Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your anecdote could be "I watched this TV show about the Amish" (which fits the definition of talking about an event from a personal standpoint) for all I know, which is why I asked for clarification of how your anecdote came to be. Not all anecdotes involve personal face to face interaction, ya know.
That's the point. Anecdotal evidence doesn't have to be first hand experience. You gave the impression that you thought it was all about direct personal interaction.
My anecdotal evidence is based upon first hand experience, the opinions of those who know the community well, as well as scholarly and non-scholarly resources such as books and informal surveys.
That's the point. Anecdotal evidence doesn't have to be first hand experience. You gave the impression that you thought it was all about direct personal interaction.
My anecdotal evidence is based upon first hand experience, the opinions of those who know the community well, as well as scholarly and non-scholarly resources such as books and informal surveys.
The nature of the anecdote does matter, so I did ask for the basis for how it was formed. I could tell you a lot about the LDS people, since I have been involved all my life, studied lots, etc. but I wouldn't presume to assume how all LDS women feel or try to use it in an argument as to how it should be for all women, nor presume it was the ONLY way. We know less about the Amish.
Since you are not deigning to give us your whole argument and premises and all that jazz, I can only go off the bits you are giving us. Show your work, since this is your theory. I'm still dying to hear how you came to the conclusion that the entirety of feminism is harmful to all women and we would be much happier as second class chattel.
The nature of the anecdote does matter, so I did ask for the basis for how it was formed. I could tell you a lot about the LDS people, since I have been involved all my life, studied lots, etc. but I wouldn't presume to assume how all LDS women feel or try to use it in an argument as to how it should be for all women, nor presume it was the ONLY way. We know less about the Amish.
Since you are not deigning to give us your whole argument and premises and all that jazz, I can only go off the bits you are giving us. Show your work, since this is your theory. I'm still dying to hear how you came to the conclusion that the entirety of feminism is harmful to all women and we would be much happier as second class chattel.
It looks to me like he exposited his case well. At least the premises covered so far.
Perhaps you're the one failing to understand it?
Absolutely. You are free and welcome to share your opinions. We are also free to tell you that the vast majority of women do not want their rights rolled back to the 1800s. Or the 1950s, for that matter.
What is strange is when every woman in this thread says, "Hey, you know, I like to be able to vote and have a credit card and make purchases in my own name and make my own money and have the choice of whether to be at stay at home wife/mother or not," and your response seems to be, "You just don't know what makes you happy and here are some vaguely related stats to prove why."
Oh my...yes. More goodness, charolastra. Perfectly succinct, right to the point.
Since you are not deigning to give us your whole argument and premises and all that jazz, I can only go off the bits you are giving us. Show your work, since this is your theory. I'm still dying to hear how you came to the conclusion that the entirety of feminism is harmful to all women and we would be much happier as second class chattel.
Interesting straw man.
To be honest, I don't think you have the experience or background needed to appraise these arguments properly.
I can tell from what Gaylenwoof has written that he understands formal logic and some philosophical concepts (despite not agreeing with me) but too many of your posts go off at a tangent in a way that suggests you've not understood the topic at all.
Last edited by Hightower72; 06-21-2017 at 08:48 PM..
Reason: quote
"I think, at some point in the future, the whole notion of gender equality will be rolled back to what it was around the 19th century and this whole sorry sociocultural exercise will be looked back upon with cringing embarrassment.
That is because, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not, as an ideology, it is unworkable, contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with self-sustaining civilization."
Your words. Maybe you are failing to delineate between feminism and gender equality, as to how they are different and what you want to be rolled back. Otherwise, you are basically saying that all of it is harmful since you are wanting to go back to a time before it existed.
"I think, at some point in the future, the whole notion of gender equality will be rolled back to what it was around the 19th century and this whole sorry sociocultural exercise will be looked back upon with cringing embarrassment.
That is because, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not, as an ideology, it is unworkable, contradicts scientifically verifiable biological differences, is ideologically self-conflicted and, in the long term, fundamentally incompatible with self-sustaining civilization."
Your words. Maybe you are failing to delineate between feminism and gender equality, as to how they are different and what you want to be rolled back. Otherwise, you are basically saying that all of it is harmful since you are wanting to go back to a time before it existed.
No. There is no entailment of any kind from what he's written to the claim that feminism is harmful to all women.
You're reading meaning into the text based on your own biased and preconceptions.
To be honest, I don't think you have the experience or background needed to appraise these arguments properly.
I can tell from what Gaylenwoof has written that he understands formal logic and some philosophical concepts (despite not agreeing with me) but too many of your posts go off at a tangent in a way that suggests you've not understood the topic at all.
Too technical for these forums IMO. It belongs more in philosophy.
It looks to me like he exposited his case well. At least the premises covered so far.
Perhaps you're the one failing to understand it?
Based on anecdotal evidence about the Amish, which is based on him knowing people as an outsider (unless he is going against his community and using the Internet or has left) and some things he studied, from a people known to be reticent to outside studies.
Even if he has known some and studied a bit, is hardly convincing enough as a rule to be anything besides something that makes you think "Hey, I can use this evidence to explore a theory". Sure, by some methods of logic, you can make a supposition, but further study somehow would be needed then to see if that theory was actually workable and realistic.
I am pretty sure I could give up a lot more info and anecdotes about LDS women, but it wouldn't be enough to really postulate or prove that all LDS women are happy, much less all women would be happiest as LDS (or living like one, which is what you are doing with the Amish women since they basically live a 19th century lifestyle and you're saying it's great).
The other half? Yes, there's a study that says women are unhappy after 30 years or so of third wave feminism. The authors were not able to definitively say why, as happens sometimes. You could correlate and hypothesize that it's third wave feminism, which is not the same as the other two waves. We do not have (or were not presented with) details to examine the happiness levels along the entire era of the different waves of gender equality.
Yet in his theory somehow, he is including this study as proof that gender equality/feminism/whichever he is really talking about applies to all aspects of either, since his hopes and solution to the woes of the current women would be shoveling them back to the 19th century before it all really got going. Clear as mud so far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
