3 ms·

Different context, but relevant quote by Christopher Hitchens: "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give wom

Different context, but relevant quote by Christopher Hitchens: "The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has."

DominikR 10y ago
I greatly respect Christopher Hitchens but this statement is provably wrong. There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true. Also why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time? Shouldn't we all get richer? My conclusion is that these two issues are unrelated. Societies get rich by either creating value (that's the one that I like) or capturing value by the use of force, period.
- f_allwein 10y ago
  > There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true. No, it wouldn't. The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment, which in turn can lead to a reduction in poverty. The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow. > why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time? because women's rights are a factor, but not the only one. The argument is that, in the context of developing countries, it makes sense to empower women. It is not that any increase in women's rights automatically leads to more wealth.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    > The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment It logically follows that women are empowered if you give them the right to control their reproduction but that's not the argument here. The argument is whether women's empowerment leads to prosperity in a society and nothing else. You yourself state this: > The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow. This is what I wrote before myself. What is missing is that someone shows that empowering women is a factor (and if so to what degree) that will lead to prosperity. Just saying it isn't sufficient. I get that people have their values and goals and in this case I agree that women should not be second class citizens in any regard. But I'm sceptical of statements where people connect arbitrary things to something everyone wants (prosperity) just to promote their values and causes. That's usually what politicians do and I'm not one of them. By the way it is also not helpful to tell poor countries do X (where X is accept our values in some regard) and you'll be prosperous and rich, when we cannot prove that indeed they'll be more prosperous if they do this. That'll create resentment or they will stop taking us serious. In fact I'm frequently reading news and comment sections in many languages and I can tell you that this has already happened. They ridicule the West for our stupidity and our values that we try to foist on them.

DominikR 10y ago

I greatly respect Christopher Hitchens but this statement is provably wrong. There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true. Also why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time? Shouldn't we all get richer? My conclusion is that these two issues are unrelated. Societies get rich by either creating value (that's the one that I like) or capturing value by the use of force, period.

f_allwein 10y ago
> There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true. No, it wouldn't. The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment, which in turn can lead to a reduction in poverty. The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow. > why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time? because women's rights are a factor, but not the only one. The argument is that, in the context of developing countries, it makes sense to empower women. It is not that any increase in women's rights automatically leads to more wealth.
- DominikR 10y ago
  > The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment It logically follows that women are empowered if you give them the right to control their reproduction but that's not the argument here. The argument is whether women's empowerment leads to prosperity in a society and nothing else. You yourself state this: > The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow. This is what I wrote before myself. What is missing is that someone shows that empowering women is a factor (and if so to what degree) that will lead to prosperity. Just saying it isn't sufficient. I get that people have their values and goals and in this case I agree that women should not be second class citizens in any regard. But I'm sceptical of statements where people connect arbitrary things to something everyone wants (prosperity) just to promote their values and causes. That's usually what politicians do and I'm not one of them. By the way it is also not helpful to tell poor countries do X (where X is accept our values in some regard) and you'll be prosperous and rich, when we cannot prove that indeed they'll be more prosperous if they do this. That'll create resentment or they will stop taking us serious. In fact I'm frequently reading news and comment sections in many languages and I can tell you that this has already happened. They ridicule the West for our stupidity and our values that we try to foist on them.