Bluray
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 25, 2008
- 3,449
- 138
While agreeing with your inputs, I would like to point out that it is the manner with which the discussion on this seemingly delicate matter is brought to attention and, consequently proposed solutions. Liberals have had the propensity to indulge in this with the view of a man as a culprit-humbleness almost lost in the belief in 'end male chauvinism now' slogans and the like. In that case, you can fairly predict a dead end to these kind of discusion.
Of course tact, understanding, genuine love and a high degree of painstaking deliberation must be engaged to ensure that this elevate gender relations in a meaningful way, and does not degenerate the whole discussion into a gender war.Some amongst the feminist seem to get their information from the wrong sources, particularly the source emanating an overly militant brand of feminism - there was a NYT article about communities banning males in their premises- these hippie chicks allowing their mostly mid life crises to be thinly disguised as feminism are giving a bad name to true feminist.I believe - and I wrote in a separate thread here- that a true feminist must be comfortable with and in fact love all genders, and be balanced enough to see good and bad in all genders, for as much as there phrase "male chauvinism" is abundantly used, there are enough "female chauvinist" some even self admitting ones, to share the responsibility of the sad condition of gender relations.On the question of liberals and liberality, the vastness of the definition of these broadly used terminology may render any response to your perceived brand of liberals a futile exercise in miscommunication. My version may not necessarily be the same as yours.I may be drawing from the well of classical liberalism and indeed even libertarianism to propagate these positions, while I suspect your are referring to modern liberals.
And I hope you will also agree that practicality of matters matter, principles aside, and that there is nothing like 'equality' in the strict sense...responsibilities will tend to differ in spatial and temporal dimensions and it is thus imperative not to be lured in the liberal concepts of equality even in issues where their practicality can be critically questioned.
Among the dimensions you mentioned, I believe the arrow of time has shown a tendency to give favor to principle over practicality, if the prionciples are not too impractical, and I believe these principles are not that impractical.the molasses of tradition are too strong for these things to change in a generation or two.the west did not allow it's women to work at all, until after the industrial revolution and particularly after WW2 when it became economically inevitable for women to join the workforce, women were mostly relegated to household chores. i believe these principles will converge with economic interests to form a more balanced society just as the principle of anti slavery converged with the industrial revolution to help succumb slavery to the dustbin of history. I believe the practicality of equality is unquestionable, what is questionable is whether our society can muster the integrity to swallow it's traditional pride and allow people to be equal.Basically the argument here can be reduced to a nugget asking "Are women equal to men?". I refuse not to answer that question in the affirmative for I will put myself in the same position that the slavemaster, due to his economic interest, affirmed blacks to be three thirds of humans.If you say women are not equal to men, then you are faced with a more difficult question asking how inferior are they, of course this question is very wrong and should not be entertained, traditions or not.
If you are going to base all your thinking on practicality you will never progress, progress is based on a constant challenging of what is practical and what is not practical.If you were to base society on practicality Tanzania would probably still be colonized and slavery would still be legal.Such are the dangers of abandoning principle for the comforts of practicality. Benjamin Franklin said "Those who give up their liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security". Let's not give up the liberty of living a life of principle for the security of convention and practicality.If man was basing all his life on practicality there would be no scientific nor other progress.
Well, on my side..I dont think I need to be 'modern'..the house maid can stay-save for the fact that she may need some times off- to see how a devoting father I am!
My focus was not whether the house maid stays or go, but how was that decision reached.Was that decision reched collectively as a family or it is one of those "jikoni ni sehemu ya mama" philosophies?
Say you both are professionals with equally demanding jobs, relegating jikoni to mama -even if it is only for directing the chores- can give her more than her share of the housework.
I brough the point of utilitarianism for people who agree on this matter, as long as your family agrees I don't see any harm.But if the mama is suffering inside - by the overburdening responsibilities of directing the house maid, then this would come across as not fair.
Agreed, but again, it is also how you involve the father and others in housework...
My whole piece was about involving everybody in a very amicable family bonding way, never the militancy of some extreme brands of feminism.