4 ms·

That's a good question that probably doesn't have a single good answer. Conservative Muslim women have strongly opposed feminist movements in Iran and elsewhere

by badRNG 4y ago

That's a good question that probably doesn't have a single good answer. Conservative Muslim women have strongly opposed feminist movements in Iran and elsewhere. Pro-monarchy peasants have often killed proponents of democracy throughout history. Some have a reactionary impulse to oppose progress even if it is in their self interest.

xyzzyz 4y ago
What if they disagree that it is in their interest? Is there any objective way to say whether something is in someone’s interest? Consider the Amish, for example: they disagree that adopting all modern technology is in their interest. Should we force our opinion upon them? If not, should we force it on conservative women?
- 1659447091 4y ago
  It would seem to me that a conservative could live how ever conservatively they want, even if others think it oppressive. A Southern Baptist has as much access to dance freely but may chose not to do so; just because they don't believe dancing is okay and can refuse to partake, it doesn't mean there should be laws to prevent it for everyone. Why should anyone be allowed to oppress those that do not wish to be repressed, simply because they themselves prefer it? [edit to add] One can be conservative in a liberal environment, but to be liberal in a conservative place such as Iran has dire consequences. The only people being imposed on are the ones not free to live to their choosing, so there is no equivalent to forcing upon a conservative in the way conservative laws force upon non-conservatives (that I am aware of)
  - kelipso 4y ago
    Well that's not really a full picture if you take into account that we live in a society... Everyone's actions have externalities, living in a liberal culture is a very different experience for a conservative than for that same person living in a conservative culture, their communities will be very different and affected by the larger culture, etc etc etc. Yours is a very liberal/individualistic point of view. Which is fine but there are plenty of other points of view.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    That's the social liberal version of the "rational economic person” fallacy. It assumes that people know what will make them happy, and that people--especially young people with developing brains--can work toward those ends without education and social reinforcement. In reality, most people don't know what choices will make them happy. How could they? And even if they did, they wouldn't know how to get from Point A to Point B, or have the willpower and discipline to stick to it. They need society to develop generational knowledge about those things, socialize children and young people to understand that learning, and socially reinforce good choices. And frankly liberals know that because in other respects, they support societal intervention to protect people from bad choices and help them make good ones. They just have this huge blind spot. The act like the young adult who needs society to protect them from predatory lenders doesn’t need protection from people who might exploit them in other ways. Or that the person who needs education and social pressure when it comes to sugary soft drinks doesn’t need it when it comes to far more impactful decisions about how to live. And that's before we get to externalities. That's another concept liberals understand but pretend has no application to social norms and behaviors. As if divorce or drug use only affect the individual and not people around them.
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    You assume incompatible axioms. If everyone can live however they want, then oppression would be impossible if they don't want it.
rayiner 4y ago
There’s nothing more condescending liberalsplaining aimed at conservative women, except maybe liberal mansplaining aimed at conservative women.
za3faran 4y ago
Quite the condescending view there. I invite you to consider that our society and our women are aware and educated enough not to fall for rosy words like "progress" to actually mean true progress, and to us it is actually a regression, so it doesn't really interest us.

by badRNG 4y ago

xyzzyz 4y ago

What if they disagree that it is in their interest? Is there any objective way to say whether something is in someone’s interest? Consider the Amish, for example: they disagree that adopting all modern technology is in their interest. Should we force our opinion upon them? If not, should we force it on conservative women?

1659447091 4y ago
It would seem to me that a conservative could live how ever conservatively they want, even if others think it oppressive. A Southern Baptist has as much access to dance freely but may chose not to do so; just because they don't believe dancing is okay and can refuse to partake, it doesn't mean there should be laws to prevent it for everyone. Why should anyone be allowed to oppress those that do not wish to be repressed, simply because they themselves prefer it? [edit to add] One can be conservative in a liberal environment, but to be liberal in a conservative place such as Iran has dire consequences. The only people being imposed on are the ones not free to live to their choosing, so there is no equivalent to forcing upon a conservative in the way conservative laws force upon non-conservatives (that I am aware of)
- kelipso 4y ago
  Well that's not really a full picture if you take into account that we live in a society... Everyone's actions have externalities, living in a liberal culture is a very different experience for a conservative than for that same person living in a conservative culture, their communities will be very different and affected by the larger culture, etc etc etc. Yours is a very liberal/individualistic point of view. Which is fine but there are plenty of other points of view.
- rayiner 4y ago
  That's the social liberal version of the "rational economic person” fallacy. It assumes that people know what will make them happy, and that people--especially young people with developing brains--can work toward those ends without education and social reinforcement. In reality, most people don't know what choices will make them happy. How could they? And even if they did, they wouldn't know how to get from Point A to Point B, or have the willpower and discipline to stick to it. They need society to develop generational knowledge about those things, socialize children and young people to understand that learning, and socially reinforce good choices. And frankly liberals know that because in other respects, they support societal intervention to protect people from bad choices and help them make good ones. They just have this huge blind spot. The act like the young adult who needs society to protect them from predatory lenders doesn’t need protection from people who might exploit them in other ways. Or that the person who needs education and social pressure when it comes to sugary soft drinks doesn’t need it when it comes to far more impactful decisions about how to live. And that's before we get to externalities. That's another concept liberals understand but pretend has no application to social norms and behaviors. As if divorce or drug use only affect the individual and not people around them.
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  You assume incompatible axioms. If everyone can live however they want, then oppression would be impossible if they don't want it.

rayiner 4y ago

There’s nothing more condescending liberalsplaining aimed at conservative women, except maybe liberal mansplaining aimed at conservative women.

za3faran 4y ago

Quite the condescending view there. I invite you to consider that our society and our women are aware and educated enough not to fall for rosy words like "progress" to actually mean true progress, and to us it is actually a regression, so it doesn't really interest us.