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.

Views: 1494

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

But this is not one of them at all.

For example

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


Jumping out the window is an action. The man surving the action is an event which shows that

one will ALWAYS die on impact.

Is not, in fact, true. This example was used to point out that Adam does not think that

Is the empowerment of women ALWAYS for the betterment of society?

Is true. i.e. there is at least one time when empowering women is does not better society.

Are there any downsides?  Perhaps it depends what we mean by that.  We have to remember that empowerment of women usually happens along with other permissive improvements in society, and with some upheaval.  It's hard really to say for certain whether things are better or worse afterwards: some people think it's worse.  We obviously think it's better. 

What are the consequences of the empowerment of women?  Leaving out the judgements of better or worse, right or wrong.  What actually happens as a result?  We're still living out the experiment as we're only maybe 50 years into feminism.  On the other hand, women have always been empowered to some extent; it's a matter of degrees, and time and place. 

We would expect that if 50% of society becomes more empowered, then society as a whole will be much happier. 

ONE societal practice, norm, law, behavior, belief system, policy, expectation, etc that (A) empowers women but does NOT (B) work towards the betterment of society

Family law courts are biased towards favouring women.

Women aren't drafted into mandatory US military service (i.e. don't even have to register as draftable).

In a fairly equal society, like ours, further empowering women would result in breaking the equality... It's the equality that has historically delivered benefits from female empowerment, not female empowerment in and of itself.

I am not familiar with Kim Kardashian, I had to look her up. I do not understand why she would have less of a right to what she does as some male showbizz people, who seem to be - from my admittedly limited expertise on the subject - bigger hoes and a lot skankier than her?

Why aren't these male examples not generalized as she is for all empowered males? In other words what's actually Adam's point?

She may or may not be whatever, but she does seem to be in control of her life. 

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

My contradiction sense is tingling...

it means elevating them to a place where they can make the most of their lives and the lives of their children

But let's not try to do the same with men?

I thought you were going to give us a solid definition of empowerment? By Hitchens' definition, women in the first world are already empowered... how does it better society to empower them further?

Here's what wikipedia says on the matter:

Empowerment refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social, educational, gender, or economic strength of individuals and communities.

I think overall it boils down to increasing the power of an individual or group.

Maternity leave: The maternity leave laws in the US are a fucking joke.

What purpose does maternity leave serve? 6 weeks is long enough to recover from the physical stress of birth but it is hardly long enough to properly bond with the child. I think we can both agree the US maternity laws are a joke.

Let's say we make maternity leave 12 months. Why shouldn't men also be given that time to bond with their children? What about a gay couple adopting a child? shouldn't they also be given serious time off work to appropriately bond with their new child?

You are deviating from the topic here in trying to make a case of equality where the argument doesn't require it.

True, my argument is that equality is more important than empowering women. Equal first, then empower everyone.

The question is: Is the empowerment of women ALWAYS for the betterment of society?

Yes, and I am still waiting for you substantiate your claim that the answer is yes.

the only way to refute an absolute claim

It doesn't need to be refuted, you still need to prove it!

Women have been held down by men the majority of our existence

Which is irrelevant for this discussion because women have already been empowered out of that situation in modern society.

6 weeks is not enough maternity leave.

6 weeks is more than enough for a complication-free birth, or with minor complications but physically easy job such as administration. 6 weeks is definitely not long enough to appropriately bond with the baby, and in cases like yourself, is not long enough to recover from alot of complications.

I am 3 years post partum and still battling ailments from childbirth.

That's a long time to still be recovering. Are you suggesting 3+ years is an appropriate length for maternity leave? Who should pay for this leave? What about the child's father, why isn't he able to take some similar length of leave to bond with the baby.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service