Question for Americans on the Left

[Thanda]

Definitely not by me. You're equating existence with necessity. What's your evidence that such arrangements cannot change?

I do not need to provide such evidence because I did not ever claim such a thing. But to answer your question on necessity, I'm sure those women would have taken the alternative if it was available don't you think?

And declaring it doesn't make it a fact

But showing you evidence does.

You are strawmanning my position. Again, I am a man. I have an extremely self-interested stake in hardships faced by men. I'm quite interested in alleviating hardships men face. I've now explained to you repeatedly that power dynamics play out on multiple levels. Patriarchy doesn't mean every man has a carefree life and faces no hardship.

Being a man yourself holds no weight in this argument. You are not every man. And I'm quite confident you've never been a miner. Furthermore

You have yet to show that miner life is easier than his wife's life. You have yet to show that he is in a position of advantage over her. Your only evidence is that, since you seem to prize money above health, life and family, he has more money than her.

Your cited study does not demonstrate your claim. I'm aware there's a correlation between unemployment and crime. What we were discussing was the notion that in poor societies we should defer all job opportunities to men before women, because if we don't the unemployed men will be "menaces to society." Not only is a silly exaggerration, it's a myopic and unfair solution to the problem. Uneducated and unemployed women also harm society and keep it from progressing. Societies thrive, as we see all around us right now, when men and women are both given economic opportunity

You clearly did not read the bold section I highlighted in the study properly. It isn't just a correlation that is proved. A causal relationship was proved between youth unemployment and crime (we're both satisfied I'm sure that we don't need to say who the main perpetrators of that crime is).

Of course its not enough to just deny woman any opportunities and leave it at that. There has to be an effort to grow the economy so everyone can be involved. In the US there is 3% unemployment. In SA it's 30%. And youth unemployment is at close to 60%. Predictably South Africa is one of the crime capitals of the world. Young men are recruited into criminal gangs and men and women alike live in fear.

The consequences of large scale Male unemployment are disasters of epic proportions. And women are no safer there even if they manage to get more of the jobs than their male counterparts.

Again I repeat, the reason patriarchal societies were the ones that survived for so long is because they were the most successful under the circumstances. It remains to be seen whether the changes in circumstances will be enough to overthrow that it

Your equivocation continues. My employer does not own me. My boss doesn't have the prerogative to f*ck me and obligate ne to have his children. I can go find another job whenever I want for whatever reason, and it won't ruin my life if I do so, or even if I have many jobs throughout my life. You are rationalizing painfully coercive situations, and it's more than a little disturbing.

Your problem is assuming that getting and keeping a job is as easy everywhere as it is in the US. You have no idea the abuses that people endure to keep their jobs in low employment environments. In fact you might be surprised to learn that it can get so bad that employers can literally f*ck women and force them to have their children.

Oppressed to a degree, but not remotely the same. The differences I just outlined are obvious.

You've outlined no differences other than showing that you value money over all else.

I will continue to point out that societal pressures in freer societies are less than more oppressive ones, because it's completely (and definitionally) obvious.

And I will continue to point out that prosperous societies will always offer more options and opportunities than less prosperous ones. Which is completely obvious

 

[Thanda]

Are you trying to misunderstand me? Men face hardships. How much more simply can I phrase this for you?

I just need to you be as emphatic and passionate in acknowledging men's difficulties as you clearly are in pointing out women's.

It's the only means, for the last, I don't know, few thousands years? Either you pay for it or someone else pays for it for you.

It's not. This again shows your ignorance of circumstances outside of the US. Many peoples in Africa live largely off the land.

And again everyone's goal is to survive. But not everyone has to earn money to survive.

 

[Thanda]

Yes, dependent on him for survival. Which limits her freedom/autonomy. Which is why patriarchy and polygamy are problematic. Which is why the left opposes them. For the 20th time.

Yes. This is the inter dependency of men and women. He depends on her for children.

But as I've noted before you do not care how his dependency on her affects his freedom and autonomy. Because the only thing valuable to you is money. So the fact that he has money makes any other disadvantage irrelevant in your eyes. Even the what making that money costs him does not register on you radar.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. This is the inter dependency of men and women. He depends on her for children.

But as I've noted before you do not care how his dependency on her affects his freedom and autonomy. Because the only thing valuable to you is money. So the fact that he has money makes any other disadvantage irrelevant in your eyes. Even the what making that money costs him does not register on you radar.

You have a very odd, archaic view of men and women. Most civilized people would say that a healthy relationship is an equal partnership, not one where each is chained to each other out of some necessity. Women need men to reproduce, as well. I would hope that they equally agree to have children or not. As for money, it's usually best to have your own because you never know what will happen. In any case, married couples tend to share finances.

 

[Left Coast]

I do not need to provide such evidence because I did not ever claim such a thing. But to answer your question on necessity, I'm sure those women would have taken the alternative if it was available don't you think?

You assume change only happens at the individual level. If you want to claim an entire society's structure is necessary, you need to think at a structural/political/cultural level.

But showing you evidence does.

But you havent shown any.

Being a man yourself holds no weight in this argument. You are not every man. And I'm quite confident you've never been a miner. Furthermore

You have yet to show that miner life is easier than his wife's life. You have yet to show that he is in a position of advantage over her. Your only evidence is that, since you seem to prize money above health, life and family, he has more money than her.

By your own definition, having more money is a key component of freedom. We've been over this. Power dynamics are intersectional. That doesn't mean the man's life is rainbows and butterflies. If he has more economic opportunity than her, greater legal or social status than her, then by definition he's freer. Why must we retread this? It's been explained to you.

You clearly did not read the bold section I highlighted in the study properly. It isn't just a correlation that is proved. A causal relationship was proved between youth unemployment and crime (we're both satisfied I'm sure that we don't need to say who the main perpetrators of that crime is).

The study was about youth unemployment, without reference to gender. And I don't doubt that unemployment causes some increase in crime. Your exaggerated caricature of what happens was what I objected to.

Of course its not enough to just deny woman any opportunities and leave it at that. There has to be an effort to grow the economy so everyone can be involved. In the US there is 3% unemployment. In SA it's 30%. And youth unemployment is at close to 60%. Predictably South Africa is one of the crime capitals of the world. Young men are recruited into criminal gangs and men and women alike live in fear.

The consequences of large scale Male unemployment are disasters of epic proportions. And women are no safer there even if they manage to get more of the jobs than their male counterparts.

None of this demonstrates that we must defer jobs to men to prevent some Mad Max scenario.

Again I repeat, the reason patriarchal societies were the ones that survived for so long is because they were the most successful under the circumstances.

Which circumstances? Might makes right ones. Do you think we should structure societies according to might makes right morality?

It remains to be seen whether the changes in circumstances will be enough to overthrow that it.

We're already seeing it be overthrown.

Your problem is assuming that getting and keeping a job is as easy everywhere as it is in the US.

It was you who made the comparison to freer societies like the US.

You have no idea the abuses that people endure to keep their jobs in low employment environments. In fact you might be surprised to learn that it can get so bad that employers can literally f*ck women and force them to have their children.

No doubt. How does this remotely justify patriarchy?

You've outlined no differences other than showing that you value money over all else.

You simply ignored what I said.

And I will continue to point out that prosperous societies will always offer more options and opportunities than less prosperous ones. Which is completely obvious

Which is true as a function of giving women better opportunities. Again, positive feedback loop.

We're retreading the same ground over and over. You asked why the left has a problem with polygamy. I've now repeatedly explained it to you. We're better off in societies where women are equal and can freely choose their life circumstances to the greatest degree possible. Polygamy is almost never what they would choose given other alternatives. Thus the left's problem with polygamy.

 

[Left Coast]

I just need to you be as emphatic and passionate in acknowledging men's difficulties as you clearly are in pointing out women's.

I want everyone to have as much autonomy as possible, regardless of gender. Many men have many difficulties in life. Fair?

That said, I also oppose patriarchy because it is inherently unjust to women. Both realities are true.

It's not. This again shows your ignorance of circumstances outside of the US. Many peoples in Africa live largely off the land.

Sorry, land obtained how?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. This is the inter dependency of men and women. He depends on her for children.

Children aren't necessary in the way money is. This is obvious.

But as I've noted before you do not care how his dependency on her affects his freedom and autonomy. Because the only thing valuable to you is money. So the fact that he has money makes any other disadvantage irrelevant in your eyes. Even the what making that money costs him does not register on you radar.

You again strawman me. If you recall, it was you who initially objected to my pointing out that inequality is more than socioeconomic. Now you claim that all I care about is socioeconomic inequality. Which is it?

Many workers in the world, including obviously men, are in awful and coercive working conditions. I don't want that. I support efforts to change that.

All that is also completely irrelevant to whether men should have greater social, political, legal, and economic freedom and opportunity than women.

You seem to be almost trying not to grasp what I'm saying. I'm not sure why.

 

[Thanda]

You have a very odd, archaic view of men and women. Most civilized people would say that a healthy relationship is an equal partnership, not one where each is chained to each other out of some necessity. Women need men to reproduce, as well. I would hope that they equally agree to have children or not. As for money, it's usually best to have your own because you never know what will happen. In any case, married couples tend to share finances.

Who made you the authority on civilization?

And the purpose of marriage was always the need men and women have of each other. If they did not need each other there would have been no need for marriage.

And as you say, married couples do share finances, so this obession @Left Coast seems to have for his money and her money is rather disturbing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Who made you the authority on civilization?

And the purpose of marriage was always the need men and women have of each other. If they did not need each other there would have been no need for marriage.

And as you say, married couples do share finances, so this obession @Left Coast seems to have for his money and her money is rather disturbing.

I think most people can agree on what civilized traits are and there's medical and social science to tell us whether something is socially or psychologically advantageous or not.

No, the social purpose of marriage is to provide stability for the sake of children and clear up inheritance and other legal issues.

 

[Thanda]

You assume change only happens at the individual level. If you want to claim an entire society's structure is necessary, you need to think at a structural/political/cultural level.

The most important thing to change is the economy. Change that and the people will figure out a new normal for themselves.

By your own definition, having more money is a key component of freedom. We've been over this. Power dynamics are intersectional. That doesn't mean the man's life is rainbows and butterflies. If he has more economic opportunity than her, greater legal or social status than her, then by definition he's freer. Why must we retread this? It's been explained to you.

Unfortunately we have not established this bold part. We only know he has more economic opportunity. And further you are still avoiding the impact the cost of his having more money.

It's simple really. Bob receives $1000 monthly. Greg receives $2000 monthly. @Left Coast : Greg is more advantaged than Bob. Thanda: Tell me more about how each got the money. Oh, apparently Bob gets sent this money by his rich parents whereas Greg works 12 hours days to make his $2000! Well then Thanda thinks Greg's advantage over Bob is not so clear cut.

The study was about youth unemployment, without reference to gender. And I don't doubt that unemployment causes some increase in crime. Your exaggerated caricature of what happens was what I objected to.

Are you going to pretend to be ignorant about which gender is the major perpatrator of crime (And particularly the crimes mentioned in study)? If you are, then maybe we are waisting each other's time.

None of this demonstrates that we must defer jobs to men to prevent some Mad Max scenario.

I'm not sure where preventing a Mad Max scenario comes from - I never spoke about preventing it.

Usually you do not have to defer any jobs to men in order for them to get them. But in some countries there are policies that ensure jobs are diverted to women. In low employment environments those policies may need to reviewed.

It was you who made the comparison to freer societies like the US.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Which circumstances? Might makes right ones. Do you think we should structure societies according to might makes right morality?

All of nature is structured by might makes right. Even today, might still makes right. Whatever cultural shifts happen in the West, the rest of the world is pressured into following suite. Your country has and still does in recent history bomb a few countries to bring them freedom and democracy.

In fact your hope that patriachal societies will be dismantled rests largely on the might of those who believe it should be.

But beside all this, it is plain that patriarchy didn't just survive by might makes right. It survived because it managed to provide those communities and societies that practiced it with the security, stability, resources and structure they required to survive some very harsh conditions.

No doubt. How does this remotely justify patriarchy?

I was not attempting to justify anything. I was countering your argument that the workplace can't be as bad as what you imagine marriages in which women don't have financial independence are. You'll remember that you accused me of equivocating.

We're retreading the same ground over and over. You asked why the left has a problem with polygamy. I've now repeatedly explained it to you. We're better off in societies where women are equal and can freely choose their life circumstances to the greatest degree possible. Polygamy is almost never what they would choose given other alternatives. Thus the left's problem with polygamy.

We're also better off in societies where women don't have to do sex work to make money - but as far as I know the left has no problem with it. In fact they advocate for its decrimininalisation. So no, your argument makes no sense. America is a free society. Decriminalising polygamy in the US won't bring millions of women under the yoke of evil men. Women will only participate in it if they want to. So you really have no reason to have any problem with it if you want to be consistent in staying out of people sex lives.

 

[Thanda]

I think most people can agree on what civilized traits are and there's medical and social science to tell us whether something is socially or psychologically advantageous or not.

But being chained to each other by necessity is literally the reason societies and, by extension, civilisations exist. So I'm not sure what science you think will show that needing other people is unhealthy or not socially or psychologically advantageous.

No, the social purpose of marriage is to provide stability for the sake of children and clear up inheritance and other legal issues.

Perfectly correct. You have no argument from me. Therefore the question equal partners (which in the left often means both independently making their own money) is rather irrelevant to marriage.

 

[Thanda]

That said, I also oppose patriarchy because it is inherently unjust to women. Both realities are true.

Injustice is evil. We've established that patriarchal societies were the most successful in helping nations survive. Therefore clearly, they were necessary. And what is necessary cannot be evil.

Sorry, land obtained how?

You really are clueless aren't you? I'm sure all you can think of is that the land must have been bought with money. Let me educate you: In many African countries land is inherited. Over and above that in many African societies they do not believe in selling land (including some here in South Africa) and land will often be given little to no compensation. Compensation, just so you know, can be a goat or a sheep.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Polygamy has been illegal in the US for over 100 years. There were some in recent times who predicted that changing laws on gay marriage would inevitably lead to changing laws on polygamy. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-...com/entry/are-polygamy-bans-unconst_b_4454076

Personally I think that the government should not be involved in regulating the actions of consenting adults so long as no one is harmed.

Can I assume you have looked at the lifestyles of the FLDS? There is a series called escaping polygamy;
Escaping Polygamy Full Episodes, Video & More | Lifetime
It destroys many children and family units by the looks of the evidence. I was truly shocked at the level of their distribution , assets, and power. Nothing to giggle about or let fly as freedom of religion. It is abusive for those who do not accept it as divine instructions.

 

[Left Coast]

Unfortunately we have not established this bold part.

If we're talking about a patriarchal society, then literally by definition we have established it. That's what patriarchy is.

It's simple really. Bob receives $1000 monthly. Greg receives $2000 monthly. @Left Coast : Greg is more advantaged than Bob. Thanda: Tell me more about how each got the money. Oh, apparently Bob gets sent this money by his rich parents whereas Greg works 12 hours days to make his $2000! Well then Thanda thinks Greg's advantage over Bob is not so clear cut.

It was you who agreed that money is a major factor in what defines freedom. Yes, obviously how people get their money is relevant. That doesn't change the basic fact that money, in general, provides people with good, services, and opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. This is extremely basic.

Are you going to pretend to be ignorant about which gender is the major perpatrator of crime (And particularly the crimes mentioned in study)? If you are, then maybe we are waisting each other's time.

I definitely feel like this conversation is becoming a waste of time...

I don't know what you're talking about.

Your original comment that sparked this rabbit trail was: "

"No that is a valid choice. Just like it is a valid choice in most modern, free societies to either work for a living or die of hunger."

It was you who wanted to equivocate about poor polygamous societies and wealthier, monogamous ones.

All of nature is structured by might makes right. Even today, might still makes right. Whatever cultural shifts happen in the West, the rest of the world is pressured into following suite. Your country has and still does in recent history bomb a few countries to bring them freedom and democracy.

In fact your hope that patriachal societies will be dismantled rests largely on the might of those who believe it should be.

Simply not true, unless you (yet again) equivocate about the meaning of words.

But beside all this, it is plain that patriarchy didn't just survive by might makes right. It survived because it managed to provide those communities and societies that practiced it with the security, stability, resources and structure they required to survive some very harsh conditions.

Again, I thought you wanted to talk about polygamy today?

I was not attempting to justify anything.

Bullsh*t.

I was countering your argument that the workplace can't be as bad as what you imagine marriages in which women don't have financial independence are. You'll remember that you accused me of equivocating.

Workplaces in free societies are nothing like the economically desperate situations of women in plural marriages who have to depend on their husbands for money. You were equivocating.

We're also better off in societies where women don't have to do sex work to make money - but as far as I know the left has no problem with it. In fact they advocate for its decrimininalisation. So no, your argument makes no sense. America is a free society. Decriminalising polygamy in the US won't bring millions of women under the yoke of evil men. Women will only participate in it if they want to. So you really have no reason to have any problem with it if you want to be consistent in staying out of people sex lives.

As I said from my very first post in this thread, I have zero problem with what people do in their personal lives, whether it's polygamy or sex work, so long as those situations are freely chosen and not coercive. How many times must this be explained to you?

 

[Left Coast]

Injustice is evil. We've established that patriarchal societies were the most successful in helping nations survive. Therefore clearly, they were necessary. And what is necessary cannot be evil.

This is a weird, backward rationalization. You have, again, only established what happened, not that it had to happen that way.

You really are clueless aren't you?

There's no need to be personally insulting. That's against forum rules, FYI.

I'm sure all you can think of is that the land must have been bought with money. Let me educate you: In many African countries land is inherited. Over and above that in many African societies they do not believe in selling land (including some here in South Africa) and land will often be given little to no compensation. Compensation, just so you know, can be a goat or a sheep.

If we're literally talking about aboriginal societies that operate on a barter system and have no currency, then yes, I concede that money is not literally necessary for survival. In all modern economies, it is. You are nitpicking around the edges instead of grappling with the basic reality: whatever economic arrangement you want to imagine, whether it has currency or not, when men are the sole owners of property (including their own wives and children), they have greater economic power and opportunity than women. This is bad. We should avoid this. For a guy who wants to educate me, you're avoiding the painfully obvious.

 

[Shad]

So my question is, why does the left in the US seem so concerned about foreign families being torn apart for (illegally) trying to come to the US but there seems to not be the same level of concern about your own countrymen whose families are similarly torn apart. Whose only crime is being a family.

Christianity. A lot of laws are based on English Common Law which in turn held religious principles as the grounding for law and justice. Ergo the common perception of marriage is monogamous as it is held as such in most forms of Christianity.

To go further, those on the left have also fought for the rights of gays and lesbians to form families again, without a care for those of their countrymen who have long been denied the right to form and their own families in polygamous communities.

Activism can and is often based on trends and self-interest not a greater concern especially in the US and it's media. Heck up here we have people that protest the new pipe line without any knowledge of what is sent down the pipe-line. They are just there because someone told them they had to be concerned.