[Kosh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22869022/

[Rictor]

From our current perspective, virtually every civilization in history, including our own up until a few decades ago, were irredeemable scumbags. That's quite a haughty position to occupy. I, for one, am in favour of letting them do whatever the hell they want. Different strokes for different folks.

[Kosh]

From our current perspective, virtually every civilization in history, including our own up until a few decades ago, were irredeemable scumbags.

That's called "cultural evolution".

[karajorma]

From our current perspective, virtually every civilization in history, including our own up until a few decades ago, were irredeemable scumbags. That's quite a haughty position to occupy. I, for one, am in favour of letting them do whatever the hell they want. Different strokes for different folks.

But the different folks don't want to do things differently. Cruz won the election. More people wanted her as mayor than didn't.

[Mr. Vega]

From our current perspective, virtually every civilization in history, including our own up until a few decades ago, were irredeemable scumbags. That's quite a haughty position to occupy. I, for one, am in favour of letting them do whatever the hell they want. Different strokes for different folks.

If the call for change is originating from inside the culture, then it's fair game.

[Prophet]

Vega has a point. If the women of that culture are finally fed up, then good for them.

[Kazan]

I don't remember where it was that i had this in my signature - but i had

"The idea that a pluralistic society should tolerate antipluralists in it's midst is ludicrous"

[Janos]

I don't remember where it was that i had this in my signature - but i had

"The idea that a pluralistic society should tolerate antipluralists in it's midst is ludicrous"

... and then someone asks what the term "antipluralist" truly means in applicable sense and the everything goes down in flames.

[Rictor]

True. Women the world over have successfully emancipated themselves by their own efforts, I have no doubt that the same will eventually happen here as well.

[karajorma]

The point is that they were emancipated and then someone came along and passed a law removing their suffrage without even asking them.

To try to claim that they should then have to fight to get back the rights they already had is nonsense. They've had the right since 1953. I would have thought that you would be the first to complain about the state arbitrarily removing people's rights against their wishes. 

[Janos]

The point is that they were emancipated and then someone came along and passed a law removing their suffrage without even asking them.

To try to claim that they should then have to fight to get back the rights they already had is nonsense. They've had the right since 1953. I would have thought that you would be the first to complain about the state arbitrarily removing people's rights against their wishes. 

well this is pretty much what the "state's rights" mean

[Rictor]

The point is that they were emancipated and then someone came along and passed a law removing their suffrage without even asking them.

To try to claim that they should then have to fight to get back the rights they already had is nonsense. They've had the right since 1953. I would have thought that you would be the first to complain about the state arbitrarily removing people's rights against their wishes. 

Yeah, and Black people had to sit at the back of the bus until they took to the streets and demanded, not asked politely, that they have equal rights under the law.

For example, women in Saudi Arabia could be allowed to drive tommorow, and the vast majority of them would not exercise the right. Because by and large they don't want it or consider they need it. Rights which are granted are a lot flimsier than rights which are earned.

[WMCoolmon]

The point is that they were emancipated and then someone came along and passed a law removing their suffrage without even asking them.

To try to claim that they should then have to fight to get back the rights they already had is nonsense. They've had the right since 1953. I would have thought that you would be the first to complain about the state arbitrarily removing people's rights against their wishes. 

So they had suffrage, and then they democratically elected a state which removed their suffrage? But now they want it back?

To me, that says one of two things...One, they took their rights for granted and didn't take the necessary action to safeguard them while they still could (which is arguably an important lesson for today...) or Two, the culture simply wasn't ready for women's suffrage. I'm not sure if an outside force coming in and forcing them to allow women to vote is really going to force cultural evolution (or what we would consider cultural evolution, anyway).

And I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I've been seeing this parallel ever since the thread got started. Coming in and forcing a western democracy seems a lot like the US is doing in Iraq, and a lot of people believe that the US has got no right to be there. What would be different about it here? They may not be a 'sovereign nation' but it does sound like the government is legal and the community is self-contained.

[karajorma]

Yeah, and Black people had to sit at the back of the bus until they took to the streets and demanded, not asked politely, that they have equal rights under the law.

For example, women in Saudi Arabia could be allowed to drive tommorow, and the vast majority of them would not exercise the right. Because by and large they don't want it or consider they need it. Rights which are granted are a lot flimsier than rights which are earned.

Again you're talking about cases where the state is granting new rights not where it is taking away rights people have had since birth.

What is going on here is an abuse of the rules that were put in for one purpose for a completely different one. I very much doubt the government of Mexico passed the law as a "Let's remove these women's suffrage" law. That's the way it has since been abused.

If you're claiming that a government can pass a bad law affecting any minority and ONLY the minority involved should be the ones to protest and that furthermore nothing should be done even when the government realise it's a bad law you are setting a very dangerous precedent. 

[captain-custard]

i think that cultural traditions are important in many ways but we should not forget that times change and as a race humanity changes, up until the early 19th century " paedophilia" was "acceptable" within many societies, as was polygamy ( which is still current in some societies) and there is still slavery in many parts of the world where you are born a slave and die a slave.................

we all have inherent rights , we should all have the right to give our maximum if we choose for our community our system of political representation and our world........;;

for me this is the minimum that we should have but it could be better....http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

life is short and should be lived to the full and to do this we have to be equal

if we still lived in a matriarchal society were just the women made the decisions we as men would be truly pissed off

[WMCoolmon]

If I lived in a society where people made bad decisions because there were more of them, I would be pissed off.

But if I lived in a society where someone could impose their own views contrary to mine, even though more people agreed with me, I would be pissed off, too.

And clearly in this situation, if you were to give women equal rights, it would piss people off too.

So what makes any one method better than the other? No matter what you choose, you'll still be pissing people off.

[Kosh]

if we still lived in a matriarchal society were just the women made the decisions we as men would be truly pissed off

When did we live in a matriachal society? If we did the world would probably be a much better place.

[captain-custard]

many society's were matriarchal, Egypt was one  that change from matriarchal to patriarchal, when we look at our closes relatives the great apes , the family unit is led by an alpha female , most family action are run by the females and the main male action is sleeping , and occasionally protecting his genetic base.........
as to say being led by women is better I'm not to sure of that , i spent my teens in the UK under the "thatcher" era, but then again as i think about it she wasn't what u really call feminine more "evil" really;

i don't think a matriarchal or patriarchal society is a good idea i think we all have something to contribute , i say lower the age you can vote to teenagers then at least we will see some radical changes within or society's and some ppl who are at least "passionate about how we live and run this world of ours................;;

[Wobble73]

If I lived in a society where people made bad decisions because there were more of them, I would be pissed off.

But if I lived in a society where someone could impose their own views contrary to mine, even though more people agreed with me, I would be pissed off, too.

And clearly in this situation, if you were to give women equal rights, it would piss people off too.

So what makes any one method better than the other? No matter what you choose, you'll still be pissing people off.

I don't get it. They've had the right to vote since 1953, now all of a sudden it's pissing people off so they decide to remove that right. They have lived with it for over 50 years and only now it's annoying enough to remove that right??

 

[Kazan]

I don't remember where it was that i had this in my signature - but i had

"The idea that a pluralistic society should tolerate antipluralists in it's midst is ludicrous"

... and then someone asks what the term "antipluralist" truly means in applicable sense and the everything goes down in flames.

it means people who oppose equal rights and treatment for other people on the basis of bigotry