Is the empowerment of women ALWAYS....ok...almost always...:) for the betterment of society?
....You can guess
My answer Is....YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you think?
For the purpose of this discussion: We must first define the empowerment of women. Please see this video. Women have only recently with the invention of modern medicine been able to control their reproductive health and choice. They have become much more equal in the workforce. They have been allowed to raise their children with infrastructure in place to aid them financially and emotionally. They have been given many rights that in previous generations were defaulted to the man, such as the right to vote, the right to join the armed forced and even the right to say no to sex and be heard. These rights have not come over night. But we now have them and many take them for granted. Myself included maybe. But the empowerment of women is more than just giving them rights. It's being able and willing as a society to recognize their humanity and honor it as just as important as a man's humanity. This means that special considerations must be made due to the nature of women as the child bearers and mothers. It doesn't mean special treatment or putting women above men, it means elevating them to a place where they can make the most of their lives and the lives of their children, and the society they live in. It means allowing them to use their unique skills and influence to counteract the sometimes male-dominated attitudes that prevail in public life, and it means that women MUST be respected for the natural born abilities they can bring to others, but even more so their ability to be authentically themselves without societal pressure to conform to old ways of thinking and living. It is the only way our species will survive and has survived. Women have sought empowerment and have won in many ways, but in my opinion and the point of this discussion is to say that there is NEVER a circumstance where the empowerment of women would be detrimental to society, therefore it is ALWAYS for the betterment of society.
She's not empowered, she's a skank
She is exactly what she wants to be... I don't see how that doesn't fit into the definition of empowered.
By Hitchen's definition, she is empowered... she has control of her health, she has no barriers imposed on her because of her gender.
To be fair, I'm not a fan of hers either.
But you're assuming that "empowering" somebody is always empowering them to do something healthy and positive.
What definition would you suggest Belle? It has to be succinct and catchy. What are the results in society of the empowerment of women, in a nutshell? The results in everyday life? Sell it to us. Why should people want it?
treated as second class citizens
Maybe it is different in the US (in which case: fuck the US) but here in Australia, I don't see this. If anything, women have so many "helping hands" that men are somewhat disadvantaged.
if men would step back their own position for a minute
What does this have to do with female empowerment? Why do men need "step back" for women to be more empowered?
what a world we could have
Agreed, if all of world were brought up to current first world standards, we would have a fine world indeed. But here in the first world, I don't see the case for further empowerment of women.
I would like a bullet-point version. I think in bullet-points. I know it can be a failing. Really it's a sign of a weak brain.
She's actually the result of the direct opposite of empowering women. Your point is moot.
So empowering women can only have positive outcomes?
The definition of "empowering" is
- Give (someone) the authority or power to do something
- Enable (someone) to do something.
By those two definitions alone you can say Kim K is an empowered woman as she has lifted herself to a social hierarchy that most other women cannot attain. Just because the reaction did not the produce the verifiable outcome that you attained for, doesn't mean that the reaction did not happen. Empowerment doesn't mean it will produce a viable positive outcome to every situation.
How so? Adam and I have explained why Kim K fits the description of empowered, in our view at least. All you have offered in rebuttal is "Nope, your point is invalid!".
No need to be ugly. I didn't have time to write a full explanation so I thought I'd put my 2 cents in with the time I had.
I say she is the opposite of empowerment, in my opinion, because she is the "idealised woman". All she is is a walking sex object. That is what women are summed up to in today's society. If you are not good looking, you are worthless. This is not empowerment. It is a limit placed on our gender, a way to dictate who and who should not have power. They would rather give 'power' to stupid brainless women who like being seen as objects, instead of women who actually have something to offer to society.
This is my own opinion. You may not agree but this is why I say Adam's point is moot. KK is not an empowered woman. She is merely a pawn in the power play between men and woman. She shows other women that in order to gain 'power' they need to be like her, ie useless to our society.
Ironically, her 'power' actually gives men more power over women. Dictating how women should act and look is an old world way of thinking. KK is following old world thinking and becoming what men think women should act and look like.
@Teri G - I can see your point, that she comes across like some kind of rich Barbie Doll. But surely what she really is, is fantasy-fodder. Many women dream of living like her, and I can't imagine that straight men watch her shows. There's a huge market for that kind of escapist TV.
That's true, but the reason she is famous in the first place is because of her modeling and only afterwards came the TV shows. Once she was already famous young girls think they want to be like her so they watch her shows and learn how to become a stupid. If there was no modeling, there would be no shows.