Author Topic: Does the president have too much power?  (Read 3820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
  • Karma: 352
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #135 on: June 30, 2019, 12:40:09 PM »
 



I should be doing something with it? How is this ancient Egypt, Feminist? What you described is not Feminist.

The first thing i note is that the Egyptian experiment of unrestricting an ancient culture has not carried on to its modern counter part. Why not?

When did these rights change and for how long and what was the effect on society?

Was there any counter forces to counter the dilemmas of disease, lack of social security for older people and such? What was it?

Was the interpretations correct in the first instance?

If you answer these questions then i actually have something to do something with. Otherwise at best you are giving me a failed experiment and touting it an alternative model and at worst a lie, all whilst calling my reasoning around why in every other culture the way to raise a society to equality is to remove the impediments that shackle it, through modernity, simplistic.

The answer to this is not to show me an obscure society but rather show me  what i said was wrong or why this traditional roles has been the one adopted throughout history and throughout the world with communities with no relationship with each other? Not a giant male oppressive conspiracy but rather the most effective way to survive.

Ah, I thought you were questions were largely rhetorical; and i''m still not convinced that they were not intended rhetorically, because, if you had any interst in the actual  answers, then you would have surely read the whole of that rather short article which  I'd quoted, for a start.  And then you would have  known better than to apply the term  "failed experiment"  to a society that was stable for milennia.  Amongst other things.  And then you might have hit Google for most of the rest. Why not?  Because you've already made up your mind how things work, and you're not open to reconsidering your social theories, just in playing ideological wargames with them. Or so it very much seems to me.  And like i already said, I'd rather not. I'd rather use my time more constructively.

Your posts on this subject (including  your questions and not to mentiion other subjects) are riddled with false assumptions. I don't have time to correct all those false assumptions, trawling  the internet for supporting evidence from authorities  that you're -hopefully- likely to both understand and respect, only to be knocked back by some other notion  of yours that took you all of two seconds to formulate(even in the highly unlikely event that I suceed in the former) . Nobody has that much time and patience, Al.

Like the rest of us, you obviously make ongoing  efforts to educate yourself, but it very much looks to me as if your efforts are nigh-on exclusively focussed on shoring up your preconceptions, not in expanding or questioning  the same. and so your POV on any damned thing is enormously resistant to change.

My Dad was just like that, TBH. He was fun to argue with... up to a point.    But then. thinking back, I was the only person who ever found it fun to argue with him. Everybody else would run for cover on account of his short fuse.  (he could bark better than a Rottweiller, though i never, ever knew him to bite)

But, anyway *sigh* you r description of  the abject conditions of the working class is a prime example . You consider that represents  traditional labour division ? No,  those conditions as described by yourself came about because of the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism; and before that, we (in the West , and some other plasces such as Japan) had Feudalism ,(which also had a negative impact on the lower classes' lives, and served to reinforce gender sterotypes, in a similar but, in many ways, different fashion. ) And you're forgetting (if you ever learned it) that prior to modern legislation , there was nothing to prevent women from also working long hours in the factories, along with their children . Yes, they might well have ben worn out from producing those children, but that ddn't prevent  them being exploited as cheap labour  along with the children . That was great for the Economy, because it not only drove down wages, it made a lot of the men redundant, and liberated them for use as cannon fodder.

So you see ,  your picture of the 'traditional family' survuiving the best way they can was actually idealised? it was worse than that. though i'll certainly agree that the model where the man goes to work and the woman stays at home represents an improvement over what came before m a relatively good adaptabion to prevailing conditions . But it isn't traditional. Prior to mechanisation, the separation of family life and worklife  was unusual , not the norm. A weaver, for example, would have his/ her  her handloom loom at home  in the loft.  And whole families would pitch in with farm labouring at harvest time....but I'm speaking of  Britain.  The rest of the World had a whole variety of social traditions, some of which put most or even all the work (such as huntiing, gathering and farming) onto the women 

 How did women cope with bearing children and doing so much work? well ypu forget that traditional societies, all over the world, were generally  based around extended families. and that tge women within those families were free to divide work between them as they fit, according to the needs of the moment, not according to some contract of employment. I'm not saying those cultures weren't  sexist , of course, just that they worked rather better than the modern idea of the nuclear family does.

Of course, all the other traditional cultures in the world have been thoroughly screwed over, one way or another,  by europeans and Modern western culture, to the point that most of the people are disp[placed and we only see a shadow of what they used to be; and we're apt to look at all that through a lens of modern Western assumptions and blame all  failings on  their "undeveloped" state; but enough survived into modern times to easily give the lie to many of your assumptions re.  tradition Al.

If you want to know more about Ancient Egypt you can look it up FFS.  We're not talking about an "obscure society" but something that fascinates much of the world, and is the subject of much ongoing research. We;re always tuning up new surprises there, eg, it turns out that  the first labour strike in known history was by Egyptian tomb builders in 1159 BCE (https://www.ancient.eu/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/). as is common knowledge by now, for anyone who takes a bit of  interest.  They were remarkably similar to us.

Well, well, that's a lot more explanation that i intended to indulge in.  Must try harder to curb this penchant for futilty of mine.  I'm a slow writer (unlike yourself) and could have read half a good book, or watched 2-3 interesting documentaries  in the tiime it took me write this.   What a waste eh? 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 12:47:32 PM by Walkie »

Offline Minister Of Silly Walks

  • Elder
  • Dedicated Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Karma: 421
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #136 on: June 30, 2019, 01:26:34 PM »
Not at all wasted from my perspective Walkie. Bloody excellent actually. I'm not actually expecting Al to burn his bra and take up feminism, but you gave it a bloody good crack.
“When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression.” Frederick Douglass

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #137 on: June 30, 2019, 01:37:48 PM »
It's entirely possible to be both a spazz and an idiot.

As proven by Al.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #138 on: June 30, 2019, 02:38:29 PM »
In addition to all this, pay gap. The average that men and women earn in fulltime wages is different. Is this because of A) women and men in general choice to make different work and lifestyle choices or B) Patriarchy. Also is equality of opportunity the same as equality of outcome?
Option A could be a decent argument if all the studies in pay gaps were huge generalizations about the lifetime incomes of all women vs all men. However there have been studies of first year graduate starting incomes which focus on specific fields of work, specific degrees, specific prestige levels of schools, and still show notable income gaps for women and non-whites.

Offline sg1008

  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 5787
  • Karma: 417
  • This chicken is Insured.
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #139 on: June 30, 2019, 02:47:21 PM »
In addition to all this, pay gap. The average that men and women earn in fulltime wages is different. Is this because of A) women and men in general choice to make different work and lifestyle choices or B) Patriarchy. Also is equality of opportunity the same as equality of outcome?
Option A could be a decent argument if all the studies in pay gaps were huge generalizations about the lifetime incomes of all women vs all men. However there have been studies of first year graduate starting incomes which focus on specific fields of work, specific degrees, specific prestige levels of schools, and still show notable income gaps for women and non-whites.

I could almost plus you.
 :)
Can't you guys even just imagine it?

Forget practicality, or your experience....can you just....imagine?

It's there. It always was.

Offline sg1008

  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 5787
  • Karma: 417
  • This chicken is Insured.
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #140 on: June 30, 2019, 03:26:06 PM »
Al, You seem to think (correct me if i am wrong) that feminism functions as one political party or cult with set of narrow descriptions, memberships, and goals....or some such thing. Its more than that. Its incredibly broad, and can look very different depending on who you talk to.

From what I was taught, and indeed believe, feminism is made up of those who are for the liberation of female bodies and identities from a lower or unequal position (in the family, in schools, in politics, at work, etc), to the dignified status of a full human being. It is *also* about men and ensuring their freedom and right to cross society's gender barriers as well. Feminism is about human dignity. Given this loose definition there is a lot of variation in the ways that feminism manifests in different cultures, in different time periods, and in different people- some of whom may argue with one another.

Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist. Do you fit this description? I would imagine that you value these things.

This is how I was taught at University to think about feminism. I remember my English teacher going on this rant about feminism and how when she was young, every woman would raise their hand about being a feminist, but that it had changed over the decades and now ne'er more than a few hands go up (when asked who is a feminist). I know my grandmas on both sides were very proud of the right to vote and they took it effing seriously. They both were of the "use it or lose it" philosophy. And both grandmas valued their ability to be independent where they needed to as well. Both became matriarchs of the family. One became a teacher- and on the side did tons of volunteering; the other worked for a wealthy family, and on the side was a community organiser. Both took care of their communities and families, and were very serious about maintaining the rights and dignity that they knew their mothers did not have until later.

So you see, when you posture yourself as against this kind of feminism, it blows my mind.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 03:27:55 PM by sg1008 »
Can't you guys even just imagine it?

Forget practicality, or your experience....can you just....imagine?

It's there. It always was.

Offline Al Swearegen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
  • Karma: 2240
  • Always front on and in your face
Re: Does the president have too much power?
« Reply #141 on: June 30, 2019, 05:16:21 PM »
Al, You seem to think (correct me if i am wrong) that feminism functions as one political party or cult with set of narrow descriptions, memberships, and goals....or some such thing. Its more than that. Its incredibly broad, and can look very different depending on who you talk to.

From what I was taught, and indeed believe, feminism is made up of those who are for the liberation of female bodies and identities from a lower or unequal position (in the family, in schools, in politics, at work, etc), to the dignified status of a full human being. It is *also* about men and ensuring their freedom and right to cross society's gender barriers as well. Feminism is about human dignity. Given this loose definition there is a lot of variation in the ways that feminism manifests in different cultures, in different time periods, and in different people- some of whom may argue with one another.

Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist. Do you fit this description? I would imagine that you value these things.

This is how I was taught at University to think about feminism. I remember my English teacher going on this rant about feminism and how when she was young, every woman would raise their hand about being a feminist, but that it had changed over the decades and now ne'er more than a few hands go up (when asked who is a feminist). I know my grandmas on both sides were very proud of the right to vote and they took it effing seriously. They both were of the "use it or lose it" philosophy. And both grandmas valued their ability to be independent where they needed to as well. Both became matriarchs of the family. One became a teacher- and on the side did tons of volunteering; the other worked for a wealthy family, and on the side was a community organiser. Both took care of their communities and families, and were very serious about maintaining the rights and dignity that they knew their mothers did not have until later.

So you see, when you posture yourself as against this kind of feminism, it blows my mind.

It is convention that Feminism of old was both necessary and necessarily good. Rarely is it questioned and whenever it is, it is consider a an affront. You are perceived as ignorant at best (and in need of re-education) or bigoted at worst.

It was not the case, at least in absolutes. Did Feminism have its place in history in the march towards equity and freedom in society, yes but the were ONLY one factor of many. Was Feminism of old a thing of wonder and wholesomeness and splendor? No, there were and are some good aspect but many bad.

When I look at it in its totality. I think it is far worse than good and its later versions as it tries to feed itself has become a trainwreck and shadow of its former self. It has encourages it worst aspects as society relatively quickly (in a couple of generations) adopted equality across the board (it was already moving in that direction and was now primed for those changes because of factors NOT called Feminism) and the movement was unable to say, "Okay we have equality" (Hint: They never will)

Feminism from the start played into an anti-male narrative. There was no that by positioning men as the oppressors and as part of a conspiracy globally called Patriarchy, that they could be a stronger activist force than if they simply say

"Hey everyone, listen up, can you hear me up the back? Good. We now have come to a glorious place in society where women do not fear their children are going to die of smallpox, typhus, yellow fever, cholera and various ills. Women do not have to wonder if they will make it out of the birthing suite alive. We can now control how many children we have and  plan for a family. There is pension for our men and superannuation too. Our men no longer have to rely on charity and family to look after them in old age and likewise we do not need to have enough children to allow we will be looked after. Men have had the burden of responsibility for making sure the family is provided for and have had all the rights that go with that. It is time to share that load. Society is ready for it. Equal work, equal pay and equal rights. THIS is what we need in society. Let's get that and have freedom for everyone"

Might have been nice.

But it is not quite as sexy as saying "men are oppressors of women. The men in your life are conspiring to keep you down. You are the property of your husband. You are his slave. They are hording rights. Blah, blah. blah, blah, blah. blah."

See from its very outset it was not all good.

Once the rights became equal what did Feminism do? It "humbly" accepted all responsibility for the change, wanted to rewrite the narrative of history whereby your male ancestors were all arseholes that kept women as metaphorical hostages and masters of these women slaves by virtue of a societal contract. Piece of shit move but that is Feminism. The later incantations just got worse.

So no. Feminism that people hark to even as a "It was good initially but then..." never existed either. Saying at least the Feminism back then was not ALL bad is much fairer.

Now there are plenty of people who say "But I am a Feminist and I don't believe x, y or z". Fine. No point was made. If you consider yourself a Feminist and you believe solely in the precept that you think men and Women should have equality of rights and equality of choice" then that sounds wonderful but what makes you different in belief from an egalitarian or a humanist? I am thinking nothing at all. Chances are you are not a Feminist but like to adopt that descriptor or you believe a lot more than that but you are just being concise.

So I will give you broad as you like. If you support Feminism and what is done in the name of Feminism and the claims it makes and the direction it takes as a result of its most influential members and talking heads then I am directly in against you. You can have whatever watered down ideological expression or version of that and I am likewise going to be against that but not as fiercely.

"Anytime you are standing up for, or applauding the rights of women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds- you are actually a feminist."

Bullshit! for all I stated above. I do not support a narrative based around lies and misrepresentations. I am certainly supportive of humans having having equality and freedoms. But let's test this statement that you knew was a lie before you said it.

If you and I believe that "standing up for, or applauding the rights of all people to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds" makes me and you a Feminist, (hope you do not mind me changing "women" to "all people" because I know Feminists like us *LOL* don't want to be seen as unequal in how the genders are treated) and so we can disregard the tenets around Patriarchy...no, no...be fair you said "standing up for and applauding rights was enough, right.....and we can disregard an equality of outcome if there is equality of choice........come on now you said only standing up and applauding was enough..........we can reject the idea that throughout the ages men were effectively slaves of women as Feminism pushes............."standing up and applauding is enough, you said......in fact we can strip away ALL Feminist theory..........SG You specifically said we could be Feminists simply by  "standing up for, or applauding the rights of all women to be autonomous people, make their own life decisions, vote, and involve themselves in conversations about their bodies and minds", don't backtrack on me now.

See how disingenuous that exercise was in trying to pretend that when I quite clearly object to Feminism I am deluding myself in being a Feminist. How dishonest were you trying to be when you did that SG?

When you posture yourself as a Feminist it does not blow my mind. It is taught heavily in Universities. You have been indoctrinated.
I2 today is not i2 of yesteryear. It is a knitting circle. Those that participate be they nice or asshats know their place and the price to be there. Odeon is the overlord

.Benevolent if you toe the line.

Think it is I2 of old? Even Odeon is not so delusional as to think otherwise. He may on occasionally pretend otherwise but his base is that knitting circle.

Censoring/banning/restricting/moderating myself, Calanadale & Scrapheap were all not his finest moments.

How to apologise to Scrap