Thomas Aquinas on women

[Master Gopher]

Logic!! The logic!!

That was good, man.  *nod-of-agreement*

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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...

[Archon]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Oseleon]

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

[Skar]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Archon]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Entsuropi]

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?

[Skar]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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 Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.