Yes, Luigi ... absolutely, you've struck out again!

Submitted by Curious (United States), Aug 16, 2009 at 13:19

Absolutely, Luigi. You have struck out again. You are going to continue to argue these opinions regardless of their lacking credibility.

How can I say this, Luigi? Because l ife has done a 180 for women, Luigi ... in just about every way imaginable, and as a result, western woman's decision making processes and personal preferences, including the selection of a mate, have undergone radical change.

We could insist that life has not changed, for women, or for mankind in general and consider shunning telephone and cell phones, etc, simply because our ancestors did not have access to them in their lifetime. We could say that our life, decision making processes, and preferences have not changed radically as a result of the existence of this technology.

We could avoid jet planes, cable tv, indoor plumbing, etc and say, why do we need them, after all, our ancestors did not have these conveniences, so why should we use them and how in the hell could these things possibly make a difference in the quality of my life or cause me to develop different set of criteria for evaluting my life's choices as opposed to that of my great grandmother's?

We could ignore the existence of birth control, washers and dryers, drive through restaurants, and other modern conveniences that have brought radical change to the lives of women. We could ignore the existence of the great change these technologies have brought to our society and continue to insist that women still scrub floors, spend 12 hours a day in the kitchen, bare litters of children, and continue to look for a father figure of a husband, prior to marrying ... one who is best capable of taking care of them. Do we still do this, Luigi? No! Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have changed, Luigi.

A logical mind would surely realise how greatly a woman's life has been impacted over this last 50 years, Luigi. And by the way, if you're not aware of the "social revolution" that occurred as a result of technological change, then you've been living on another planet, surely not the planet, Earth.

Women's lives have been radically impacted by modern technology and the resulting social revolution. For example, as late as the 1950's and early 1960's, a girl did not date until the age of 16 and was most often required to double date with a sibling, neighbour, or have a chaperone. She had a strict curfew, usually had to be in by 10:30 on a date night. Has that changed? Yes! For the better ... well that's debatable, but it has changed and modern families would consider the requirements of a 1950's American family a pretty extreme control mechanism ... though I think 16 is still the age most prefer for onset of dating.

Prior to the early 1960's, a girl was discouraged ever from wearing makeup. She wore only long skirts and they were to be at or below the knee. She never, ever wore stockings, she wore socks and loafers. By the early 60's, slacks became common, but remained conservative.

As the mid 60's approached and the Social Revolution advanced, women's dress and standards changed, radically. Women actually stood up in numbers, rejecting the rigid dress standards of the 1950's and beyond for makeup and fashion and we haven't looked back, yet, Luigi ... we haven't had any desire to go back to the days of long, full, hoop skirts and plain white socks to take the place of our low rise jean, fitted tops, and pantyhose. Why did this happen, Luigi? Because our decision making processes and preferences changed.

Prior to the early 1960's, "nice" women did not work. The husband was the bread winner and the wife was pretty well relegated to the home. Of course, some women did work, but this was acceptable only in the case of severe economic difficulty within the family or the loss of a husband.

Now, just because our great grandmothers were prohibited from working due to "biological functions" that relegated them to home life, should it mean that we should ignore the modern controls that we, as western women have, and allow prefer to return to a day that we were relegated to marrying old, secure men, sit at home, have children, and be relegated to the life of a 1950's housewife?

Well, I'm sorry, Luigi, but our "biology" hasnt caused us a desire to go back to this lifestyle, yet ... and I'm sure it never will. Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have changed, Luigi.

Until the early 60's, divorced women or women / girls who dared to "casually" date (without chaperone, other companions, or curfew) were the object of gossip and social shunning. Would we (as women) ever have a preference to return to these extreme standards? Are we still subject to these extreme rules, Luigi? No! Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have demanded change, Luigi.

Would we (as western women) think these standards are backward and oppressing, just as we consider Islamic rules which cause so many muslim women relegation to the Burqa, homelife, and child baring, backward? Does our "biology" cause us to desire a return to these rigid standards? No! It hasnt happened yet! Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have changed, Luigi.

Life has done a 180 for women, Luigi ... in just about every way imaginable, and as a result, western woman's decision making processes and personal preferences, including the selection of a mate, have undergone radical change.

You can continue to argue that women are held emotional hostage by their biological processes, but obviously, Luigi, things have changed radically, in spite of biology and as a result of our ability to control our biological functioning.

If you want to continue to argue that women's preferences, lifestyle, and decision making processes have not undergone radical change, then I suggest you do some serious soul searching.

Finally, Luigi, if you think I'm insulting you just because your argument lacks credibility, then I suggest that you work on your delusional thinking, consider medication, and chill out.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".