft of women? I disagree entirely!

Frankly, the most intelligent person I (personally) know is a man. But the next 10-15 most intelligent people are women. They are really much better in general, IMHO, at having a well-rounded perspective of the situation. Also, in general the women that I've known try harder to be fair than the men I've known.

I think we'd all be better off if world societies were still maternalistic. We'd have fewer wars, I think, and I bet that less children would starve in the streets.

Obviously I've made a lot of generalizations, here... but it's an expression of opinion. :)

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Tyaronumen
From a racial perspective, MEN are 99.9999999999999% expendable. We only need ONE fertile man from a reproduction standpoint. Women can do everything that men can do (except . . . well . . . THAT :D), even if they aren't necessarily as efficient, strong, etc.


Hey! I heard that! And to inform you, which I shouldn't. Current scientific developments have shown that you no longer need male sperm to reproduce. Female cells are all you need to fertilize an egg.

Just for the record, I'm male (I'm a man just sounded a little, well.. macho:p) and I hope I have some uses apart from the breeding program.:(

[HLGStrider]

I think it also makes sense that one of the members of a family should stay home, and biologically the woman is best for the job, so personally I see it as a great thing to "stay in ones place".

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

That's not my place, thank you very much.

[HLGStrider]

Why not? Do you just not prefer it or do you think it is under you?
If it is the second, that is my whole problem with feminism. The place of a mother should be the most honorable, the most respected for a woman, one she would be proud to devote her whole life and time too. However, when feminism "liberated" women it told them they weren't supposed to stay home that it was beneath them and that men were surpressing them if they wanted this.
Hence we have generations of kids who know they are not as important to their parents as their careers are. Most kids can understand that one of their parents need to go off to work so that they can eat, but when it goes to two and strangers are taking care of children instead of parents, kids start to feel a little unloved.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

You are making too broad a generalization. If you want to be a mother, I do not see an obstacle for you, nor do I think people, even now, would look down on you for making that choice. Why do you think they would? NObody needs acceptance from anyone around them to do the right thing for themselves. There are lots of mothers out there who are there because they want to be and who are proud of it. You sound like you are trying to convince yourself, or to get everyone else on your bandwagon so you will be able to feel the comfort of numbers. Please allow yourself to be proud of whatever choice you make, but also please let the rest of us make our own choice as to what role we would be best fit for in life. If I am forced by social or religious codes to be in "my place" as you call it, any children I had would be in that category you described as being unloved, neglected, dispised, and maybe even dead. Thats because I have a natural dislike for children. I think I made the right choice for me. As for all those others out there having children carelessly, MY belief is that no one should have children unless they really really really really really want them, are MARRIED, have taken 2-4 years of college courses on parenting (both parents-to-be) and are certified mentally stable, and financially secure and capable of supporting the children for twenty years, and educated enough to train them to take care of themselves and be good human beings when they are fledged. Since I did not fit into that category, I feel totally responsible and happy with my life choice. And anyone else who does not want children or who aren't that prepared yet, should be using 5 kinds of birth control EVEN IF THEY ARE ABSTAINING FROM SEX, because good intentions are not set in stone.
Notice I said parents should be married and committed for twenty years. But there are millions of people out there who cannot be married. Who are just not marriable, so you cannot take away other options for them to be able to make an independent life for themselves, or you are condeming them to poverty or loveless marriages, as it was in the old days.

[Gloer]

the human race will definately evolve into a new form of vegetation:
peaceful, settled and quite ignorant as long as they get they sun light, water and nutrition

[HLGStrider]

If you want to be a mother, I do not see an obstacle for you, nor do I think people, even now, would look down on you for making that choice.

I think there is a general additude against it. My mother got points taken off her highschool "What I want to be when I grow up" essay because they didn't think homemaker was an applicable plan (My mother was a high scorer in highschool and there was a little bit of disappoointment in her family that she didn't go onto college).

I don't think college is going to teach anyone to be a better parent, though I agree that children should be born into married families who plan to stay married and want children enough to love them...

.You sound like you are trying to convince yourself, or to get everyone else on your bandwagon so you will be able to feel the comfort of numbers. Please allow yourself to be proud of whatever choice you make, but also please let the rest of us make our own choice as to what role we would be best fit for in life.

I'm not for making laws for anything and without laws to prohibit them people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Personally I just think that there is a lot of feminist talk that goes very much against the "traditional" family and so I try to speak up for it as often as possible. If one doesn't want kids one shouldn't put themselves into a possition where one will get them, and should especially not marry a man who wants them (that's why I like the idea of premarital counciling. You should marry someone with similar plans).

What do you mean by people who aren't 'marriable?' People who aren't able to find a spouse or people who wouldn't do well married because of some pyschological thing or what? If you mean people who just don't want to get married, I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to start matching people up forcibly even if I had that power... However, I do think that if people want a healthy "love" relationship marriage is the decent choice.

Don't worry, Gloer and D. I think that the form of reproduction we have now is popular enough that we aren't going to get rid of men anytime soon

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

What do you mean by people who aren't 'marriable?' People who aren't able to find a spouse or people who wouldn't do well married because of some pyschological thing or what?

All of the above. Those, plus the ones who just don't want to get married. Plus those who are too old, or women who get dumped by their spouse when he falls for a younger woman. All of us who don't want, or can't attract a mate that we can love, need all the open opportunities possible in the job market to make a full and rewarding life for ourselves and to LEGALLY support ourselves above the poverty level. Those same opportunities need to exist for those who ARE married, but childless, by choice or otherwise, and those who ARE married and who DO have children, but are depressed and not intellectually stimulated by that alone.

I think parents should be certified and required to have a college education, because one of their primary roles as a parent is teacher (consciously and unconsciously), so it would behove one to be better educated than one's kids throughout their time together.

the human race will definately evolve into a new form of vegetation: peaceful, settled and quite ignorant as long as they get their sun light, water and nutrition

At least they would be in harmony with nature and their habitat (the earth) would survive longer. Plus why would ignorance be involved (if this is just a metaphor).
If it were left to men alone, we would end up like 'The Lord of the Flies' or 'Mad Max' or Kosovo. (Humm, do I want this one, or that one, let me think.)

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin

...If it were left to men alone, we would end up like 'The Lord of the Flies' or 'Mad Max' or Kosovo. (Humm, do I want this one, or that one, let me think.)

Actually, there is ample scientific evidence showing that given a significant level of authority, women behave just as badly as men.

Males in authority positions act like jerks not out of a biological or gender based defect, but to maintain dominance. Reversing gender roles would show almost no change in how those on top treat those under them.

So to say that If men had it their way the world would end up in ruin is falacious. (or maybe phallacious) This is akin to saying if women had control of the world, ae would all make crafts and worship Martha Stewart. Men have had it their way for at least 4000 years, and we haven't blown the world up yet. Yet!

What we should strive for is a ballance: with power and authority granted on the bais of ability and merit, not simply gender or race.

RD

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

But Gloer just claimed if only women were left, we'd revert to ignorant paramecium. I'll let you argue it out with him. (Besides, I've been in some apartments of bachelors that I was happy to get out of with my health. Have you seen some of the squalor that many men are willing to live in when no female influence is around? And when is the last time women started an ethnic cleansing campaign, doing antisocial things like rape and murder, just because civilized rules get dropped for a while.)
Men have had it their way for at least 4000 years, and we haven't blown the world up yet. Yet!
They have only recently had big enough 'guns' to do so, or they probably would have. 4000 years is a long time to hold still a twitchy trigger finger.

(But I certainly agree with the balance statement. That's the whole point.)

Edit: Albert Einstein said "The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our mode of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe."

[Gloer]

men have to make themselves useful for the children
they are involved in the reproction but individullay no man has evidence of it
so men are lacking confirmation for their usefulness
to fill the gap they have to bring fort useful aides from outside world, conquer and protect against it through arms, exploration and science

this male effort is very often depresiated by the women
women have´no need to prove their usefulness so they have no need to hail and seek the achievements of the above kind - and they are right - bringing forth new life is ultimately the direct goal of our species - all what men can do is to indirectly serve this

But this service is what makes the civilization.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Maybe that worked for the last 4000 years, when there was a vastness of land to conquer and populate.
You don’t seriously believe we can go at that same rate for another 4000 years?
We are on a cusp.
The earth is NOW at it’s carrying capacity.
It is time to STOP out outdated mode of thinking.
The paradigm shift will be from “conquer, poplulate, build, and waste” to
“preserve, maintain zero population growth, recycle and redistribute.”
This is the REAL meaning of “Economy” (Same root as Ecology).

It’s either that, or blow our selves off the face of the earth so life forms can re-evolve themselves from those basic instincts you mention. Then no one will have to suffer the pangs of changing their mode of thinking. (That would be MY perception of a lack of intelligence and of de-evolution.)

[Gloer]

expansion is the only way to maintain any kind of ballance with nature
we must know more, control more and exploit more efficiently
recycling is merely efficient exploitation made economically feasible through understanding the total expenses involved in waste management and external effects to other resourses such as air, water and climate

we need all conquering, greedy, exploitative, efficient seeking men that want to keep going, keep finding out better technologies and ways to use our planet

[HLGStrider]

I assumed that Gloer was making some joke about sex being necessary to inspire action in some way, personally.

I have a great respect for the male sex. I think that men and women are equal in their legal rights but very different in every other way. They are the two working halves of the world. Something like the Chinese Yin and Yang, I suppose, but I like to think of it more in my own Biblical terms (though I scarcely use them for arguing because they carry no wait with those of other religions).

Man was created first and soon realized he couldn't do it alone. Woman was created to help him do it.

Personally I don't go for the zero population growth thing. We've been yelling about surpassing our food ability or space ability for centuries, and every time we find a knew way to get more out of the land (using fertilizers) or space (building up instead of sprawling out). I don't believe in curtailing child births. If one is married I think that having six kids (if you can support them and are willing to care for them) is a wonderful thing. I don't plan to do it myself, but that's because I don't consider myself responsible enough for more than three.

Anyway, both men and women are necessary for any decent society.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
If one doesn't want kids one shouldn't put themselves into a possition where one will get them, and should especially not marry a man who wants them (that's why I like the idea of premarital counciling. You should marry someone with similar plans).

Similar plans? LOL... Actually, I can use up a hand describing to you five marriages of people that I know intimately and very well who were *VERY* close in plans, mentality, etc. when they were married.

But, as often happens (especially when you settle down YOUNG), people change and . . . wuh-oh . . . their plans, mentality, etc. ALSO changed. Two of these marriages failed, while the other three are relatively healthy -- because the spouses worked with each other to accomodate their changing needs, plans, etc.

There ARE no guarantees.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Mindy_O_Lluin
I think parents should be certified and required to have a college education, because one of their primary roles as a parent is teacher (consciously and unconsciously), so it would behove one to be better educated than one's kids throughout their time together.


My mother didn't go to college. While I can talk rings and rings around her in terms of mathematical theory and history, etc... I can't *touch* her understanding of human nature, however, nor her knowledge of human medicine, the body, morality, philosophy, etc.

A college education is of LIMITED use as a parenting tool.

I was home-schooled by my aunt. Uh -- she didn't go to college either. Managed to TEACH ME THROUGH CALCULUS, etc.

College is important -- but also highly over-rated. As an individual with a coupla degrees, I feel that college is nowhere near as important as college graduates would like it to be. It's important to have as credentials for job purposes, but it isn't a necessary step in the life of an educated human.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Gloer
men have to make themselves useful for the children
they are involved in the reproction but individullay no man has evidence of it
so men are lacking confirmation for their usefulness
to fill the gap they have to bring fort useful aides from outside world, conquer and protect against it through arms, exploration and science

this male effort is very often depresiated by the women
women have´no need to prove their usefulness so they have no need to hail and seek the achievements of the above kind - and they are right - bringing forth new life is ultimately the direct goal of our species - all what men can do is to indirectly serve this

But this service is what makes the civilization.

*LOL* As a guy, I'd just as soon that men had NOT conquered the Earth, so that we would NOT have to protect it at all.

That's the whole point... why conquer it? Why not just live in harmony with the Earth? What a sad mentality to have...

I, for one, don't need to prove my usefulness by slaughtering trees and wild animals, building a stockade, ringing it with guns, and defending against . . . some other crazy who did the same thing a couple of miles over.

What the HELL!?!?! These humans are CRAZY!

:D

[HLGStrider]

I'm glad Ty said something about being a guy before I made a nasty mistake...
Plans do change, however, I think if one marries a person who obviously wants to have children when one has a great dislike for the idea of children one is garantuing... Guarantey... I hate that word... failure.
Personally I think people put asside marriage far too easy. Even forsaking the morality of the issue, marriage is a legal contract. It shouldn't be so easily voided. If business contracts were this easy to break there would be havoc in the finanacial world.
I don't see man's position in the environment as one of conquering but as one of stewardship. It normally makes good sense to preserve the atmosphere and resources... etc. However, I am not a big "protect the trees" person, because I happen to live in a state with plenty of trees, plenty of wild fires, and a lot of out of work loggers. It just seems a bit of a paradox... well maybe not a paradox, but to me it doesn't make sense.

The human race was put over the earth. They are not supposed to destroy it, but I do believe they have a right to use the resources,and this includes spreading out to all continents which is partly what Gloer was talking about. However, I don't think warring to get this is a really smart idea... (downplay for sarcastic effect).:rolleyes:

I just wanted to add that power could corrupt anyone... always has always will.. male or female.

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by Gloer
expansion is the only way to maintain any kind of ballance with nature
we must know more, control more and exploit more efficiently
recycling is merely efficient exploitation made economically feasible through understanding the total expenses involved in waste management and external effects to other resourses such as air, water and climate

we need all conquering, greedy, exploitative, efficient seeking men that want to keep going, keep finding out better technologies and ways to use our planet

If that's really how you feel -- would you mind gathering up the rest of the humans who feel like you and expanding OFF of Earth?

Some of us are more interested in seeing a future Earth that is in good shape, and the greedy, conquering, exploitative mentality is diametrically opposed to this vision, and should move on to some other world.

As for 'expansion' being the only way to maintain any kind of balance with nature? Come again? The wave theory permeates all statistical analyses of animal populations, and humans are NOT exempt from the predicted drops -- UNLESS we defy conventional ideas of human nature and take 'unnatural' actions to flatten the wave before it crests and begins to drop.


BTW: :D

[Tyaronumen]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I'm glad Ty said something about being a guy before I made a nasty mistake...

*laugh* Well, I know it's not obvious, what with the makeup and the hair, but c'mon! :D


Plans do change, however, I think if one marries a person who obviously wants to have children when one has a great dislike for the idea of children one is garantuing... Guarantey... I hate that word... failure.
Personally I think people put asside marriage far too easy. Even forsaking the morality of the issue, marriage is a legal contract. It shouldn't be so easily voided. If business contracts were this easy to break there would be havoc in the finanacial world.

Far more common, HLG, is the scenario where BOTH parties say they do NOT want children, and then at some point, one party changes his or her mind.

"That's a pickle, and no mistake" to paraphrase Sam Gamgee. :)

I also agree that people put aside marriage too easily. My observations of failed marriages leads me to believe that they fail when people are unwilling to evaluate themselves or their spouses honestly.

However, I am far more against a loveless marriage wherein the children of that marriage grow up in a household that is cold and devoid of happiness than I am against a divorce situation where the child spends time with both the father and the mother, and both home situations are healthy and happy.

I don't see man's position in the environment as one of conquering but as one of stewardship. It normally makes good sense to preserve the atmosphere and resources... etc. However, I am not a big "protect the trees" person, because I happen to live in a state with plenty of trees, plenty of wild fires, and a lot of out of work loggers. It just seems a bit of a paradox... well maybe not a paradox, but to me it doesn't make sense.

And I guess that you seem to believe that those trees are eternal?

How much do you know about the Fertile Crescent? Were you aware that it was THE most fertile spot in the ancient world until it was destroyed by over-logging and over-farming (thousands of years ago)?

The Fertile Crescent is now one of the most BARREN parts of the Earth.

How about Northern Africa? It was also one of the most fertile spots on the Earth -- until it was ruined by Roman over-cultivation and turned into a far more arid and unpleasant place to live.

Not to mention the United States... most of the country east of the Mississippi was at one time almost all old growth forest. Today? 95% of those forests are gone.

It helps if you take a slightly longer view than just what is today.

Especially if you consider that there are other plant fibers that are far more effecient for the production of paper (one of the main uses of logged trees).

The human race was put over the earth. They are not supposed to destroy it, but I do believe they have a right to use the resources,and this includes spreading out to all continents which is partly what Gloer was talking about. However, I don't think warring to get this is a really smart idea... (downplay for sarcastic effect).:rolleyes:

I just wanted to add that power could corrupt anyone... always has always will.. male or female.

It's SEVERELY up to interpretation that the human race was put 'over' the Earth. I find no reason to believe that the human race has the right to lord it over the rest of creation -- save that they have the power to do so, and this power seems to have created a corrupt notion that dominance and abuse of nature is acceptable.

It's extremely short-sighted to exploit every last bit of natural resource now, the way that large corporations do. This is, basically, the 'quarterly profits' mentality, wherein one tries to squeeze every bit of cash from something NOW -- regardless of the consequences tomorrow.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

That's why I was trying to get everyone to look at a long term 4000 year perspective. But even looking ahead 100 years, when all those 6 children and 36 grandchildren are old, there will be NO beautiful natural spaces or old growth forests left to enjoy (God spent a thousand years creating them each), additional arable land or clean water sources, and yet there will be 12 billion occupants of the earth instead of 6 (if the population is not curbed). I would think it would be more logical to spend some money to retrain loggers into a different occupation, than to continue on this runaway train of destruction.
We must level off and sustain before it is too late.

http://www.populationconnection.org/Reports_Publications/Reports/report209.html (http://)

(Don't overlook the direct correlation between women's education and the number of children they will have.)

[HLGStrider]

I personally believe that when a resorce becomes obsolete it is no crime for the people who used to exploit this resource to find other work. However, wood is still being used very exclusively in a lot of situation so if there is no reasonible reason not to log them.
Trees, unlike water or minerals, are a renewable resource. Planting trees to harvest is actually a business. While not eternal trees can be replaced.
The Biblical prospective is that God made earth for man. As I have said before, I don't expect non-Christians to accept this philosophy for this reason, of course, but it is firmly planted in my mind, heart, etc.
Northern Africa was not over farmed (at least not all of it.) I read that it changed due to changing environment due to the end of the ice age (of course that book was 1980 something or other and theories do change).

Education? That makes sense because working women have less time for children and it is hard to give up a career you spent years and years studying for... also the years spent in education are the most fertile years of a womans life. After the twenties a womans chance of miscarriage increases and her chance of conceiving decreases... that's how I'd personally explain any statistic like that. However, I agree with Ty that education is totally over rated. I only plan to take what college classes I need to be a good writer and not get any degree. This isn't because of a plan to have children, however, so much as a desire not to waste my time.

Over farming is a problem, but I think in modern countries we are progressing past it. We now circulate fields (a fairly old practice, actually), can grow much more on less land....

Putting restrictions on farming will only make research in farming less profitable which in turn will stop people from researching. So that instead of finding out how to grow enough food for the world on less land we will end up with famines and other problems.

I don't like to let the government touch anything, of course.

I don't read links... (half the time my pc doesn't load them) so would you summerize for me?

However, I know that in 17 something or other and English pastor was shrieking that we'd out grow our food supply...
I also don't mind the idea of colonizing the moon, though I seriously don't think it'll happen.

[Tyaronumen]

[Originally posted by HLGStrider
I personally believe that when a resorce becomes obsolete it is no crime for the people who used to exploit this resource to find other work. However, wood is still being used very exclusively in a lot of situation so if there is no reasonible reason not to log them.
Trees, unlike water or minerals, are a renewable resource. Planting trees to harvest is actually a business. While not eternal trees can be replaced.

TREES can be replaced. FORESTS cannot be replaced by the work of mankind.

FORESTS are eco-systems that took thousands of years to develop and that mankind cannot simulate by planting acres of Douglas Firs.


The Biblical prospective is that God made earth for man. As I have said before, I don't expect non-Christians to accept this philosophy for this reason, of course, but it is firmly planted in my mind, heart, etc.
Northern Africa was not over farmed (at least not all of it.) I read that it changed due to changing environment due to the end of the ice age (of course that book was 1980 something or other and theories do change).

Well, HLG -- Northern Africa WAS over farmed by the Romans, allowing the Sahara to extend northwards -- just as over farming in the western horn of Africa is now allowing the Sahara to extend swiftly (miles per year) toward the Atlantic.

Sounds to me like you are referring to the part of Africa that is just south of the Roman province of "Africa" -- the Sahara desert... which DID come about due to changing environment at the end of the ice age. However, the Sahara desert is (or rather WAS) an entirely different region than the Roman province of "Africa".

IMHO, it doesn't matter what the Bible says, or anyone else -- if "Man" is over the Earth, than "Man" is a complete and utter ass to be turning it all into uninhabitable desert. Being "over" something doesn't mean that you treat it like ****, disrespect the other inhabitants (human or not), etc.


Education? That makes sense because working women have less time for children and it is hard to give up a career you spent years and years studying for... also the years spent in education are the most fertile years of a womans life. After the twenties a womans chance of miscarriage increases and her chance of conceiving decreases... that's how I'd personally explain any statistic like that. However, I agree with Ty that education is totally over rated. I only plan to take what college classes I need to be a good writer and not get any degree. This isn't because of a plan to have children, however, so much as a desire not to waste my time.

Sorry, HLG -- you've taken Mindy a bit far. It's the EDUCATION -- NOT the working -- that contributes to a lower rate of birth. Actually, the lowered birth rates correlate across observed populations of working women AND stay-at-home women (who are, in general, also hard at work :D). It's not because of career, and lack of time, lack of fertility, etc. It seems to be the experiences of university life, etc. that in some way effects the #s.

I can appreciate that you don't want to waste your time, HLG -- I can't tell you that I didn't take many courses in university that I consider to have been a complete waste of time from a perspective of what interests me, etc.

However, by getting at least a bachelor's degree, if you are ever in a situation where you are exactly equal to another job candidate in terms of qualifications -- except that you have the degree and the other candidate does not -- then YOU will get the job. In times of a bad economy, it looks good on a resume... so if you find that you are interested in many literature and writing classes, etc... it might not be all that bad to take some of the other courses as well, and just get that degree to give yourself a bit of insurance...

But that's all it is, IMHO -- insurance. You can educate yourself far more quickly and just as effectively (if not MORE so).


Over farming is a problem, but I think in modern countries we are progressing past it. We now circulate fields (a fairly old practice, actually), can grow much more on less land....

Hmmmm... that's unfortunately not very true. We still over farm, over chemical, and under-diversify in most commercial farming operations. If you consider smaller farmers, such as organic farmers, they are quite considerate of the land -- of course, a lot of organic farmers believe that the land is something to be loved and cared for, and lived in harmony with -- not something to be lorded over and merely profited from...

Putting restrictions on farming will only make research in farming less profitable which in turn will stop people from researching. So that instead of finding out how to grow enough food for the world on less land we will end up with famines and other problems.

Do you understand that we, in the United States alone, grow more than enough food each year to feed the entire population of the planet Earth for that year? That billions of tons of grain are dumped into the ocean every year because Monsanto, ADM, etc. can't get what they consider to be a "fair price" -- so instead they'll let people starve?

We have famines now because of GREED -- not because there isn't enough.

I don't like to let the government touch anything, of course.

Do you even object to government roads? Hospitals? How about a military to protect us? Laws that protect children's right to be children, instead of slave laborers (such as they often were in the 1800s)...?


However, I know that in 17 something or other and English pastor was shrieking that we'd out grow our food supply...
I also don't mind the idea of colonizing the moon, though I seriously don't think it'll happen.

How about outgrowing quality of life? Just because we can squeeze 20 billion people onto the planet, does that mean that this is what *should* be done? How much quality of life will people have when we're all squeezed into little tiny spaces without anywhere to go?

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

This bears repeating:
We still over farm, over chemical, and under-diversify in most commercial farming operations. If you consider smaller farmers, such as organic farmers, they are quite considerate of the land -- of course, a lot of organic farmers believe that the land is something to be loved and cared for, and lived in harmony with -- not something to be lorded over and merely profited from...

Additional land abuse from unhealthy farming practices: loss of horrendous amounts of topsoil to the Mississippi delta, and loss of Wetland habitats and watering stops for migrating birds.

I can touch the spirit of God better, by camping or hiking in old growth forests, than by distorting the meaning of the bible to suit my self-interest. Private fenced acres of crop-like monocultures of pine trees cut when they are twenty years old, is not my idea of splendor.

Was God's meaning of using resources to:
1. Follow herds of millions of bison and cull a few here and there for our survival, letting no part go to waste, thereby maintaining the health and numbers of the herd for future generations?
OR
2. Sitting on a train or hillock picking off bisons by the thousands until they are nearly extinct, solely for personal profit in fur sales. (Or in the case of passenger pigeons, killing to complete extinction)

Stewardship means managing and protecting something that doesn't belong to you - Not to use and exploit it until there is none left. The beauty and magnificence and health of Nature belongs to humanity, not the logging companys and huge farming corporations, and THAT is what needs stewarding for future generations. [Besides, why are they logging on MY land (government land) anyway and exporting the wood to Japan for profit.]
I want to cry whenever I fly into Seattle and see the ugly clear-cutting on the sides of the mountains (has nobody heard of Tibet's fiasco), or the bare, stumpy lands right up to the edge of the National Parks (Thank God for the government's foresight there!) It was so nice and green and beautiful when I lived there only 25 years ago.


However, I know that in 17 something or other and English pastor was shrieking that we'd out grow our food supply...

1700 to 2100 IS now - on a geolocial time scale. So I guess he's right.
Also, between 1700 and 2000 the population growth RATE of change has been exponential.

Education. My take on it is that more education allows women to think for themselves and learn all these things so that they will know better the consequences of their actions.
Then their nurturing nature will tend to be expanded to all of humanity instead of just their own little family circle. They also learn that family planning is wise and possible. (It also gives them opportunity for self-support, freeing them from their 'default' of financial-support-in-exchange-for-sex --> baby making, bondage to men. The insurance Ty was talking about.)

Government. I am the government, we all are the government. Naturally those who wish to exploit and waste and do other harmful things, resist the government from fear of regulation, because it might be for the 'good of the whole', and restrict the individual's personal 'freedom' to waste.
No one has absolute freedom. I do not have the freedom to drive 60 miles per hour in a school zone. And that is a GOOD thing. Not all freedom is good.

[HLGStrider]

Look around you. You probably do not live in a third world country so I am assuming that you have a very comfortable life style... as opposed to that country. A lot of the world lives that way and there are resources which could allow all but a tiny portion of it to live that way... and that tiny portion only because they are so far down that it would take humongous resources to build them up (which would take many years).

Mindy, have you seen anyone shooting millions of buffalo in the last twenty years? That happened because the buffalo were on land that nobody claimed (the native Americans never appeared to own the land to the settlers because the land was so huge and the Indians so far between that the land seemed to be lying their doing nothing... also at the time the idea of a species going extinct was unheard of) so everyone felt they had a right to them. If everyone has a right to something they will use it up as quickly as possible. If a few people have a right to something they were work to make it last as long as possible. Tell two kids to share a glass of coke or carton of ice cream... It'll go a lot faster than if you divided it between them and said it was theirs and no one else could touch it.

Personally I believe that we will someday find a way to farm that needs absolutely no land... they were working on technology where you could green house grow plants on wooden frames... but I don't know how far they got with that...

I personally think following herds of buffalo around would be a heck of a lousy life style though I would find domesticating them a great way to save the herds and at the same time let us enjoy them for food... you never hear a whimper about cows going extinct.

God made the world so of course you can feel him in it.. though that is just a feeling.

The Bible did tell us to "be fruitful and multiply" and spread to "all corners of the earth"... Those are direct quotes, though if you want to break them down into the origenal Hebrew and see if somewhere along the line they were mistranslated more power to you... It'll give you something to do for the weekend.

The environment is doing very well actually. It's just that bad stands out more than good. I've been meaning to read the Skeptical Environmentalist book, but I only made it through a somewhat dumbed down version of that called "Facts Not Fear"... Anyway, you guys have no reason to panic.

I think we are doing just fine.

[HLGStrider]

I think the last post was long enough and this post is going to be long enough that I won't get in trouble for double posting... I'm not sure if I could successfully merge them...

Your take on the education thing goes against all my instincts and experience. Also does the idea of the college education being of much value. I am homeschooled and a member of a homeschool group. Let's take the families I know:

D. family. Seven kids. I do not know the mothers education rate, but as her husband is a missionary and from the way she talks I think she probably went to a Christian school and met her husband there. She, despite the seven kids, publishes her own ciriculum type stuff, is incredibly politically minded, and has managed to get her oldest boy to the point of being two years advanced in his schooling. He graduated at fifteen and will be going to Oral Roberts Un. at 16 (which I personally think is a tad bit extreme). Very intelligent woman who definately made a very conscious decision to have all seven kids...

M. family. Seven kids. They are not an intellectual family. Mrs. M is a highly religious woman who spends a lot more time on the spiritual side of her children than academic. Her children are for the most part on their age level. One son has some reading problems... Children were again a conscious decision and have been very well educated.

S. family. Three kids. The mother is a lawyer though no longer practicing. She has talked about the struggle of giving up all that education because she'd spent so much time on it, however, she decided to give it up because she wanted to give her children the best. Very educated, but waited until she was a little older to have kids due to her former education.

My own mother says she has learned more teaching me and my siblings than she ever learned in high school, and she was an A student.

Then lets take my aunt. She went to college and got a worthless degree in Library sciences... Library sciences? She has a ton of college debt, works a job she could've gotten with a highschool scolarship, and in her mid thirties has had several live-in boy friends who don't stay for long but no kids... That is my idea of a waste of time. Most of the people I know who have college educations are not using them. My uncle went for a degree in sports medicine and is now working for the county driving backhoes. My mom went through one semester at a community college and decided she was wasting her time. My employer has a degree but she I do not know what in. She is now working an office job that really isn't that hard... (employer in a loose sense, by the way. I babysit for her). etc. etc. etc.

My grandma is the most productive person I know. She has no degree but learned how draw house plans and could very easily do it for a living.

My mom can do whatever she puts her mind to. She's about the smartest person I know.

They both learned these things being house wives.

Education is over rated. Now a days it does not mean the gathering of knowledge but the assimulation of whatever ideas they want you to hear. I am taking Spanish, writing, and computer because I believe they will assist me in my life. I would like to take some art classes. I would like to avoid math because higher level math, even in highschool, has always struck me as useless. History I can learn on my own from reading. Literature is reading. I don't see any purpose in it.

I think that the reason college education takes away from a woman's desire to have babies is because it is extremely liberal... besides that a career minded woman will more likely attend college than a family minded one...

I am not an expert in these things and I am rather young. However, I have decided to use my time wisely. If I can not waste my time, practicing my writing on my own, learning to draw to illustrate my books, and experiencing real life so that I can understand it... Those things are useful.

[daisy]

I can't believe nobody lambasted Ash for his tired and well-used by the Right is Right in America statement about the Brotherhood blah blah blah re: having problems with women and gay people in the military! I was just waiting for that dust-up but everyone just went right by!! Oh well...I just have to chuckle at the title of this thread and ohhh the irony, as if feminism is in any way an opposite or a contrast to Respect for Women....do any of you chickies really believe that pre-feminism all us women sat around our homes rocking babies peacefully, in good health, well-clothed and worshipped by our strapping male lovers and providers? Hey, I have some farm land to sell you in Scarborough....
And the correlation between number of children and education is often seen to be based upon opening the mind to possibilities- hey, I went to university for years and have two degrees plus more - I am a teacher and a specialist in special education - I have real power in the world beyond my child....because you know what? Children grow up. And leave. And have their own lives. And many women who did not create a life for themselves beyond mothering find this out the hard way - because they are suddenly under-employed, under-educated, and under-valued by society - the largest growth rate in the poverty category is among women over 65....I have more to give the world than a baby. Although my 'baby' is the most important person in the world to me, I run a close second.
Also, let's not kid ourselves that American wars are going to be fought hand to hand like in the past. Sure, there will always be ground forces but more and more they are fought with technology - I don't get how the number of sit-ups a woman can do is connected with her technological ability to wage war - and have any of you seen an Israeli female soldier? Sheesh ....

[HLGStrider]

I think Ash had a vallid point in that it has the ability to make men extremely uncomfortable. They might get used to it after awhile, but after awhile might be too late in certain circumstances, as in a full out draft.
I personally act differently around men then I do when I am in a room just with my own sex. I am assuming men have similar "guy time" acting vs. the acting I see. It would be hard for men to get over this. Also it leaves room for sex in the army (as would a homosexual man in the army) which could lead to various problems and distractions.

I personally didn't open this to discuss drafting, of course, nor ecological matters. The whole idea was whether giving up a seat on a life boat or on a crowded bus for that matter was insulting to "liberated" women. I have heard it said that it is before. I believe Mindy stated some problems with it earlier... or maybe it was someone else saying that the men on the Titatantic were just ignorant and chauvanist in their additude though she didn't directly disaggree with their actions due to her theory on species survival.

It used to be a lot different. Just keeping a house was a lot of work. Now it can be accomplished in much less time because you don't have to churn your own butter,sew your own clothes, and slaughter your own pigs. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that before the industrial revolution it was NECESSARY for the wife to stay home, and not just for the time that there was kids. She wasn't sitting there in a dress all day, she was working working working.

I agree that the empty nest is a hard thing to face, but I do not think you are right in basically stating that they'd have no life afterwards. My mother has given her whole time to me and my three siblings. She also helps run the local homeschool co-op and has considered starting a day care after we move out. However, I believe that I am a better, healthier person due to the fact that she has given me all the love, attention, and time that she could. By doing that she has made the world a better place, and I say it is an honorable position that no one should put down.

As for poverty levels, I blame that on the fact that children no longer see it as their duties to take care of their parents after they can no longer support themselves. It used to be a given. I think it still should be.