It's the same how it was progress to say you could beat you kid as long as you didn't leave marks, because it was better then folks being able to beat their kids even if they did leave marks.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThat's not exactly what I would call "progress". Your just nipping the weed rather than killing it outright. A nipped weed can still grow and spread its influence and gain its strength, a dead weed isn't going to do anything. Physical altercation is not the way to discipline someone. A hand should never be raised with violent intent.
Ya, I'm weird like that...If you attempt to remove the use of violence in one go, you'll find a lot of people completely at a loss on what to do instead. More importantly, top-down prohibitions with no popular support.are worse than useless.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
X3 You appear to be confusing something being "Progressive" (as in liberal and good and positive) with it being "progress" (as in an act that advances one towards a desired goal).
I understand the context in which you're saying this and that you mean un-provoked domestic violence but try and avoid making broad brush statements like this, because you're kinda implying that women are unable to cause physical harm and are always weak and defenceless.
I know that's not what you mean, but it's what you said.
edited 28th May '16 2:15:07 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
The modern Western mentalities (and its sense of progress in the area of human rights and, more specifically, in the fighting against domestic violence) weren't formed in a day (in fact, in many ways, they're still not fully formed), so, it's unrealistic to expect quick progress. Best to do it slow and steady, or else the reactionaries (who hold a lot of influence there) will form a very strong backlash which could set back things by 20 or more years.
edited 28th May '16 2:17:11 PM by Quag15
![]()
I was not implying that at all! I even said (twice) in my other posts that a relationship should be an equal partnership between both parties. I did not at all state that women were defenseless (this is literally the only time I said that), you are filling in gaps that do not exist. Defendable or not, women (and men!) should never be struck as a form of punishment. That is what I have been getting at! This is an almost universal human problem. It needs to come to an end. Ok?
To boil it down: one human (male or female) should not harm another human (male or female) as a form of punishment/discipline
edited 28th May '16 2:32:34 PM by Troperfrom95
Ya, I'm weird like that...If it's the respect and decency that every person deserves, that places the bar pretty damn low. Tone down the rhetoric, will you?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
X4 I know that's what you meant but it's not what you said, the "as punishment" was only implied, this thread hasn't got the best track record on picking up what people mean over what they state.
What you said was "There is absolutely no reason to use violence against women, none what-so-ever." which implies that you shouldn't use violence against a women even in self-defence or defence of others, the argument for that is deeply rooted in misogyny and the idea that women can't hurt people because they're inherently weak and defenceless.
edited 28th May '16 2:43:41 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Every person has basic rights. I am not speaking in rhetoric.
That is, again, not what I said. I even said before that you shouldn't hit women (or men!) as a form of punishment. I am probably the least mysogenistic person you will meet. I state what I mean, I am not implying anything. Ok? Please, could you kindly stop doing this? This implying I meant something else than what I said.
You clarified with you later post and that's great, I'm just trying to give you a heads up, anyway time to move on.
X3 Yeah it's a low bar, but that just means that our failure to meet it (like in situations like this) is even more absurd.
![]()
From the perspective of an amateur student of history, the status of women is not something that's necessarily gotten progressively better and better with time; over the course of history it's evolved in both directions, with women gaining power relative to men in some periods and societies and losing it in others. While modern western society is by far the most progressive period of time in history in many ways, gender rights included, I don't think it's safe to assume things can only get better with time; they can and have gotten worse on occasion.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Not really, except in the very short term compared to the fullness of history. For example, you can see in Ancient India going forward to the various Turkic conquest dynasties in the Indian subcontinent a gradual and progressive decline in the rights of women, going from one of the most egalitarian societies in the ancient world to a much, much more traditionally patriarchal society.
@Kostrya: There is a very real possibility of a large scale societal collapse in the relatively near future if the problem of climate change is not adequately addressed, and that sort of disruption could very well lead to significant slides backwards in education and consequently in social justice.
edited 28th May '16 3:33:57 PM by CaptainCapsase

edited 28th May '16 1:46:05 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.