args

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

Okay so by natural order I mean the natural characterisations associated with each sex. Though masculine and feminine traits may be on a spectrum, it is not a perfect equilibrium; instead is it polarised. Meaning males majorly posses masculine traits and females feminine traits. So when I say to attune to the "natural order" I mean to legislate and organise in order to enable and use these traits to our advantage. This argument is not about alternative social orders but instead about the impact of the idea that "housewives" are inferior. I argue that feminine traits are well suited, and indeed naturally designed for, childrearing and caring for people in the community; so to discourage "housewifery" is to go against the "natural order" of things, to an extent. Do you understand where I am coming from? I am not saying that women should not be equal in every way. I must highlight this specifically as my opponent keeps attempting to strawman my argument with this claim. I demonstrate my sincerity by explaining my position: women having a choice makes no difference to my argument; that the movement to discourage housewifery is detrimental to relationships. How does it? I am well aware that many women can be highly successful at anything a man does and so it would be morally irreprehensible to restrict them; this freedom would also have to apply to every female because it would be immoral to differentiate. This is basic morality, can we put this to bed? My argument is more complex. It is difficult to decipher what my opponent"s specific arguments are here. The sarcastic comment at the beginning; I"m not sure if I am to address, or how to address. You say in sarcasm that "society is made up of a mass of pre-programmed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes" and do not actually offer a reasoned rebuttal for me to discuss. However I will say that your statement is actually partly true; we are "pre-programmed" to a very large extent. I don"t wish to be insulting but what the hell: you don"t recognise this and this tells me that your heavily effected by it and its surprising you don"t see it because this is not even questioned by any sociologist A-level student; but what the hell its low hanging fruit for me. So on being "pre-programmed", let me explain: Many people don"t reach what is known by psychologists as "higher self-awareness" until late teens to early adulthood; many people don"t reach it until 30,40,50 or even never reach it. For the sake of argument let"s say that you are as self-aware as you are now when you are 16; your smart and aware of the pitfalls of thought that you are capable of and the impact of influences etc. You would have had 16 years of social imprinting from your society up until that point; then your "free-will" would be completely anchored in that worldview. Then into adulthood, you would be heavily encouraged to adopt the practices of the wider society for fear of social exclusion. Up until that point however, the point of self-awareness, you are essentially "pre-programmed" because you do not bare the capacity to question what value system is put on you. By the time you can question it, you have been heavily moulded by it. I have a three-year old and I tell you, there is no philosophical reasoning going on in there, he believes what he is told and copies what he sees (he is being pre-programmed). Indeed, this is no controversy, it is a part of nature that a creature must, in adolescence, learn the intricate details that will help them survive in their particular environment. The innate instincts that are born with are not enough by themselves and that is why the environment moulds our personality. So, to a very large extent, we are indeed pre-programed. And I have not even touched upon the pre-programming of our brain that supersedes societal influence. I don"t understand your point about my relationship. Yes my experiences here have formed my opinion, but I made the generalisations after looking outwards. I found that all of my frineds had similar problems and that such large volumes of people talk about it in both comedy and academia. Also, I did a study on this in university and found a lot of evidence to support the idea that egalitarian attitudes are associated with increased instability and conflict in relationships. You challenge" You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!" What if you were born in the Amazon rainforest in a remote tribe? How would your relationships be then? They would not be the same. Thus, your attitude now is a reflection of your cultural heritage and society, as you would have a different opinion/attitude if you where born in the Amazonian tribe. I have highlighted a number of different attitudes and value systems within cultures that relate to behaviour within relationships, and if you think that if you where born 1800 years ago in Northern Gaul that you would have the same opinion as you do now then I cannot help you. But thankfully it is not you I need to convince, and I am sure that the majority of observers understand this concept. My opponent writes" I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end!" I am responding to your argument that all societies values are derived from and created by the individuals within that society at their free-will. I am showing how people don"t just gradually become smarter and "progress" as you put it. We are influenced by the structures in society. The reason why things stagnated for 6000 years and then made more advancement in the last 100 years than in the previous 6000 is not because we are now super-smart humans with philosophical powers! We are still cavemen. What changes am I refereeing to? Well let"s see" I"m trying to think of some differences between an Amazonian tribe and the United States of America. Can you think of any? Don"t be ridiculous, society has changed in unimaginable ways to a point where it is nearly unrecognisable, even since 400 years ago it has. Of course these changes in the social order effect our attitudes and values I am sure I have made this point enough times now. "Their choice to use a phone"? you say; sorry but I feel your not looking deep enough into this issue or understanding it properly. In Conclusion. Housewifery is discouraged by branches of Feminism " undisputed Looking after children and focusing on their family over a career makes most women more happy than single-mindedly pursuing a career; as this is in tune with their nature " undisputed Discouraging this idea is leading to conflict and instability in relationships, as women are being told to pursue something that generally makes them less happy; likewise those who do adopt this role of the "housewife" are made to feel like they are submitting to the patriarchy and are looked down upon-leading to unhappiness.