06-04-2024, 10:54 AM
(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So what if he says that is their True calling (that's his opinion, not a law), you were smart enough to know that it might not be their true calling, are you saying that these educated kids that heard his message are to stupid to figure out what's best for them?
I personally think that most women if given a choice would chose to be SAHM's and then go back into the work force at a later time.
I'm saying that young people respond to messages from social authority around them, for sure. When the message they got from parents, teachers, ministers, friends and extended family was that their place was in the home, most young women figured the traditional role was "best" for them.
Feminists managed to roll that back inequality with counter-messaging--parents, teachers, etc. who told young women they were equal and could have successful careers too, contribute as much as men to the economy, to politics, and much else.
Now there is a backlash to feminism and women's equality. Butker's speech is part of that backlash, part of a larger attempt to control the social authority and social environment in which young people make life choices.
(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You are talking out "opinions" again. I am talking about laws: the "opinions" of some forced on others who don't agree.
What Laws? His 1A rights? I thought he exercised those just fine. Did he break some law I don't know about? No one was chained to their chairs. They had the freedom to get up and walk away if they so desired. So again what laws were being broken?
Seems you missed my point. Laws are based on value judgments, what you are calling "opinion." When enough people support an opinion, they can make it a law. E.g., if enough people think slavery is wrong, they can abolish it. If not enough, then it is not abolished. If enough people want women's roles in society curtailed, they can put their opinion into law.
So when the number of people using their platform to sway opinion increases, and that opinion goes counter to women's equality, then it is rational for people who support equality to be concerned about what that trend means, whether enough "opinions" will be changed to bring back older laws--as was recently attempted in Arizona.
(06-03-2024, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There will always be resistance to any change.
Butkers speech is only pissing you off, it doesn't piss me off, i know what he's trying to say and yes he could do a better job of it, but he specifically attacked something that you hold dear to your heart. If you gave a speech there, i bet there would be plenty of people that would not like what you had to say either.
Him being Religious pretty much means it's going to not be an opinion that a Liberal life yourself will want to hear. So why torture yourself over it?
Do you agree, then, that Butker's speech signals resistance to change?
He attacked women's equality by advancing that notion that women, unlike men, have a "natural" role which supersedes everything else they might accomplish. That doesn't "piss [you] off" because you don't share the views on women's equality which I "hold dear to [my] heart."
And I agree, plenty of people who do not agree with my views on women's equality would not like what I had to say either. They'd be the people who don't see women as fully equal to men. And all religious people do not think like Butker does. Not even all Catholic women, and not even all women in Catholic orders, as Pally's link to the Benedictine Sisters objection shows.
