Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 28 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing? (Read 1657 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #50 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:24pm
Print Post  
RubyHypatia wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:08pm:
Patriarchy was common because men were greedy with power...
That's bullshit. Women throughout history have been just as greedy for power as men. It just happened to be the reality that patriarchal tribes got chosen as the most efficient way to preserve the tribe, and the patriarchy carried over into city states and nation states.

If matriarchal city states had worked better there would have been lots of them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #51 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:28pm
Print Post  
RubyHypatia wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 6:08pm:
In fact, religion has been necessary to support patriarchy...
No it wasn't. Religions became the state religions of patriarchal societies because the religions wanted to be state religions.

Such religions would have sucked up to matriarchal rulers just as quickly, but there weren't any matriarchal rulers to suck up to.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2555
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #52 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:40pm
Print Post  
Quote:
That's bullshit. Women throughout history have been just as greedy for power as men. It just happened to be the reality that patriarchal tribes got chosen as the most efficient way to preserve the tribe, and the patriarchy carried over into city states and nation states.


Women have been just as greedy for power?  Then how come most conquerors were men?  There are no female equivilents to Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, etc.

Patriarchy wasn't about efficiency, it was about greed for power.  Allowing women to have equal freedom in politics and economics was never going to cause a system to be inefficient.

Quote:
If matriarchal city states had worked better there would have been lots of them.


There have never been any matriarchal states, nor should there have been.  The exclusion of either gender from equal freedom is a bad thing.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2555
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #53 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:45pm
Print Post  
Quote:
No it wasn't. Religions became the state religions of patriarchal societies because the religions wanted to be state religions.

Such religions would have sucked up to matriarchal rulers just as quickly, but there weren't any matriarchal rulers to suck up to.


Yeah, religion was vital to the creation and maintaining of patriarchy.  Men grabbed the power then claimed their deity commanded it.  Easier to get women to comply with the patriarchal system if they believe some invisible sky daddy will punish them if they don't.  It's no coincidence that the waning of religion in the West resulted in the dismantling of patriarchy, and that patriarchy today is in countries where religion rules.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #54 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:56pm
Print Post  
RubyHypatia wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 7:40pm:
Women have been just as greedy for power?  Then how come most conquerors were men?  There are no female equivilents to Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, etc.

Patriarchy wasn't about efficiency, it was about greed for power.  Allowing women to have equal freedom in politics and economics was never going to cause a system to be inefficient.


There have never been any matriarchal states, nor should there have been.  The exclusion of either gender from equal freedom is a bad thing.
At the tribal level, before there were any city states, patriarchy was the form of tribal rule that worked best. If it hadn't, it would have disappeared.

I agree, I don't like any sort of "rule" that ends in -archy, but the evolution of tribal and city state and nation state governments gave the world patriarchy. Almost always. Religious dogma in support came afterwords.

Women ruled as Pharaohs. Women behind the scenes ruled many great nation states and were just as bloodthirsty, tribal and greedy as the men they directed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2555
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #55 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:50pm
Print Post  
Quote:
At the tribal level, before there were any city states, patriarchy was the form of tribal rule that worked best. If it hadn't, it would have disappeared.


Tell me, why was it necessary to keep women disempowered?  What about women not having a say in politics makes running a society more efficient? 

Quote:
Women ruled as Pharaohs. Women behind the scenes ruled many great nation states and were just as bloodthirsty, tribal and greedy as the men they directed.


Please name the women.  You think Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror, Napoleon, Hitler, Nebuchadnezzar, Thutmose III, etc. had women directing them?  And please name the women who rival them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7494
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #56 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 10:42pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Always! The more the bad sister is helped, the more the good sister benefits.

How so? How is helping one sister hurting the other?


Because if "society" pays, it means taking money from the responsible sister to pay for the irresponsible one's babies. Now the one who went to school and worked hard on her career can't afford a single baby when both their goals were to be mothers.

Quote:
Please explain what you are advocating?


Not stealing from the responsible to pay for the irresponsible.

Quote:
And again, I don't advocate taking from the good sister.


You are taking from her no matter what.

You buy diapers to give to the irresponsible mother, the price of diapers goes up. Same for baby food, hospital stays, and everything else. This is why the good one can't have a baby. This is not some ridiculous crap I just made up - this is happening.

Quote:
Better is a word that compares to 'worse'. But 'good' doesn't necessarily mean there is a bad. It could suggest that there is a less 'good'. What point are you trying to make?


That success is relative inherently, and if you're giving to one person, you're taking it from another.

It's not about everyone having bread. Everyone has bread. You want to catapult the poor people up the ladder. That means the working people move down. You have to justify that action.

Quote:
Social responsibility and teaching people to be socially responsible reduces the need for welfare.


Not here it doesn't. The people you're "teaching" laugh behind your back about how dumb you are for giving up everything to pay for their "mistakes". Norway's people are invested in the success of their own society. Americans are like you - mostly they pray for America's downfall. If they can get goodies in the meantime, so much the better.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SicklersDink
Ex Member


Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #57 - Jul 10th, 2018 at 11:38pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 10:42pm:
Because if "society" pays, it means taking money from the responsible sister to pay for the irresponsible one's babies. Now the one who went to school and worked hard on her career can't afford a single baby when both their goals were to be mothers.


Alright, stop right there. You're the one who set up this 'sister' scenario and now you're bringing imaginary situations that don't work for 'sisters'.

Like for instance, no sister is going to be prevented from having babies just because the other sister has a bunch.

I can't carry on a decent conversation with this imginary sister scenario so you're going to have to start talking real life societies. When we do that then maybe you can say that if half the population has babies they can't afford then maybe the other half might not be able to afford babies.

I have no idea why that could ever be true but that's probably about what you're saying.


Quote:
Not stealing from the responsible to pay for the irresponsible.


A country looking after its people in need isn't stealing. It's done by socially responsible societies in order to prevent the theft of the taxpayers' money. And now that we have returned to real life and left the sisters to their misery, we'll alaborate on what I mean.

One example: If a prison system is not working, is costing the taxpayer far too much because of the cost of incarceration, they don't continue to increase the incarceration rate by doling out more punishment. That punishes the taxpayer.

The country instead turns to socially responsible measures that initially cost money but save the taxpayer's money in the end result. That's what Norway did.

This concept can be explained the same way for dozens of different cases of spending money wisely and in a socially responsible way.

Preventing the need for abortions - sociallly responsible
Taking away a woman's right - dictatorial and unlibertarian

Universal government run health care - socially responsible
Private for profit health care - more expensive and irresponsible.

Leaving people to live on the streets - increases theft and narcotics use = irresponsible

Social assistance - saves the taxpayer's money in many ways. Reduces the need for free ER service, reduces crime, and other benefits

And dozens more examples.


Quote:
You are taking from her no matter what.


No more sisters. You take from the taxpayer in order to save the taxpayer's money later.

Quote:
You buy diapers to give to the irresponsible mother, the price of diapers goes up. Same for baby food, hospital stays, and everything else. This is why the good one can't have a baby. This is not some ridiculous crap I just made up - this is happening.


It's not true. the other sister can have a dozen babies too.

In real life, you educate the woman to understand that she will be much better off if she doesn't have lots of babies. You provide birth control and you let your tiger kill all Christians who forbid birth control. (the Romans did it right but use lions) and other socially responsible measures the Romans didn't think of. You educate American men to stop raping American women. ( it's about 300% higher in the US)


Quote:
That success is relative inherently, and if you're giving to one person, you're taking it from another.


Right for a change. You take a dollar from the rich man to educate the poor woman and society saves $5. Everybody gets to spend the extra $4 the country saved by not having to buy diapers and milk.

Quote:
It's not about everyone having bread. Everyone has bread. You want to catapult the poor people up the ladder. That means the working people move down. You have to justify that action.


NO! Social assistance is not even a living wage, but should be. That's not going to raise anybody up any ladders.


Quote:
Not here it doesn't. The people you're "teaching" laugh behind your back about how dumb you are for giving up everything to pay for their "mistakes". Norway's people are invested in the success of their own society. Americans are like you - mostly they pray for America's downfall. If they can get goodies in the meantime, so much the better.


I can't say anything about your dislike of people. You're going to have to work that out for yourself. And yes, of course Norway's people are invested in the success of their society. Did you think they should be worried about the US's society?

I don't believe that Americans pray for America's downfall.

And 'I' don't pray. I hope for Trump's failure to be quick so that the world will see how fascism doesn't work even for the US.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #58 - Jul 11th, 2018 at 7:20am
Print Post  
RubyHypatia wrote on Jul 10th, 2018 at 9:50pm:
Tell me, why was it necessary to keep women disempowered?  What about women not having a say in politics makes running a society more efficient? 
I was talking about the origins of patriarchy and it's continuation through city states and the creation of nation states, and I think the bottom line throughout all of that is that men make better warriors, and having good warriors was essential to preserving the tribe/city state/nation state for most of human history. And yes, many men always liked war, but many women encouraged them to go out and conquer and loot and plunder. Edit: Men made better hunters too.

And here's some women rulers from history-

https://www.thoughtco.com/powerful-women-rulers-everyone-should-know-3530278

The Enlightenment and the Reformation changed things, and the creation of liberal societies opened the way for the political equality of women. They got the vote. A woman as Prime Minister or President is now unremarkable (except in socialist countries?).

It is arguable that giving women the vote has improved things in the world, or that having a woman as a 'leader' has been better. I personally think the cause of individual liberty has gone downhill since women got the vote, but certainly can't make a connection. You can disagree and try to say that things have gotten better, but it's a pointless argument and nobody is talking about taking the vote away from women.

Why was giving women the vote resisted for so long? Tradition I expect, and the traditional belief that women's roles as mothers and wives existed because societies need wives and mothers, and that success in those roles argued against women being successful in traditional male roles.

Libertarians of course believe in letting people choose their own roles and judging them on how successful they are in those roles, not on their sex.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Reply #59 - Jul 11th, 2018 at 7:25am
Print Post  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 28
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Was the Sexual Revolution a Bad Thing?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy