• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Woke feminism silenced

Status
Not open for further replies.
India is probably the most famous country that practices arranged marriages, I know a number of Indians with arranged marriages. Their divorce rate is among the lowest in the world. Overall, transactional marriages are the norm outside of Western countries, but the Western countries have the highest divorce rates. Wikipedia.
It's an interesting thought. I would guess there's so many other factors that might play a role in the divorce rate though. I've heard quite a lot of people suggesting that we have choice overload generally, though, and that it might not be actually positive for us. And I guess when we lived in smaller communes the choice of life mate was a lot more restricted to the point that it probably felt quite inevitable who we would end up with. Though not formally arranged, the expectation that you'd probably end up with that nice boy/girl from a few doors away might have grown with you as you both grew up. But I'm guessing here.
 
Countries like the UK have a high divorce rate because people these days take one trivial thing they don't like in their relationship and decide to split up, like it's just the easy way out.
Also where I come from it seems to be a thing for a lot of women to want daughters rather than sons, then as soon as they have a daughter they're all like "look at my daughter! Ain't she beautiful?" with loads of pictures of her baby girl wearing earrings and make-up, with large bows in her hair and being dressed like the Queen celebrating the Jubilee.
Not saying this is bad or anything, but they just let their sons be free children while their daughters are treated like expensive dolls being displayed in a museum.
If I had a baby girl I'd probably let her be whatever she wants to be (a tomboy is fine, a girly girl is also fine, or anywhere in between).

Not saying every mother I know is like this but I have heard of it and know one family like it. Some mothers even look disappointed when they find out they're having a boy. Personally, if I could choose the gender of my baby, I would choose a boy (though if I had a girl I'd obviously love her just the same). Being a tomboy myself I think I'd do quite well with a son.
 
It's an interesting thought. I would guess there's so many other factors that might play a role in the divorce rate though. I've heard quite a lot of people suggesting that we have choice overload generally, though, and that it might not be actually positive for us. And I guess when we lived in smaller communes the choice of life mate was a lot more restricted to the point that it probably felt quite inevitable who we would end up with. Though not formally arranged, the expectation that you'd probably end up with that nice boy/girl from a few doors away might have grown with you as you both grew up. But I'm guessing here.
That causes endogamy
 
India is probably the most famous country that practices arranged marriages, I know a number of Indians with arranged marriages. Their divorce rate is among the lowest in the world. Overall, transactional marriages are the norm outside of Western countries, but the Western countries have the highest divorce rates. Wikipedia.

I don't know if these facts mean much on their own. In times without legal divorce or with legal--but stigmatized--divorce, people will mostly stay together. But, that doesn't mean they're happy.

We can define our marital process as "feelings first," but I'd also argue our culture--as with many--are emotionally illiterate, on the whole. High divorce rates seem more likely to stem from people not knowing themselves or their partners well enough, as well as not having skills to work through problems together. I'm skeptical that acknowledging emotions over transaction leads to less success in marriage, unless we consider marriage as business involving skills and products, not people.
 
Still trying to figure out what woke means.
So I'd watched video on guys and gals and issues and more videos showed up...
Got watching these and realising within myself my issues with dating, and it also helping me to associate my feelings.

When it comes to choosing guy because he has house and can provide for offspring attraction, or I got really stuck on idea that I was searching for a deeper connection. Of course paying bills is tough, but it just a system of prostitution at highest level.

One video describes how men built all infrastructure and implies certain feminists are ungrateful and even go so far as to say women invented nothing. This sort of brut testosterone that I shy away from, and usually I just echnore it and live in my own world however society believes women must settle down, and that we all same.
So how society and Hollywood is delusional and that stereotypes actually don't exist. For starters most not women at yoga use yoga but don't contribute any new input. Mostly a lot of infrastructure was build on cheap labour and that's slavery influences, so see this often in South Africa where foreman supervise but do no hard labour. Then the types of men that may invent required machinery are probably geeks so much men just learn to fix cars, don't innovate.

I don't like people telling me what to do, I don't like being termed stupid. Not sure how much of what I said is from asd but I wish we could make a comedy movie, shattering stereotypes and revealing truth.
Is it safe to say not rules and guidelines don't apply to my type of female....not sure yet what is definition of women on spectrum, usually older Mom, sometimes Mom of left handed twin. Usual about Mom, but not much else
The term "woke" has changed its meaning over the years and has morphed from something perceived as positive and thought provoking to something that is perceived as politically charged and derogatory (i.e. "the woke left"), someone who is uninformed, delusional, Marxist, or stupid. I will just leave that one alone.

Feminism has morphed into something different, as well. Feminists from the 70's and 80's are a different type of thinker than feminists in the 2020's. Combining the terms "woke" and "feminist" now-a-days, this can imply some very toxic and delusional sort of thinking.

I am not sure all these social media and YouTube videos are accurate representations of the population, as a whole, but rather more the opposite, highlighting some of the "lunatic fringe" "click-bait" that gets a lot of views.
 
Years ago "woke" meant animal rights supporters. If that's still under the woke umbrella now then I guess I'm woke in that regard lol. But if someone does something like put rat traps down, I wouldn't shame them as a person like many modern woke people do these days about other things, just for having an opinion. It can be very damaging to call people names just because they fit your skewed definition of racist, sexist and other derogatory accusations. Those are serious accusations that mustn't really be thrown around lightly because it could do more harm, cause embarrassment and humiliation, and can even make them more mad and actually become what they were accused of.

For example, calling all people of a certain demographic a hurtful word is understandably wrong and should be dealt with. Just expressing a harmless opinion on a political ideology or belief should not deserve name-calling or other backlash. That's the way I see it and is probably the fairest and most neutral way to approach such matters.
 
I don't know if these facts mean much on their own. In times without legal divorce or with legal--but stigmatized--divorce, people will mostly stay together. But, that doesn't mean they're happy.

We can define our marital process as "feelings first," but I'd also argue our culture--as with many--are emotionally illiterate, on the whole. High divorce rates seem more likely to stem from people not knowing themselves or their partners well enough, as well as not having skills to work through problems together. I'm skeptical that acknowledging emotions over transaction leads to less success in marriage, unless we consider marriage as business involving skills and products, not people.
Marriage in Eurocentric culture was business meant for the wealthy and connected to royalty.to protect property rights .
 
I don't know if these facts mean much on their own. In times without legal divorce or with legal--but stigmatized--divorce, people will mostly stay together. But, that doesn't mean they're happy.

We can define our marital process as "feelings first," but I'd also argue our culture--as with many--are emotionally illiterate, on the whole. High divorce rates seem more likely to stem from people not knowing themselves or their partners well enough, as well as not having skills to work through problems together. I'm skeptical that acknowledging emotions over transaction leads to less success in marriage, unless we consider marriage as business involving skills and products, not people.
I'm not advocating for one system or the another. I think it is probably the case that when families are involved in decision-making, they will generally prevent unwise outcomes, and that explains much of the lower divorce rates in non-Western countries. But they probably will place a much higher priority on transactions and not optimize for the happiest outcomes, either.

Just saying for OP that it's fine and maybe even wise to consider other criteria which might seem transactional, beyond feelings. I know I did with my husband.
 
Last edited:
Much changed during WWII in the USA when women began working in factories, businesses and farms, performing - quite well - tasks formerly undertaken by men. To my way of thinking, women became "woke" (enlightened), independent, realized they didn't need a man to provide all things to them and that men don't always provide emotional or financial support. When the men returned from war, women were ejected from the factories and other jobs so men could resume their former roles. A lot of women were justifiably disenchanted with the return to the old regime. There's still a glass ceiling that keeps women from achieving as much success as men and a not uncommon sentiment that a woman's place is in the stove, er, I mean in the home.
 
India is probably the most famous country that practices arranged marriages, I know a number of Indians with arranged marriages. Their divorce rate is among the lowest in the world.

That could be because there might be some penalities involved if you try to divorce your husband. Have you heard of acid attacks and honour killings? India has the highest incidence of acid attacks in the world. Have you seen Indian women after they tried to leave their husbands? It's very, very disturbing.
 
If you want to see what marriage is really about look at primitive cultures. IT's about raising the next generation.
 
I very much disagree, they have a lower divorce rate because they know they will get killed if they try to divorce. It's not because their families found the perfect partner, far from it. The women are stuck. They have no choice. The men can do whatever they want, they have no reason to divorce a woman who has to cook, take care of the kids and do all the chores for the men.
The point about being strict on divorce is a good one. I am sure the Indian and Chinese women I know are a self-selecting sample.
 
@Mary Terry

That's a "Modern reinterpretation". Too heavy on half-truths for my taste. Projecting modern perspectives much past the early 80's (i.e. a bit after hormonal birth control became common) almost always leads to problems.

Remember the baby boom? And IIRC, the move to the suburbs in the US? The GI Generation and the Silent Generation did not abandon the nuclear family en masse.

Time to retire that "glass ceiling" claim too. It's an example of the "Apex Fallacy", and it has been for most (maybe all, or even more) of the 21st century.

Last I remember (don't have a link) if the income figures are correctly processed (FWIW it's called a "multi-variate analysis , & I used to know how to do it) the unexplained difference in M vs F incomes in the US is around 2%.
It's not so everywhere of course (I doubt it holds in India), but it is for most of Europe.


@Kayla55
Woke has changed meaning over a fairly short time, so you have to be very careful where you get your definitions.

The widest use at the moment is by culturally conservative people to describe extremists on the cultural left.

Note that it's not unrelated to political L/R too, but in many places, including the USA, they're merged together by both sides as a side effect of overly polarized political positions.
Overly-polarized means far too many extremists making far too much noise, and moderates on both sides being silenced. OFC there's no point in listening to extremists, so they should just be ignored (except for personal amusement /lol).

There are many places to look for obviously justified examples of wokeness though. My current favorite (because even in the US it's obvious mostly cultural, and not very political:

Whether biological males may participate in women's sports.
This includes College championships, World Championships, Olympic Games etc, where, for example, there are huge difference in the benefits to the athletes between coming third vs fourth.
Everyone in the competition who's beaten by an athlete on drugs (the old-school problem), or by someone with an unreasonable biological advantage, pays for it to some extent.

Note that by no means all of the issues that separate cultural woke vs non-woke are related to that particular domain. That one's just in the public eye at the moment.

If you need other examples I can provide them of course, but only one at a time :)

Starting from there you can probably find the most useful part of the wikipedia link @tree linked, but even so be careful not to get caught up in political stuff that isn't truly on the more/less woke spectrum.
 
@Mary Terry

That's a "Modern reinterpretation". Too heavy on half-truths for my taste. Projecting modern perspectives much past the early 80's (i.e. a bit after hormonal birth control became common) almost always leads to problems.

Remember the baby boom? And IIRC, the move to the suburbs in the US? The GI Generation and the Silent Generation did not abandon the nuclear family en masse.

Time to retire that "glass ceiling" claim too. It's an example of the "Apex Fallacy", and it has been for most (maybe all, or even more) of the 21st century.

Last I remember (don't have a link) if the income figures are correctly processed (FWIW it's called a "multi-variate analysis , & I used to know how to do it) the unexplained difference in M vs F incomes in the US is around 2%.
It's not so everywhere of course (I doubt it holds in India), but it is for most of Europe.


@Kayla55
Woke has changed meaning over a fairly short time, so you have to be very careful where you get your definitions.

The widest use at the moment is by culturally conservative people to describe extremists on the cultural left.

Note that it's not unrelated to political L/R too, but in many places, including the USA, they're merged together by both sides as a side effect of overly polarized political positions.
Overly-polarized means far too many extremists making far too much noise, and moderates on both sides being silenced. OFC there's no point in listening to extremists, so they should just be ignored (except for personal amusement /lol).

There are many places to look for obviously justified examples of wokeness though. My current favorite (because even in the US it's obvious mostly cultural, and not very political:

Whether biological males may participate in women's sports.
This includes College championships, World Championships, Olympic Games etc, where, for example, there are huge difference in the benefits to the athletes between coming third vs fourth.
Everyone in the competition who's beaten by an athlete on drugs (the old-school problem), or by someone with an unreasonable biological advantage, pays for it to some extent.

Note that by no means all of the issues that separate cultural woke vs non-woke are related to that particular domain. That one's just in the public eye at the moment.

If you need other examples I can provide them of course, but only one at a time :)

Starting from there you can probably find the most useful part of the wikipedia link @tree linked, but even so be careful not to get caught up in political stiff that isn't truly on the more/less woke spectrum.
I love this site just told my wife nobody debates like us. Explains why IQ test are a waste of time on us.
 
@Forest Cat @jsilver256

There's no way to be sure if you're right or not.

At this stage, "no receipts means it's not known to be true". Which isn't the same as "false" of course.
But if you're making an argument that's not supported by any data, question your conclusions.

The usual opposing position:
You're making a blanket claim about a lack of long-term commitment for possibly your own parent's generation and certainly most of the people in your own families from 1/2 generation older than them and up, that a startling proportion (25% or so) stayed together unwillingly.

Ask them.

And remember: choosing to stay together for the kids (until they established themselves in their adult lives) makes perfect sense for a couple who got together to have a family and launch successful children:

"We stayed together mostly for the children" is a fully justified adult decision, not a mark of shame or failure.

Modern divorce rates are harmful for children. And AFAIK it's now well-known that single-father households produce better young adults than single-mother households.

Note: It's not for the reason most people guess, but it's one of those facts that's "spun" and ignored for a mixture of political and cultural reasons that can't be easily separated. You can ask, but the price is I tell you the answer :)
 
Last edited:
@Mary Terry

That's a "Modern reinterpretation". Too heavy on half-truths for my taste. Projecting modern perspectives much past the early 80's (i.e. a bit after hormonal birth control became common) almost always leads to problems.

Remember the baby boom? And IIRC, the move to the suburbs in the US? The GI Generation and the Silent Generation did not abandon the nuclear family en masse.

Time to retire that "glass ceiling" claim too. It's an example of the "Apex Fallacy", and it has been for most (maybe all, or even more) of the 21st century.

Last I remember (don't have a link) if the income figures are correctly processed (FWIW it's called a "multi-variate analysis , & I used to know how to do it) the unexplained difference in M vs F incomes in the US is around 2%.
It's not so everywhere of course (I doubt it holds in India), but it is for most of Europe.


@Kayla55
Woke has changed meaning over a fairly short time, so you have to be very careful where you get your definitions.

The widest use at the moment is by culturally conservative people to describe extremists on the cultural left.

Note that it's not unrelated to political L/R too, but in many places, including the USA, they're merged together by both sides as a side effect of overly polarized political positions.
Overly-polarized means far too many extremists making far too much noise, and moderates on both sides being silenced. OFC there's no point in listening to extremists, so they should just be ignored (except for personal amusement /lol).

There are many places to look for obviously justified examples of wokeness though. My current favorite (because even in the US it's obvious mostly cultural, and not very political:

Whether biological males may participate in women's sports.
This includes College championships, World Championships, Olympic Games etc, where, for example, there are huge difference in the benefits to the athletes between coming third vs fourth.
Everyone in the competition who's beaten by an athlete on drugs (the old-school problem), or by someone with an unreasonable biological advantage, pays for it to some extent.

Note that by no means all of the issues that separate cultural woke vs non-woke are related to that particular domain. That one's just in the public eye at the moment.

If you need other examples I can provide them of course, but only one at a time :)

Starting from there you can probably find the most useful part of the wikipedia link @tree linked, but even so be careful not to get caught up in political stiff that isn't truly on the more/less woke spectrum.

I reject right leaning rewriting of historical facts so you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Which facts did I re-write?
Be explicit please. And expect me to check your work.

Judging by your bio you know I'm right about the GI and Boomers aggregate attitude to nuclear families. I don't doubt that the middle-class women who entered the workforce gained confidence as well as experience. But I doubt the less economically advantaged members of "Northern" society got their first job back then. The "working classes" (and farmers) have always worked

As for the "right-leaning" re-write. I write my own material. And I assure you, you have no idea about my politics (**)
I think I said earlier here that it's not possible to figure out how I think about politics or culture using a US-centric frame.

(**) You wouldn't like mine anyway :) But probably not for the reason you think
 
@Kayla55


You started this thread by saying you were "...trying to figure out what woke means."

To what extent has this thread helped you with that?
 
@Kayla55


You started this thread by saying you were "...trying to figure out what woke means."

To what extent has this thread helped you with that?
Well now I know what woke means, thought it was slang and I'd missed the point.
I know some videos seem stupid, but to me it was interesting for eg to see how others may react if partner seems interested in another. I used to just try not overreact, say nothing, break up later.
Read through discussion, and it's interesting to hear everyone views, it may be asd symptom to not learn to react loud to partner looking at others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom