Age differences and obsessions with "change"

Submitted by Straight_Talk_Luigi (United States), Sep 1, 2009 at 04:51

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

That's quite right, Curious. Opinions lack credibility when they are not supported by facts.

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.

I guess that depends on what your idea of "selecting a mate" means. If you are referring to casual sex, you won't get much of an argument from me, although, several female posters felt the need to be adamant to insist that their appearance is much younger than their age.

Kind of negates the whole appreciation of older women, dontcha think, Curious?

Not quite the 180, radical change you had in mind, I think.

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.

Radically? I don't think so. The failure of distance relationships involving different cultures and age differences have been well document via landline phone and snail mail. Poster Hisham Zein shared his experience that occurred by letter.

The idea of cell phones and the internet may have increased the frequency of such relationships, but the end results are similar and the communication barriers are still largely present.

Technology should not be shunned, Curious, but it is important to understand how it works, and on this particular blog, why it leads to so many disasters. Mainly because a mere fraction of the full human spectrum of communication can occur over such media. Why else do you think so many women come on here with uncertainty? Uncertainty that is not usually present in realtime dating.

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?

Your choice of gettting a younger man is better than your ancestors. The chance of that turning into a lasting relationship is not much different, if not less.

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.

Yes, and look where it's getting us, Curious. Think tanks and scholars are saying that much of what is known as the industrialized world won't even make it out of the 21st Century. Why?

You mention birth control----this limits the birth rate. You say its bad to have kids (you call them a litter?) Please tell me how civilization is supposed to survive without children. Feminists and liberals have trouble answering that question every time I pose it. Why do you think we have legal immigration here in America? Why do you think the Europeans put with mobs of angry Muslims, young communists and Russian-speak minorities in their central cities? Because it's tolerant and diverse? No! Because without these people, their status, heck, our status, as world powers would vanish overnight!

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.

You mean opting for a "career" instead of a family? More times than naught, I find such decisions to be selfish. Yet, many women do this because they have to in order to maintain a decent standard of living, not because they want to be some ideallic beacon of change.

That is what my logical mind sees, and logic and idealism are a poor match, Curious.

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

More pregnant teenagers and single Moms on welfare where the taxpayer and the US government is father. Is that your idea of better?

Such scenarios are bad for soceity and are socially unsustainable.

And people wonder why kids have so many problems today.

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.

Fashion changes and pop culture changes did not orginate in the 1960s, Curious. In the 1900's, it was Ragtime, in the 1920's it was the Charleston. In the 1930s and 1940s it was folk and swing. In the 1950s it was Boogie Woogie and Rock and Roll.

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.

Birth rates were higher then. It was the edge of the Baby Boom, and it demanded the attention of women to be at home. Besides, back then, families were more content, meaning not every kid needed their own car and tv . One salary was usually sufficient.

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?

Interestingly enough, American power was at an all-time apex in world power during this time.

Fortunately, a lot of women would prefer a similar lifestyle, but cannot have it because it's not economically viable. The "demand for change" does not have as much to do with it as you think it does.

Also, Curious, most women still do marry "older, secure" men. It sure beats marrying a guy she doesn't feel safe with. Younger men weren't even the first choice for many women on here, many of whom are divorced.

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.

Really? Care to explain to me then why so many women on this site mull over being housewives for their Muslim men? Is this the "change" you refer to?

Also, who is "us"? Do you now presume to speak for all women, Curious?

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?

You never were subject to them, Curious. They were done to protect the girl. It's just another social norm is all. You did have a Constitutional right not do to that, you know.

No! Why? Because our thought processes and preferences have demanded change, Luigi.

I'd say they demanded situations where sex would be easier to have. The biological need to reproduce. Never fails.

Would we (as western women) think these standards are backward and oppressing,

Try being responsible. Also, most teens I know still have a curfew. The ones who don't are the ones who get into trouble.

just as we consider Islamic rules which cause so many muslim women relegation to the Burqa, homelife, and child baring, backward?

Then explain to me why so many women on here and why so many liberal women across the EU defend Islam, even more than Muslims do. In fact, I have not need read a single defense post by a Muslim yet. Just look around, Curious! It's almost always Western women who are dating Muslim men who are jumping on the front line to defend Islam, you know, those ones who are so adamant about "change" who are doing the defending!

The funny thing is that nearly every single time Islam does not need defending, because it's not on trial here!

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.

Um, it was because of primal urges from human biology that we developed culture and social norms, Curious. Your preference has only changed as an excuse to have more sex and rationalize it as a good thing. It's as simple as that, isn't it? One whopping rationale to excite your sex. Pathetic.

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.

Like I said, a few decades of rapant, irresponsible, destructive change and liberalism will not undo hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. History has proven that tradition is stronger than change, and post-modern feminism and liberalism will be the next victim. You talk about change, but these philosophies are nothing new. They have been tried over and over and have failed over and over.

All you're doing is setting the stage for Islam to rule Western Europe. In fifty years, they'll be the majorityof the population, and you can thank birth control and feminism for that. Heck, the European feminists I've seen fear Islam. I would imagine that with the rise of Islam, conservative values will return to the EU like never before.

Face it, Curious, your ideallic "change" won't even be a blimp on the radar of human history. Everything you are doing will have the oppose intended effect, as selfish acts often do, one way or another. China, Russia, and Islamic Western EU, Brazil, these are the names of 21st Century, and you're giving it to them on a silver platter and you don't even realize it.

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.

No one is saying they haven't, but that is too general for this board. For one thing, a relationship or even a fling is a two-way street. You fail to factor in what the man, or younger man, wants. This almost always is a casual encounter.

Not exactly my idea of "change" or 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.

Unfortunately for you, Curious, my response comes from logic (logos) and you are running full steam on personal observation from general talking points on emotion (ethos).

Also, if your posts are edited, which the last one seemed to be, then yes, you are being insulting or in some way violating the terms of posting priveleges.

The more insults you hurl at me, Curious, the less credible your posting becomes. People who are secure in themselves and their words do not need to stoop so low. It's a classic sign of blogging that you are losing the argument and losing it quick.

---

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".