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.
My opinion is that the women who want to be seen as sex objects are not empowered. They are just playing pretend.
That is subjective. If a woman's empowerment leads them to be seen as a sex object, it still does not nullify her as an empowering woman.
You maybe more inclined to think lets say a woman with a PhD who has won the Nobel prize in science is the definition and embodiment of a woman who is empowered, especially by her intellectual. However it does not change the fact the she is equally empowered as a woman who has earned her fame through her beauty and sex appeal.
Which goes back to my original point before the author of the thread edited her post, empowerment of women can have positive or negative outcomes which shows that is not "ALWAYS" for the betterment of society.
I do agree that it isn't ALWAYS for the betterment of society. I also know that my view is subjective, that is why I added "My opinion".
I know you said its "your opinion" hence why I said its subjective because as you can see my original point was never moot as you proclaimed it to be.
So you still feel that KK is 'empowered'?
I am not a fan of her, and I am really not fond of her based on her actions but in terms of the literal definition of empowerment, I would have to say that she is empowered.
Its kinda like you know if you believe in free speech for all, then you should believe in right of free speech of the Ku Klux Klan too. You don't have to agree with them and as a society you can shun them down but you have to still acknowledge the fact they still have same the freedom of speech to spew their hatred and racism as you have freedom of speech to tell them they are racists.
Kinda like that.
When you put it like that it makes a lot more sense. I find it a very twisted kind of empowerment, I suppose that's why I reject it from my perspective.
That's understandable. Kim K is really not the type of woman, any decent woman would want to be empowered. I agree with you in that.
Teri, I will amend slightly your opinion:
My opinion is that the women who, 100% of the time, want to be seen as sex objects are not empowered.
Now I agree.
I will now amend it further and say I agree further:
My opinion is that the men who, 100% of the time, want to be seen as provider objects are not empowered.
About thirty years ago, after I'd heard a few times of women not wanting to be seen as sex objects, I realized that I had been socialized to see myself as a different kind of object.
I'm glad things are changing, and without women (a majority long treated as a minority) and other minorities demanding change, we would all be stuck where conservatives want to remain stuck.
My opinion is that the women who want to be seen as sex objects are not empowered.
I'm confused by this... I thought empowerment was to give more power. There is power in being a sex object. For the women who want to be sex objects, how is it not empowering to do what they want?
I'm also curious about your feelings toward pornography, "exotic" dancing, and prositution? I find the people in those professions to be quite empowered, when they enjoy what they do and do it by choice.
Of course women are expected to do their work, I didn't say that they weren't.
If you are not good looking, you are worthless.
If women's only worth is their looks, why would they be paid to do their work? If they are here solely for their looks, they may as well stand around and look good. Maybe I'm reading too far into your statements here?
big generalisation... Of course it's not going to work in the smaller situations
I thought the point of a generalisation was that it worked in the majority of cases?
Is the empowerment of women ALWAYS for the betterment of society?
Be careful, absolutism is a behavior of theists. Other than certain mathematical and scientific proofs and laws, absolute ideas do not work as there is always an exception to the rule.
So no empowerment of women is not always for the betterment of society as I have shown you an example using someone like Kim K.
I believe there are instances where verbs have absolute values.
But this is not one of them at all.
You can say that if one jumps out of the Empire State Building in NYC (102 floors) without a parachute, one will ALWAYS die on impact.
Here is why absolutism doesn't work
"“He jumped from the 86th floor and landed on a catwalk just below it, between the 86th and 85th floors,” Nell said.
Guy jumps from the 86th floors and hits the catwalk between two floors and still survives