Posted on 09/20/2002 8:06:23 PM PDT by dts32041
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
THE greatest social change in the history of humanity happened in the United States over the past 50 years. Women broke their ancient chains and became men's partners instead of remaining men's property. This shift in the status of women is the decisive strategic factor of our time.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I dont belive the correct term was "we gave them" I think it more true that women demanded,fought for, and won that right.You may wish otherwise, but thats the truth.
One should wonder if women are so capable, why do they need assistance from government to be competitive?
BTW, in America, a woman can be an equal "partner" of her spouse without having a career.
According to this "logic", then, we're screwed if we get into another WWII-scale war, reason being this: when we sent a large portion of the men to Europe or the Pacific, we had many women stepping in to take those vacant positions, entering into the work force for the first time.
Now that our economy is based on the majority of both men and women already being in the work force, who's going to step in and take the mens' places the next time they get sent off to fight? The women, who served as industry's "Reserves" in WWII, are already on "Active Duty" for industry now; if they have to leave their current job to become the new Rosie the Riveter, who's going to fill the position they just vacated?
After a million years of men subduing the wild beasts, pacifying the wilderness, and creating the push-button world--women suddenly come out of hiding to win their rights.
Yeah, right.
Sounds like a Kid Rock lyric.
I tried that for about a month a half year into our marrage. That sexy little green-eyed redhead turned out to be meaner than anything I ever ran into in a barroom or back alley. I've been working ever scince.
Sorry, dude. The problem was resolved when women realized they have a voice of their own- not the voice of the man they married. It's called independent thought.
No,they're not men's partner's,but their rivals.Their partners are the courts.
American women kick ass.
They sure seem to have kicked his.The man is a moron
Ralph Peters? You mean Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters (USA, Ret.)? The author of several great military action novels,, as well as many articles in "Parameters" the journal of the U.S. Army's War College, such as "The New Strategic Trinity ". The guy who wrote "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World", "The War in 2020", "Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph?", "Traitor: A Novel", "Flames of Heaven", "Twilight of Heroes", "The Devil's Garden", and "Flames of Heaven: A Novel of the End of the Soviet Union". That Ralph Peters?
I don't think so. Maybe you see a little of yourself in his description of "the world's most sexually insecure males"? And I say that as man with only a master's degree, married to woman with a PhD, and the father of two daughters, one with a JD and the other soon to have an MS. It ain't always easy, but it's also generally well worth the effort.
Well. . . just wait till those idiotic suicidal maniac male Muzzle-em monsters discover that Mow-Ham-Mud was totally full of shiit. . .
That is to say, when they each meet up with 70 West Virginia gun totin' 2nd Amendment Beauties who are going to shoot the cork 'n balls off each 'n every one of 'em !!!
Praise Ahhh-Laaa !!!
Women's self-emancipation is a primary source of America's present power, wealth and social energy.
You get the drift - it's a repackaging of the old tired feminist claim that they only achieved equality by fighting desperately against a monolithic male resistance. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, and it is the truth that really explains what has happened here. The truth is that women achieved equal political status by a large cooperative effort with the men who had a monopoly on it, and grudgingly or willingly, shared it of their own volition. It wasn't without turmoil, nor should it have been, but armed resistance didn't do it, and neither did that infantile Lysistrata fantasy of passive resistance through sexual activity that is so popular in feminist fiction. Emancipation was much more complex, and much more wonderful, than that.
This deliberate sharing of power is perhaps the most profound upshot of a representative democracy as a political form, and it is a phenomenon whose possibility is resolutely denied by the left. To these, power is never willingly granted because that constitutes a dilution in a zero-sum game. They are incorrect in that basic premise in political and economic theory. And in application it happened, and continues.
The author is correct, IMHO, in the claim that this new social arrangement offers an insuperable advantage in the competition between cultures. It isn't simply that incorporation of women into full cultural participation constitutes an increase in the gross quantity of brains applied to it, it constitutes an incorporation of brains that are different in quality as well - women do think differently from men and offer unique approaches to problems that multiplies the potential solutions well beyond mere numbers.
Bernard Lewis, in his 1995 the Middle East, does a better job than our author in making the case that this is the signal characteristic weakness in Moslem societies of the 20th century - the contrast in cultural performance between, say, Afghanistan and Turkey is marked by their being the two poles of the continuum of sexual equality in the Moslem world.
The lesson is a very, very old one - men and women are incomplete without one another, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. Those societies that can deal with this most successfully are excelling; those that do not are dying, and dying hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.