or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014) - Page 1459

post #21871 of 44038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

Policies aimed at preventing population decline.

 

But mostly for the sake of womens liberation.

 

Besides that, thanks for the thumbs yesterday.

post #21872 of 44038

Today Spain meets Jermyn street.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

Jacket & trusers - Emidio Tucci via El Corte Inglés

Shirt & socks - CT

Tie - Dehavilland

PS - Berg & Berg

Shoes - Carmina, shell cordovan

post #21873 of 44038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Al View Post
 

 

But mostly for the sake of womens liberation.

 

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I only mean this response respectfully, however the historical evidence doesn't back this up. Nearly every country that has this kind of welfare in place is either suffering from population decrease, or has at some point in the past. It's nice that it lines up with women's liberation these days, however the policies were started specifically to combat population issues. Think of it kind of like the American Civil War. The north created this mythology that they fought for equality after the war when no such reason existed while it was going on. Similarly the notion that these policies were adopted primarily for feminist reasons is pretty much not true.

post #21874 of 44038
Or, why can't we just say that--as in a lot of cases--there's a dynamic (and, in the real-time moment, often unpredictable) interplay between moral/ethical values and demographic/practical realities? You don't have to straw-man a belief in the importance of ethical imperatives (e.g., abolitionism, with the sleight-of-hand shift into "equality" propping up the straw-man argument) as if that kind of belief is blithely unaware of and divorced from practical politics. All this does is prop up a feeling that a cynical/practical explanation is superior.

(Sorry, back to the fits.)
post #21875 of 44038
Thread Starter 
Women's lib led to a dramatic decrease in prostitution. Demand side.

Because demand side > supply side in most things.
post #21876 of 44038

As just one example, Sweden's parental leave policy has been designed to encourage men to take more leave, as a means of improving workplace equality and the contribution of both parents to child-rearing. I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children, but the policy wouldn't have to be constructed as it is if that were the only goal.

 

https://sweden.se/society/gender-equality-in-sweden/

post #21877 of 44038

I chose my words carefully. I didn't say no one fought the war for abolition (although most didn't). I said that the north created a mythology that it fought the war for equality. This isn't cynicism, it's an evidence based answer. Here is why: An examination of the historical record gives us intriguing instances where men and women sometimes believed in the absolute equality of all races, usually for religious reasons. The vast majority (and I mean VAST) believed no such thing. Most northern abolitionists didn't want to abolish slavery because they thought it was injurious to slaves, but rather because they believed that it took away potential jobs for poor whites. Indeed, a large portion of the abolitionists believed that blacks would never fully assimilate into American culture and, instead, favored sending them to Africa (and many were). So the mythology is created when northerners of a more modern era look back and paint their own ideals onto the past. They assume that their ancestors fought against slave holders because they must have felt similarly to us. This, alas, is far from he truth.

post #21878 of 44038

I see no need to argue in this tread. There are different point of views on this topic. And that how it should be.

post #21879 of 44038
What CM is saying is definitely true in France - public policy as a tool to actively promote population growth goes back to the 19th century (trying and failing to keep up with the Germans). In the Nordic countries I'm not so sure (but I'd be doubtful).
post #21880 of 44038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

Women's lib led to a dramatic decrease in prostitution. Demand side.

Because demand side > supply side in most things.

You Keynesian.
post #21881 of 44038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children

 

It's called historical counterposition. It is when people take a past event and recreate the meaning of it to fit an agenda. And so in America we learn that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery, or we learn that the Revolution was fought over individual liberties. 

post #21882 of 44038
Fucking awesome, is what it is. Or, lazy people suckling from the teat of government at the expense of tax payers, if you listen to a different narrative.

(Referring to paternity leave, not slavery, of course)
post #21883 of 44038

The irony of posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is too rich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children

 

It's called historical counterposition. It is when people take a past event and recreate the meaning of it to fit an agenda. And so in America we learn that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery, or we learn that the Revolution was fought over individual liberties. 

 

No shit. But you keep writing things as though people only ever do things for one reason or their reasons don't change over time or everyone who does the same thing does it for the same reason. You say you're trying to be careful with your words but you're not. And your editing obscures my point about how Sweden's policy is actually constructed.

 

The irony of your posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is also rich and itself reeks of propaganda.

post #21884 of 44038
Thread Starter 
To get things back on track, here's a picture of me looking cranky.



(I was tempted to use the toilet picture. But I figured I'd save that for later)
post #21885 of 44038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

The irony of your posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is also rich and itself reeks of propaganda.


I'm sorry to have offended. I am reading the historical record as I see it. I claim no propaganda, you see I'm neither northern nor southern. I do think that it's best not to approach history from too much of an emotional standpoint because then it makes it difficult to see that there is indeed a northern mythology around the war. This isn't to say that there isn't also a southern mythology, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue that there isn't. I will give you some advise, don't become emotionally invested in your interpretation of the past. It makes you toss around fallacious accusations.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)