Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: stacer on February 12, 2005, 01:49:55 AM
-
So I'm researching medieval views on women for background for this paper I'm working on. Now, I'm sure it's no surprise to any of us that they weren't terribly favorable. But it's fascinating reading, stuff that makes me mad at times. This (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/109201.htm) is just a little bit of what I've been reading, one point in the Summa Theologiae.
It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.
i.e., women are only good for procreation and nothing else. He goes on to say:
Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals.... But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation.
So men are good at everything else, have the active nature. Women are by nature passive and therefore are unable to think. Also supports the Victorian idea that there was only so much blood to support bodily functions, so if you were a woman who got too much education, you were cutting off the blood supply to your womb and were therefore not being a good woman.
The answers to the objections further down are annoying, too, but highly informative of medieval views (Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential philosophers and theologians of the middle ages.)
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female.
Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (96, 3).
Echoes the idea that since men are smarter, they get to rule over women because it's for their own good, just as since nobles are endowed by God with more smarts, they get to rule over the lower classes.
Interesting stuff, especially to balance it against the truth. Nothing we don't already know, but interesting to read a primary source from the 1260s.
-
I don't see a reason to get mad at someone who lived 800 years ago and that no reasonable people believes anymore
-
It's just a natural immediate reaction. But mainly what I was saying is that it's fascinating reading, because his stuff on how women should be passive is directly reflected in the folk tales of the time. Which I probably didn't say too clearly, and I can imagine that I'm the only one who is all that fascinated by it because I've been working on this paper for so long.
-
Isn't Aquinas still commonly read among divinity students?
-
I'm sure he must be. I found what I did in a book on Muslim, Christian, and Jewish thoughts on Genesis and gender through the ages.
-
I'm sure he is widely read. I've read him. That doesn't mean that he's agreed with on every subject. In a climate where even Catholic priests regularly admit that evolution is the way God created the world, I find it unlikely that Aquinas' misogynist ideas are widely embraced.
-
Ah...I thought you meant no one believes anything at all he says anymore
-
Aquinas is still valued, sepecialy his thoughts on "Just War" therory.
-
I wasn't very clear, I realize, as happens a lot. I think faster than I type. I did only mean his views on women. Not that there aren't reasonable who aren't sexist, but that extreme view just isn't held by many people anymore.
-
I don't see a reason to get mad at someone who lived 800 years ago and that no reasonable people believes anymore
What planet are you living on? Read my rant on Mother's day and Feminism to get one example of this stuff being taught (weaker sex, etc)
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?
I'm generally not a feminazi, but I can see why some people get so worked up about it (sexim). It is subtle and pernicious, and so many intelligent people like to believe that it doesn't really exist anymore in our enlightened society. Sure it wears a different mask, but it's still there.
Take Women's lib for instance. Women are now free to be in the workplace, but they are still expected to do everything else they were ever responsible for as well. There was a great article in Newsweek on this a couple of months ago (it had a picture of a woman with six arms on the cover)
-
Well, see the thing is that even though it is a problematic issue, I don't really feel that discriminated against. Are there people with backwards and harmful views towards women's roles? Of course there are. I don't agree with them. I also don't agree with the way Christian Scientists view medicine. I think it's downright idiotic and it makes me furious. But I don't think that I can DO anything about it other than live my life in the way that I believe is correct and make sure my children grow up with healthy and realistic views about women's roles.
-
What planet are you living on? Read my rant on Mother's day and Feminism to get one example of this stuff being taught (weaker sex, etc)
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?
I'm living on earth. Why the heck to you think these moments are even noteworthy? Because by and large, these views are considered antiquainted.
-
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?
I'm generally not a feminazi, but I can see why some people get so worked up about it (sexim). It is subtle and pernicious, and so many intelligent people like to believe that it doesn't really exist anymore in our enlightened society. Sure it wears a different mask, but it's still there.
That's not what the President of Harvard said in the version I heard. In the version I heard he suggested, in a meeting where and when the subject was why there aren't more women in the sciences, that perhaps there were differences between the sexes that tended to promote that disparity. Women in the room and around the world immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was a sexist pig and was REALLY saying that women were too dumb.
That's not what he said and these particular people were simply demonstrating that THEIR brains weren't capable of logical thought.
As for sexism still being around, of course it is. It's just reversed its direction. We now live in a world where a man can be vilified for a statement he didn't make just because people are willing to belive the worst...because he's male. And where men can be widely portrayed as stupid and bumbling on TV with never a word said about it...because they're male.
-
As for sexism still being around, of course it is. It's just reversed its direction. We now live in a world where a man can be vilified for a statement he didn't make just because people are willing to belive the worst...because he's male. And where men can be widely portrayed as stupid and bumbling on TV with never a word said about it...because they're male.
Amen.
I think the saddest part of "the women's movement" is how it often places more stress on women. Now it isn't enough to be a good wife and mother. You have to be a good employee too.
-
And what about the President of Harvard who essentially said that there aren't more women in science basically because their brains aren't up to it?
Actualy, he is the victim of a rather harsh charicter assasination attempt on the part of militant feminists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200501190846.asp <--Addressed in NRO
This is perfectly consistent with Hopkins's current schtick — which got her a nice, sympathetic interview on the Today show and newspaper coverage around the world. In the past, women used to claim that vulgar language would cause them to grow ill or faint. Now feminists like Hopkins use the same tactic to silence ideologically unacceptable ideas and to intimidate the intellectually curious. That's the stereotype Hopkins is reinforcing: that feminists and the Left are pro-science and pro-scholarship as long as they already agree with the conclusions.
He addressed the very REAL fact that there are
1. Structural and Chemical diffrences in the brains between men and women
2. Numerous studies as to how those diffrences affect diffrent areas of apptitute
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF <--Scientific America article on the issue
So basicly, this guy was crucified for discussing an ACTIVE Scientific topic.
How enlightened
Look, the truth cannot be offensive. Perhaps the hypothesis is wrong, but how would we ever find out whether it is wrong if it is “offensive” even to consider it?
-
OK, I was exaggerating on the Harvard guy thing, but have you been a woman trying to get a job in the sciences or other male dominated fields like computers? Sure, most women don't want one, and that's fine, but those that do have a hard time.
I have been in that position. I've never been on a team with more than three women in a group of twelve to fifteen, and I've often been the only one. Generally the women last about a third as long as the guys do, and I've NEVER worked under a woman in computers.
I think that the major reason for this is that in order to get anywhere in male dominated fields you have to be one of the guys, or at least be able to pretend you are. I know enough about cars and video games and computer hardware and sports to be able to hold up my side of the conversation during social times, and so when we're working I can get help when I need it, and they'll listen to my expertise when I happen to know more. The other women are often simply shut out.
Also, do you watch TV at all? Do you notice how women are portrayed in commercials? If you want an extreme taste of what I'm talking about, go watch just the commercials on Spike TV. They're like beer ads -- women are objects to use for sex if they're not your wife, or someone who nags you and gets in the way of having fun if she is your wife or mother.
I'm NOT saying that sexism is as bad as it has been. Most people pay at least lip-service to the idea of equal rights. I'm NOT saying that there isn't reverse sexism. Certainly a white male has a harder time getting a scholarship than a Native American, disabled woman. What I AM saying is that pretending that it's all gone in our enlightened age is ridiculous. Just like saying that all racism is gone as well.
Now I don't blame THE MAN for all my hardships in life. I don't think anyone has set out to oppress me, but there is still a (sometimes) subtle but pervasive presence that is influencing the way that YOU think and act, and you should be aware of it.
-
No such thing as reverse sexism, only Sexism.
-
actually, my last three jobs in IT have been under the direct supervision management of a woman. In my last job, both my immediate supervisor and her supervisor were women. Here at my current job (we're make software) only 1/3 of the office is staffed by men. Of the three most technical jobs, only one is staffed by a man (that's me).
I never claimed that all sexism is gone. I'm just saying that you depict a much bleaker picture than it really is.
-
Also, do you watch TV at all? Do you notice how women are portrayed in commercials? If you want an extreme taste of what I'm talking about, go watch just the commercials on Spike TV. They're like beer ads -- women are objects to use for sex if they're not your wife, or someone who nags you and gets in the way of having fun if she is your wife or mother.
This is really a poor example, because men get portrayed just as badly as women do on TV - they're all incompetent and stupid, and often insensitive. Remember that Cambells commercial for the heat and go soup that is ready in just one minute?
-
Less women are managers in IT. There are less women in IT. The higher the number of a particular group, the more managers of that type will be chosen.
It's fairly simple mathematics to my mind.
-
Now I don't blame THE MAN for all my hardships in life. I don't think anyone has set out to oppress me, but there is still a (sometimes) subtle but pervasive presence that is influencing the way that YOU think and act, and you should be aware of it.
Your use of the word "you" in all caps here disturbs me. Perhaps you had your tongue in your cheek. And I would point out that there is a "pervasive" and totally unsubtle "presence that is influencing the way that YOU think and act, and you should be aware of it."
While I haven't happened to work directly under any women in my time in the technical fields, I have been interviewed by women supervisors in those fields. Right now I work side by side with a woman who is product manager of a software group and generally my experience has been the opposite of what you describe.
And, to answer your question, No, I have never been a woman doing anything, much less struggling for a promotion in a computer field. Kind of silly to bring up POV in this case.
You also say:
I think that the major reason for this is that in order to get anywhere in male dominated fields you have to be one of the guys, or at least be able to pretend you are. I know enough about cars and video games and computer hardware and sports to be able to hold up my side of the conversation during social times, and so when we're working I can get help when I need it, and they'll listen to my expertise when I happen to know more. The other women are often simply shut out.
Were I a manager I would hesitate to promote someone who spent so much time pretending to be someone they're not (eg. "one of the guys"). Men who don't fit in the social group have the same problems women who don't fit in the social group have. It's not a function of sex it's a function of who is easier to work with.
Found an all woman IT department and the same kind of thing will happen in the the opposite direction. Such is life.
-
I also want to point out that I am the only person in my office who was at all excited about Star Wars, Hitch Hikers, or any superhero movies lately. *I* am the one who isn't "one of the girls" but we still get along.
-
No such thing as reverse sexism, only Sexism.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part, but you take my meaning.
I never claimed that all sexism is gone. I'm just saying that you depict a much bleaker picture than it really is.
If you remember, I was responding to the post (below) which implied that nobody believed any of Thomas Aquinas's ideas on women anymore...
I don't see a reason to get mad at someone who lived 800 years ago and that no reasonable people believes anymore
...especially the stuff about women being passive, inferior, and not as good at thinking. I was trying to point out that there ARE still people, and plenty of them, that at least act as if that's true.
Your use of the word "you" in all caps here disturbs me. Perhaps you had your tongue in your cheek. And I would point out that there is a "pervasive" and totally unsubtle "presence that is influencing the way that YOU think and act, and you should be aware of it."
I type in All Caps when I want a word to stand out. It's easier than bold or italics, which you can't always trust in emails and text files.
Of course I'm being influenced by the media, everybody is, and that's my point. The popular media is teaching and reinforcing the sexist ideas of years past, as well as the current anti-male stuff that's becoming more and more prevalent. I wanted to show that these ideas are alive and well in the world today, and that saying that no resonable person believes them anymore is shutting your eyes to reality.
Of course, my examples were extreme and exaggerated. That was also part of my point. I wanted to show the absolute worst I could come up with on short notice, to show that there are reasonable people who are saying and doing these kinds of things, and it's not as isolated as we'd all like to believe.
I know that sexism is not as bad as it once was, just as racism seems to be getting better in the big picture, but there is still work to do... and to use another extreme and likely inflammitory statement, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-
All those women in adverts that make you think is sexist...
You do realise they CHOSE to do that role? Some women enjoy being naked, and feel it gives power to them through sexuality. That's the line that hugh hefner uses a lot, to boot.
Just because someone has a different interpretation of morality from you does not make them oppressed.
-
All those women in adverts that make you think is sexist...
You do realise they CHOSE to do that role?
Yeah... just like all those black actors in the thirties CHOSE to be portrayed as servants, fools, and minstrels. And all the girls who end up prostituting themselves on the streets CHOOSE that path in life. If you pay some people enough, they'll do anything.
I realize that SOME women like that, but for many, it's the only acting job they could get, or they don't realize that they have other assets that could give them power or control in life.
That kind of reasoning remids me of all those paternalistic Englishmen who had totally convinced themselves that the natives they conquered really liked being ruled over by a foreign power. Just because somebody does something willingly doesn't mean they're NOT being oppressed.
-
...
What about Holly Valance, Lil Kim, Britney Spears and that short little brunette canadian pop star, all of whom have appeared naked in their music videos. I very seriously doubt anyone made them do that.
Not to mention pr0n actresses, many of whom do promotional tours.
These people do not act like oppressed victims of a vast and evil male conspiracy. They act like women who have no problem doing what they do. As I said, different morality does not mean oppressed.
-
That kind of reasoning remids me of all those paternalistic Englishmen who had totally convinced themselves that the natives they conquered really liked being ruled over by a foreign power.
Are we talking about the african tribes who sold each other into slavery here? Or the indians who were turned into a prosperous unified country after we conquered all the squabbling little city states?
-
I think that this discussion is interesting, so I think I should say something. I also foresee it getting locked because it is an easy topic to get overexcited about. So, to everyone who is going to be part of the conversation, just make sure you play nice, ok? Like I said, I think this could be a fun conversation, as long as it doesn't turn mean.
-
*Sudden silence as people realise they don't have anything nice to say*
(Actually *my* mother always said if you have nothing nice to say you must be surrounded by fools...)
Are we talking about the african tribes who sold each other into slavery here? Or the indians who were turned into a prosperous unified country after we conquered all the squabbling little city states?
I might be being thick, but what relevance do those african slaves have to repression/european paternalism? The point is whether or not those who are repressed *choose* to be repressed (in reference to attitudes to women), not whether specific groups were undergoing repression at particular times.
Also (at the risk of contradicitng myself and continuing a kinda irrelevant line of argument) - India is not exactly a prosperous, unified country. Read some Arundhati Roy.
-
OrigamiKaren, you bring up the point of girls who are forced into prostitution, but the fact is that if they looked hard enough, they could find another job that wasn't of that nature. They choose that kind of job for other reasons than necessity, because if it were necessity, they could find other jobs. Besides that, if that is their last resort, then wouldn't you say it is a positive thing to have those kinds of institutions. Granted, they are not the sorts of things lthat we like to think about morally, but if you get rid of these "jobs" because they are sexist, there will be more starving women. I don't think that that is a better outcome, so, although you may not like them, they do have a purpose.Either they are a last resort, or they are a way for women to make money easier than they would have to otherwise. Either way, it is a positive to women.
-
Logic!! The logic!!
That was good, man. *nod-of-agreement*
-
Those who take absolutist statements literally need to remember that "only a Sith deals in absolutes." I submit that it is not reasonable to take such a statement literally. I also submit that my statement was still accurate: it is not reasonable to take Aquinas' sexist statements as true, and thus someone who does is being unreasonable, and is not a reasonable person in that regard. Further, my statement STILL does not say that no one believes it, but that no one reasonable does. There's a vast difference. But I can't stop you if you insist on making a villainous meaning out of it, much like the Harvard president. At least I'm in good company.
In short, we're not in disagreement about there still being sexism in the world. I concur. I believe that those who are sexist are unreasonable. I also believe that you paint a much bleaker picture than it is.
Now, as for prostitution, Gopher and Archon would be wrong on this one. There are often not opportunities for women who work in porn or as prostitutes. Many of these women are forced into this situation. And many many of those who "chose" it, even who claim to enjoy it, can be demonstrated to have been forced/manipulated into it or are only doing it to feed certain addictions they'd just as soon be without.
However, I think if you take the percentage of women doing those things you'd find it rather small (granted, any is too mcuh, but my point is not to discuss the morality of these aspects, but to point out that prostitution and porn is NOT always, or even frequently, a choice -- go attend some psycholocy/sociology lectures on the subject before you comment further, because the experts disagree with you). And the percentage of men who are doing this forcing is rather small. The percentage of people who think this behavior is reasonable or right is not great. Yes, there's sexism. You run into it every day. but that behavior is not reasonable. and nor do I know anyone who uses Aquinas to establish their bigoted views.
-
Um, "only a Sith deals in absolutes" is false doctrine. God deals in absolutes all the time; the devil and his followers deal in relativism. (Though God judges each person individually based on their circumstances, but that's not relativism--he judges by an individual's understanding of the absolute truth.)
I'm just saying that's not a helpful statement for you to make in support of your argument. The rest of what you say seems pretty good...
-
Well if they want to get rid of their addiction, then they can do it, it just takes will. They could check themselves into a rehabilitation clinic, or remove themselves away to somewhere else where they won't have access to the object of their addiction. People have shaken addictions before, and though withdrawals are awful, if they need to, they can shake their addiction.
-
You speak as someone who hasn't dealt with addiction, Archon.
Ookla, absolutes are a funny thing. Anyway, my real point is that I'm a writer. Hyperbola is one of my tools. Usually someone who makes an absolute statement, especially in sociological contexts, is exaggerating. It would help many, many discussions if people would realize that instead of taking absolute statements at 100% face value.
-
They could check themselves into a rehabilitation clinic,
And who would pay? Free rehab has a waitlist a mile long. There is not enough funding to rehab all the people who want it, and when you live on the street, you dont exactly have a steady income or health insurance.
or remove themselves away to somewhere else where they won't have access to the object of their addiction
Again, how? If your only income is the Johns you pick up on the street... How are you going to remove yourself to some isolated cabin in the woods? With what money for travel/rent/food?
People have shaken addictions before, and though withdrawals are awful, if they need to, they can shake their addiction.
Depending on the substance they are addicted to, unsupervised detox can be deadly. Alcoholics can go into siezures that cause brain damage, Heroin withdrawl can cause stroke, etc...
And Detox is only 1 step, most people forced through detox will go score IMMEDIATLY on release (I have seen it) addiction is deep seated in the body and mind and only a focused rehab effort has a chance of sending it into remission... there is no cure
-
In my role as a cynic I ask, really, how many of these women we're talking about, who have been trapped in a cycle of addiction and subjection, were really forced into that cycle? How many were held down while a stranger forced a needle into their arm? Not many. They may be trapped now but they stepped into the trap of their own accord. The idea that something unfair is somehow happening to the women we're discussing plays to the whole concept of "institutionalized victimhood"
Don't get me wrong, I am firmly of the opinion that it is our duty to help people who find themselves in untenable situations like that. But it is not reasonable to flagellate ourselves because of their situation. It's nobody's fault but their own.
In that same vein, in those few cases where someone did hold the person down and force a needle into their arm (or the equivalent, absent the hyperbole) the forcers should be hunted down and shot, and/or publicly flogged to death as an example to others.
-
There are other ways for force or manipulate other than hold someone down. Any woman who can't see a reasonable alternative and is given some chance to get out, even if it isn't a real way out, can be considered forced, imo.
The question of whether porn stars and prostitutes, even those who claim to enjoy it, have actually chosen their situation and continue to choose it is a non-trivial debate in sociology.
and think about it. We're not generally speaking about women with MBAs when we look at this group. THese are women who generally have no skills or education to qualify them for a job. When the choice becomes prostitution or working as a greeter at walmart for maybe 20% of what they need just to pay rent, can you honestly say they have a "choice" about what to do? I'm not saying we should feel guilty. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty. I personally don't believe I, or anyone I know at all well, has contributed to forcing someone into these situations in any way (unless you want to argue that my presence in the work force or when I was enrolled in school forced someone out of that same position, but I think that's going a bit too far, don't you?). Thus there's no guilt. But being human means we need to care for them, not just assume they've chosen their path and deserve what they got.
But again, bringing it back to the original subject, I don't think that the people who are directly involved in recruiting these women are using Thomas Aquinas as a justification for their motives. Nor do I think that Aquinas really thought of this sort of result as a valid continuation of his arguments. Nor do I think these people are reasonable people.
However, I do think claiming that these women, or even most of them, chose their life with knowledge of a viable alternative betrays a misunderstanding of the arrangement.
-
You speak as someone who hasn't dealt with addiction, Archon.
No, I haven't. I have not, and I will not, because I won't make choices that will put me into situations like that. However, even though I have not dealt with an addiction, I know that there are people who have shaken their addictions. I never said that it is easy, because that is obviously false. I never said that it is a desireable path to tread, because that would be foolish. I did say that there was another way that these people could be living their lives. SE, you act like these people don't have choices. I disagree, I think they have undesireable choices. For example, the choice between a job at Walmart, and prostitution. If one job won't allow them to make a living, then get another in addition. True, it is hard to manage two jobs, but for people that are pressed for money, I would think that it happens a decent amount. Or let's look at the addiction again. (Keep in mind that I am not in a situation like this, so I don't know all of the options that might be available.) The first option would be rehab. Ok, it costs money, and perhaps you can't raise that kind of money. Next, family or friends, look for someone close to you who might be willing to either lend you the money for rehab, or take you in, and take care of you while you are getting over your addiction. If you can't find any family or friends, look at local community service groups, support groups, to see if you can find any help there. The options get less appealing from there, but the point is that you can find help, if you look for it hard enough, and explore all of your options. Don't mistake my statements to mean that it is a path that I would like to take, but it is possible.
-
ok, possible in a very, very broad sense. Often far enough off to be unrealistic. You obviously haven't even dealt with addiction with someone close. Nor do you understand addiction. Most people who develop addictions don't go into things thinking they'll be addicted. Often they start into a behavior with NO IDEA that it's addictive.
As for second jobs, who's watching your kid this whole time? I'm living in an area where if you live in a trash hole studio, you're STILL paying at least a grand a month. I've actually never seen anything that cheap. So, getting two jobs, if they're things like working at walmart, STILL isn't enough to live on, especially if you have dependents.
Your point that there are "choices" is taken, but it's not realistic, either. I think we can still consider these people forced into what they're doing.
-
Um, "only a Sith deals in absolutes" is false doctrine. God deals in absolutes all the time; the devil and his followers deal in relativism.
...do you have to bring your religion up in every thread you post to?
-
There are other ways for force or manipulate other than hold someone down.
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said "absent the hyperbole"
Any woman who can't see a reasonable alternative and is given some chance to get out, even if it isn't a real way out, can be considered forced, imo.
I see what you're talking about, I think, but forced by whom? There's always an alternative. I don't think it's reasonable to place the blame for a person not being able to think clearly or outside the box (and thus not seeing the alternatives) on anyone but that person. So who is the forcer?
The question of whether porn stars and prostitutes, even those who claim to enjoy it, have actually chosen their situation and continue to choose it is a non-trivial debate in sociology.
and think about it. We're not generally speaking about women with MBAs when we look at this group. THese are women who generally have no skills or education to qualify them for a job. When the choice becomes prostitution or working as a greeter at walmart for maybe 20% of what they need just to pay rent, can you honestly say they have a "choice" about what to do? I'm not saying we should feel guilty. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty. I personally don't believe I, or anyone I know at all well, has contributed to forcing someone into these situations in any way (unless you want to argue that my presence in the work force or when I was enrolled in school forced someone out of that same position, but I think that's going a bit too far, don't you?). Thus there's no guilt. But being human means we need to care for them, not just assume they've chosen their path and deserve what they got.
I can see your point, as it is applied to third world countries. But where we live, in even the darkest slums, there are opportunities galore that do not lead to addiction and subjection. People choose not to take advantage of public education, free access to libraries and endless opportunities for employment everyday. In most cases they actually have to put a great deal of effort into NOT learning enough to survive as something other than a welfare sponge. You bring up the type of the poor beknighted woman with kids, no husband and no skills to make enough money to support herself and say "Well, what she supposed to do? Does she honestly have a choice?" She's standing at the wrong end of hundreds of bad choices that she's already made. So yes, she did have a choice, and now her further choices are severely limited. Again, no one's fault but her own. As I said before I believe it's our duty to help folks who find themselves in such circumstances. However, (and here's another whole subject that is not Aquinas, sorry) shielding them from the consequences of their actions is not the way to help them. When you do that they just breed more people who think like they do. People who cannot support themselves teaching their kids that leeching off the state is an acceptable lifestyle is something I have a big problem with. And that is already a big problem for the country as a whole.
But again, bringing it back to the original subject, I don't think that the people who are directly involved in recruiting these women are using Thomas Aquinas as a justification for their motives. Nor do I think that Aquinas really thought of this sort of result as a valid continuation of his arguments. Nor do I think these people are reasonable people.
However, I do think claiming that these women, or even most of them, chose their life with knowledge of a viable alternative betrays a misunderstanding of the arrangement.
So, essentially what I'm trying to say as I spout off here is that because some women (in this particular context) have gotten themselves into miserable situations is neither a reason to vilify them nor a reason to legitimize the choices they made that put them there.
-
I think you vastly overstate the opportunities available and the ease at which they can be seized. Yes, they have to make a series of mistakes to get there, but that doesn't mean that the consequences of where they end up are reasonable or fair.
I'm disturbed by what your post appears to be saying with "shielding them from the consequences of their actions is not the way to help them." do you mean that we shouldn't get these people out of addiction or prostitution or whatever? if not, what consequences are we sheilding them from? I'm not saying that we shouldn't punish those who have committed crimes, and these people have. But your language comes close to suggesting eugenics as well. i don't believe you think that's a good solution, so I want to let you know what I'm seeing, so you can explain better what you mean. (again, I don't think you really believe that people should be left in the gutter or forceably sterilized -- I'm just saying that's how the language came across).
My biggest problem, I think, with saying there are always choices is it poses this "education is the answer" solution. So ... what if everyone got a higher education and actually learned and studied there? wouldn't we still need somoen to clean the toilet, pick up the garbage, and ring up my order at Taco Bell? These aren't great opportunities. Having done this kind of work, I don't agree with, but can understand the desire to do something else that will get them more money. We need to find a better way to compensate these people. We pay them less than they can live on to do a chore we are not willing to do.
-
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I was not in fact proposing sterilization or snidely leaving them to wallow in the gutter as what they deserve.
The consequences I'm thinking of are things like embarrassment, shame, and living poorly. As I've stated pretty clearly I think it is our duty to help them change their situation (not trying to force them to do so). That's opposed to supporting them in their choices. If a person has made choices in their life that leave them unqualified for all but menial jobs then they should do those menial jobs. You say they don't get paid enough to live on doing those jobs. Then who's doing them, and living on the pay, now? Someone obviously is so your argument doesn't really hold together.
The further consequences we should not be shielding them from are those that come when they refuse to be helped. I can't tell you how many people I've run into who are living on welfare and refuse to get a job down the street at the McDonalds that's hiring right now, because it's beneath them. It's "not what they want to do with their life." Or they realize that they get more cash from living on welfare than they'd get working at McDs. (they'd have to stop buying alcohol and cancel their cable if they did that) Fine. No more welfare.
My next concern would then be the children of such people. It's not their fault that their parents ended up deadbeat. However, if we shield their parents from the consequences of their choices, and thus their children, those children are taught by experience that being deadbeat is fine and has no real consequences. That's not good for the children and it's not good for our society. So the kids have a hard life. They grow up determined not to be deadbeats like their parents and to give their kids more than they had. Maybe they notice that their parent/s can hardly read and decide their not going to be like that and do well in school. How is that bad?
But we were talking about women who turn to prostitution. Where it's a crime they get punished until they do something else, if they never learn their's nothing we can do about it. Where it's not a crime it's, by default, a viable choice in that society and so there's no problem. (were it my society I'd try to change it)
As for my overstating the opportunities available, I don't think I am. As for my overstating the ease with which they are seized, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was easy. It's not. It is, however, perfectly possible. No one is forcing people to not take advantage. The things that work against seizing those opportunities are things like culture, peer pressure and so on. And when we shield people from the consequences of not taking advantage we nurture the very culture that doesn't take advantage. It's a vicious cycle that our government/welfare system has been perpetuating for a while now. The longer the cycle is perpetuated, the more painful it's going to be to break it, but break it we must.
-
The only real problem I have with your clarification (I agree with you when you put it that way) is that the people who are "livign on it now" are sliding further and further into debt, which makes access to opportunities to do something else more and more distant and difficult to attain.
-
No argument there. Debt makes things more and more difficult to change.
But it's not like growing debt is some sort of natural force.
**Edit: I reread your post and understood what you were actually talking about.
I managed to get myself and my family through college working menial jobs and while I did incur some debt I'm now paying it off, using the skills I invested in developing. So I have trouble buying your idea that anyone who has to work a menial job is in a trap with no way out. There's always an alternative.
-
I'm the same, I've incurred a lto of debt. But most of that debt was incurred actually gaining the skills I now use to pay it off.
well, the difference is, I know people here who already have a family. They can't go to school full time, they may not even be able to get a loan to do it. Trade schools are amazingly expensive, comparable to college education in many cases. I don't think anyone is 100% trapped, but I do think that it takes enough that we can call them effectively trapped.
-
I generally agree with Saint E here (surprisingly enough) with most everything he has said. For any Saints involved, we should always remember Mosiah 4:19 in regards to situations like this.
I believe that often (but not always - there's always the "sins of the parents", or people who suffer for their parents choices) people do get themselves into these poor situations with their poor choices. However, just because they have brought this upon themselves does not mean we should not have compassion on them and endeavor to help them improve their conditions.
In regards to the initial content of the thread, I'd like to put forth that many Medieval and ancient European Societies did not share Aquinas' views of women, particularly among Germanic and Celtic peoples - among the Vikings, for example, women had a great deal of influence. They didn't vote in the things, but the woman was in charge of managing the home estate (including finances), and could divorce her husband over almost anything (one recorded instance was for the wearing of effeminate clothing).