The Forum > General Discussion > What has the sexual revolution ever done for women
What has the sexual revolution ever done for women
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 26
- 27
- 28
-
- All
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 9:20:38 PM
| |
Why daughters ?Because as i said initially i don't think the sexual revolution has really done anything for women in particular . Let me add that many of my generation talked about freedom without cost, but now the kids try to live it, they bear the consequences!
The russian rebels didn't take as long as Australia will to give up on the idea of free love . Let's not be dumb about this , some young girls are smart enough to recognize that hanging around the streets and trying it all on is not for them. These girls see their parents as woosy in letting them chose without being clear about the consequences ( hence my question ) , Many children see my generation ( over 50's) as woosy in just that same way as I see Lindsay Tanners public declaration of his own his daughters opinion as weak willed and woosy .( Can't express a moral opinion now can we ?) These girls are not religious ( yet ) but who would blame them if they chose a birka instead of a ' you do what you like badge " for everything ..Maybe we don't know our children as well as we think because many modern women are not happy with the lifestyle that silly reactionaries like Greer and Mead gave licence to. You know the story girls , if the men won't speak up , you should! Posted by Hanrahan, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 9:57:18 PM
| |
Hanrahan
Maybe this article by Bel Mooney published today in Mail Online expresses what you are trying to say: Title: "My generation created the sexual revolution - and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232485/My-generation-created-sexual-revolution--wrecking-lives-women-since.html Bel Mooney (1946-) is part of your generation and was around to witness the changes. I think she does make some very telling points but what do you think of the article? Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 11:28:41 PM
| |
Cornflower, the article you put forward is indeed quite interesting and despite considering myself a (small l) liberal, I agree with the general thrust of the piece.
However I didn't see any arguments in favour of government intervention. That's quite a key point in my view. In my view, the sexual revolution was about more than just having free, more open sex. There was the pill, which allowed for choice regarding pregnancy. To my mind, this was unquestionably a positive thing for women's rights, and women in general. The attitude that women needed to have sex to be accepted however, was of course I downside. I don't condone it in the least. Offering women greater choice and autonomy however, was unquestionably a good thing. The tragedy is that some women didn't feel they had the choice to say no. Both the choice to say yes and no needs to be a free decision. That was the ideal of the sexual revolution. It wasn't necessarily the reality, but consider the alternative - Would it really be better for women to be unable to choose to have liaisons as a man does? There is already unreasonable stigma (labelling women as sluts and so on) attached to it. It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism. So would we really want this codified in laws? Similarly, with prostitution and pornography - I frequently hear people arguing to ban both, however again this comes back to choice. Banning the oldest profession would force it underground and ultimately make it more dangerous, similar arguments can be made for pornography. Consenting adults make their own choices. That needs to be a guiding principle (of course, with caveats, hence 'guiding') in society. The real question to ask, is what would be the alternative to the sexual revolution? Pray tell, what is being proposed? All I hear is that parents really talk with their daughters and make them aware of the world out there. Now that, I wholeheartedly endorse. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:05:47 AM
| |
TRTL:"It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism."
Why? Men and women are different. There are many aspects of our culture that have evolved out of that particular fact. For example, if I criticise or ridicule a woman on here, no matter how extreme her post, I'm called "antiwomen", yet if a woman does the same to a man she's called "strong" and the "white knights" all clap approvingly. Is that fair? We've just had a law passed here in Qld that says a woman need not leave a violent relationship, but can choose to kill her partner and she will not be held accountable. Is that fair? There are insurers who offer young women better rates than young men. Is that fair? Once a woman has exercised her right to sexual self-determination and falls pregnant, she can choose not to tell the father and can simply refuse to disclose who it was, thus depriving him of ever knowing his child. Is that fair? If a woman commits the same crime as a man she will be held to much less account by the Courts. Is that fair? Some seem to think that only women are capable of being the subject of unfairness. TRTL:"The real question to ask, is what would be the alternative to the sexual revolution? Pray tell, what is being proposed?" That's like asking how to unscramble an egg. The fact is that it has occurred and the consequences are still being felt. One of the consequences has been the breakdown of the family unit, to the detriment of the last couple of generations of children. Eventually, I suspect, our culture will come to terms with the possibilities, both positice and negative, offered by the sexual revolution. Like any revolution, it will be a great thing to look back at. Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 6:16:20 AM
| |
Turnrightthenleft
"Would it really be better for women to be unable to choose to have liaisons as a man does? There is already unreasonable stigma (labelling women as sluts and so on) attached to it. It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism." Much as I tire of repeating myself, garbage like that cannot go unchallenged. Men are under substantial pressure not to sleep around. It takes many forms, from complimenting men for staying with one woman to this vicious way that women are expected to treat men after a relationship ends. You would have participated in this at some time. Similarly women's choices are influenced by a number of factors. As Bel Mooney argued in the article that Cornflower found, "it's absurd to suggest that we exist in isolation, that we are not shaped by the culture we inhabit." It is only proper that these influences be discussed. Posted by benk, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 7:58:49 AM
|
Families are now worse off even with two incomes because mortages are enormous with taxes ,child care and the extra costs of a subsequent dysfunctional society.