Robert,

How can a society evolve quickly to bring about equal rights for men and women, when it's always been the men who have all the power ? Partly, at least, by supporting policies and processes which especially boost the opportunities and position of women, from a very low base, eventually to something like 'equality'.

Ergo, 'especially for women'.

Will that cause all sorts of social upheaval ? Bloody oath, I certainly hope so.

Joe

Joe, I recommend you read this. It's by Stephen Buckle, who is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at ACU.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/6/the-blind-spot-in-feminist-political-theory

It's very relevant and pretty much exactly what I've been saying about the way eusocial drives have been distorted. He doesn't use that term, he refers to protection and the way it shapes societies. Have a good look at the bit about how the geography affects the social structures.

I'm fed up with the silly arguments and attempts to pigeonhole, Joe. This post is my last on this subject unless something new comes up.

Joe I think on the Afganistan discussion I'm agreeing with both you and Antiseptic. Thats the quandry.

I don't know how we can bring about changes that don't do more harm than good in those places. I don't think force will do it.

In regard to our own culture where so called progressives seem to tack on the especially women bit a lot your thread on evidence based history reminded me of a lot if what I've found as I've looked at concepts of privilige and power in our culture. There is some evidence there for a particular version of the narative but you have to ignore a lot of other evidence for it to stack up.

R0bert

R0bert, you're agreeing with antiseptic. Joe is bravely prepared to sacrifice as many Afghan women as it takes to make him feel good and feeling good apparently means all the afghan men have to die horrible deaths.

My point is simple: the Afghans are a society, not a slave plantation, which some of the simpler minds here seem to want to imagine. In order for that society to become more liberal, it must become wealthier and encouraged to allow mixing with other cultures rather than following the path that the Saudis have, which is largely due to the domination of the bin Sauds that was fostered by the West (Britain) to make it easier to negotiate over oil and territorial issues.

Over time that will lead to them, of their own free will, coming to a less strict gender-role segregation, but it will probably never lead to the stupid Western gender warrior model which has caused so much trouble for everyone in our country and elsewhere.

The phrase "happy wife - happy life" implies a bi-directional give and take in the relationship that is not there in the feminist model and is certainly not there in the moron child's version of progressivism that Joe gave us earlier.

Antiseptic, I might be missing part of the picture on this. As a bystander I've wondered how far apart you and Joe really are on the issue.

Joe is someone who I've seen enough good stuff from that I'd not lightly dismiss his views. Might not always agree but his views generally seemed to be based on formed opinions and a willinness to think through consequences rather than dogma. Likewise for yourself.

I don't think the west can successfully force beneficial change on their culture but I also don't want that to be an excuse to not find a way of finding help for that mess.

R0bert

R0bert, I used to hold a similar view of Joe, but on this and a few other issues he's simply not thinking.

Any social change in any society has to be driven from within. If it isn't, then no amount of external pressure will make it happen short of complete destruction of the existing society.

If external influences are to have any positive effect it has to be by providing leadership and engaging with the current social structures constructively. Unlike in the West, where we have had a long period of freedom from want, allowing us to indulge in all sorts of feel-good inessentials, the Afghans have always been under threat and have had little time or effort to spare for indulgence.

Make them prosperous and show them they are not in that position and they will change their social arrangement. That was the point of the Buckle article I linked to.