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?

Why?

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.

Views: 1341

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I really think that people are put upon by society.  Men and women together provide the next generation.  Women are not expected to do it at their own expense, that is what child support is.  Men are expected to do it for no reward, not even the love of the children over whom they are highly unlikely to win custody.

I like the idea of people being trained to be better parents, but on whom do you think that expense should rest?  I think it probably ought to be the people responsible when feasible.  I know a lot of people do get paid to raise children.  Examples include nannies, or childcare specialists, or even teachers.  The literal labor part doesn't seem like the resource intensive portion of turning a fertilized egg into the member of society we need.

Men and women together provide the next generation. Women are not expected to do it at their own expense, that is what child support is. Men are expected to do it for no reward, not even the love of the children over whom they are highly unlikely to win custody.

Well, If you do a quick google, you will find that women do 70 to 80 percent of housework and more than 50 percent of child rearing duties. They are on the average expected to also work to pay expenses. The expemse should rest on the whole of society, paid for with taxes. If women were so empowered, we would have a much better society, less abortions and less divorces. Paying women for the labour involved in producing the next generation would remove most of the pressures from relationships. It is only fair that society accepts it's responsibility for the next generation.

I don't think anyone has yet added this. It very much makes your case that empowering women is making change throughout the world right now, by means that you would not expect.

Thanks for posting! I enjoyed watching that.

I know the feeling, Belle - people couldn't understand why I lived in Mexico, I couldn't understand why they didn't.

I worked in San Diego and drove home to a villa on the sea, west of Tijuana - there were seven hills between the western city limits, and my sleepy little town, and as I drove those twelve or so miles, I could just feel the tension lifting off my  shoulders, and when I topped that final hill, and saw the whole Pacific ocean spread out before me, I knew that I was home.

It was, I was happier there than I've ever been since.

(BTW - hope your ears aren't burning: http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/why-do-atheists-ask-for-so...)

RE: "'stas loco Arch" - Siempre

Que lastima, para ti --

You (plural) got two of my houses, three of my cars, and my old coon dog, and you still want more power?!

And no - you're not getting THOSE! They're all I have left!

This is a double edged sword so to speak.  As a woman, I may have more rights than I would have had 100 years ago, but I with those rights, I also have more responsibilities. 

Women today are still responsible for the majority of childcare, the majority of housework, the majority of the shopping and running of the household--just as they were 100 years ago. This has not changed much at all.  However, today, most women are also responsible for "bringing home some, if not all of the bacon." 

Women, as child bearers, are different than men.  But other so-called abilities should not be considered innate, such as caring for children, passivity, emotion, etc.  Both women and men exhibit these behaviors, and the view that one or the other is primarily associated with one sex or another is primarily due to social conditioning. 

RE: "Women today are still responsible for the majority of childcare, the majority of housework, the majority of the shopping and running of the household--just as they were 100 years ago."

Division of labor has been a successful business model since the Industrial Age began, and as it's time-saving in an age when no one has a lot of free time, I see nothing wrong with it. But as for how the labor is divided, that should be up to the couple, based on their own preferences, rather than on "traditional roles."

I raised four children by myself for eight years, and have played all of the roles, including Chief Diaper-Changer. When I first started, my kiddos, playing anywhere in the neighborhood, knew when dinner was ready, they listened for the smoke alarm to go off. But I've since learned to cook and have become rather good at it, but if I'm going to cook, I want to buy the groceries for the meal, as I have certain preferences when it comes to the kind and quality of the fruits, vegetables and cuts of meat I use, but that's my preference. I would bet, though I'm a guy, that there are women who wouldn't want come guy without a clue picking up groceries for the meals they make either, so to me, shopping and cooking go hand in hand. To others, that may not be the case.

All I'm saying, is that it's got to be done, and dividing the labor is the most efficient way of doing it, but tradition should be thrown out the window when it comes to who does what. Sometimes shopping together can be fun and romantic, but not with a gaggle of children in tow. Cooking together might be fun for some, but when I'm cooking, get out of my kitchen - even if it's your house, it's my kitchen til the meal is ready - go grab a glass of vino, kick your shoes off, do anything but kibbutz while I'm cooking. "Don't you think that's a little too much salt?" "OUT!"

Not all labor can be divided, try as I may, I can't lactate.

"Women are works of art, men are monsters."
The world has always been dominated by men. That's one reason our species has survived and evolved. Human DNA designated the male of the species to be the biggest and strongest, not only so they could hunt Mammoth and protect the village, but also so they could physically overpower the females and...well, so the DNA strand would be sure to continue. That IS the genetic directive for the male, to spread the seed and perpetuate the species. The genetic directive for the female is to receive the males seed, be the 'vessel', and eventually the child-bearer of the species. That's the way our roles have been set up forever, so to speak.
However, as our DNA directed our bodies to adapt through evolution, it also directed our brains to evolve and adapt. Our DNA sensed (for the lack of a better word) that the better we were able to think, the more likely we were to survive. So our minds kept evolving, and over time it became a cycle; the more we thought, the better we thought, which meant we could think more, and so on and so on.

And now here we are in the 21st Century. Our minds have evolved to a level that we can leave the Earth in spaceships, build flat-screen TVs, squeeze cheese out of a can, and actually mess with our own DNA. Our mental abilities have far-outpaced our 'cave-man-like' genetic directives. That's why as intelligent as we've become, we're still just as violent as cavemen ever were.
Sure, we can put on a good show of being civilized and act peaceful, but when we're threatened physically or even emotionally, our first response is usually to get violent; 'fight or flight'. We think like modern men, but we still act like we live in caves.
The other thing that didn't evolve as fast as our minds and imaginations, was our libido. This IMO, is the major problem we've been dealing with for centuries, and we're still dealing with it today. Men are still unable to control themselves, just like their ancestors. Early man was not meant to control himself, he was meant to procreate. Men today, just as then, no matter what society on the planet they come from, can't keep from raping the women around them. It's not just a psychological problem, it's partly a genetic-drive problem. Of course our DNA doesn't see it as a problem at all. We only see it as a problem because we've evolved to be more intelligent and calm than our ancestors.

I'd personally love it if men would just give the reigns of this whole planet over to the women.
Yeah, I said it!
Please, it doesn't take a MIT grad to recognize that all the wars, all the starving, all the senseless deaths from preventable and treatable diseases that happen everyday, are all a result of male idiots being in charge. And I don't know for sure, but I'd venture to say that all the religions in the world were probably started by men too. That alone is reason enough for the guys to take a seat on the bench, and let the girls have a shot at it.
I am all for the empowerment of women, men have been in 'power' for far too long.

RSS

Forum

Genesis 3 - Quality Propaganda

Started by Aiken Drums Sister in Politics 52 minutes ago. 0 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 56 minutes ago. 43 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Aiken Drums Sister 1 hour ago. 17 Replies

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service