Liberal family laws/women's rights a cause of societal collapse?

[Cheetah]

I recently came across this webpage, which basically claims that societies where the patriarchy is weakened, and thus women's rights and freedoms (including sexually) are increased, inevitably collapses.

For example, very few people are aware that ancient Babylon, prior to its collapse, instituted civil reforms to family law such as no-fault divorce and child support. Or that Sparta, which is widely known for its military tradition, had liberated women to such a degree that they ran the Spartan economy, and as a result had below replacement rate birth rates, leading to a collapse, eventually, to surrounding patriarchal states. Or that marriage in late Rome had declined so precipitously that the Empire tried to encourage men to marry by instituting a bachelor tax (to no avail, mind you, because men did not *need* to marry due to the relatively freely available sex after women were “liberated”).

I haven't completed the whole article yet, but I find the arguments somewhat convincing. However, I have never heard of the things listed in the quoted part, and I haven't been able to verify them either.

Could anyone in here tell me if Babylon, Sparta and Rome actually had some feminist-like changes to their customs and laws prior to their downfalls, or if this is just facts taken out of thin air?

 

[Ahovking]

i have thought about this before i believe its right but yeah it sounds so evil but it makes sense.

 

[shortguy]

It's complete nonsense.

 

[Ahovking]

It's complete nonsense.

says you

 

[Cheetah]

It's complete nonsense.

The examples from Babylon, Sparta and Rome?
Or the argument made by the writer?

So far the only thing I've been able to find is that Babylon had clear rules about divorce, and that women could divorce their husbands if they could show neglect or cruelty (but would be drowned if she couldn't show it!), but I've found nothing about no-fault divorce from the wife's side. The husband could choose to divorce, but would then follow certain rules regarding alimony, etc., if he couldn't show that his wife had been a bad wife.

Haven't found anyting for the Spartan or Roman example, but I admit I've heard the accusations towards Spartan society before.

 

[Hehehe]

I recently came across this webpage, which basically claims that societies where the patriarchy is weakened, and thus women's rights and freedoms (including sexually) are increased, inevitably collapses.



I haven't completed the whole article yet, but I find the arguments somewhat convincing. However, I have never heard of the things listed in the quoted part, and I haven't been able to verify them either.

Could anyone in here tell me if Babylon, Sparta and Rome actually had some feminist-like changes to their customs and laws prior to their downfalls, or if this is just facts taken out of thin air?

It sure sounds nonsense (the examples, and by extension the article too). I didn't read the article but even IF a few societies where women's rights have been increased, have collapsed, it still does not imply there is a causality.

 

[Cheetah]

It sure sounds nonsense (the examples, and by extension the article too). I didn't read the article but even IF a few societies where women's rights have been increased, have collapsed, it still does not imply there is a causality.

That is correct. There need not be any causality at all.

I'm simply looking for confirmation to those claims. With such a confirmation, I'm inclined to give more thoughts to the article and its arguments. If anyone can show they are nonsense, I'm inclined to catalog any further claims in that article as nonsense.

 

[Hehehe]

That is correct. There need not be any causality at all.

I'm simply looking for confirmation to those claims. With such a confirmation, I'm inclined to give more thoughts to the article and its arguments. If anyone can show they are nonsense, I'm inclined to catalog any further claims in that article as nonsense.

Well I don't know about Babylon, Sparta and Rome but here's some info on the Mongols: http://www.cracked.com/article_18378_6-enlightened-ideas-brought-to-you-by-evil-empires.html (Scroll down a little bit)

Do you really need to consider if that article is nonsense? Women's rights have been oppressed in the Middle-East at least for some 500 years. What good has it done to ME?

 

[shortguy]

The examples from Babylon, Sparta and Rome?
Or the argument made by the writer?

So far the only thing I've been able to find is that Babylon had clear rules about divorce, and that women could divorce their husbands if they could show neglect or cruelty (but would be drowned if she couldn't show it!), but I've found nothing about no-fault divorce from the wife's side. The husband could choose to divorce, but would then follow certain rules regarding alimony, etc., if he couldn't show that his wife had been a bad wife.

Haven't found anyting for the Spartan or Roman example, but I admit I've heard the accusations towards Spartan society before.

Spartan society failed because it combined near-complete closure with a vicious eugenics regime. Roman sexual mores did weaken for men, but as far as I'm aware women were never sexually liberated, unless by "sexually liberated" you mean "free to be poor, abused, status-less prostitutes."

 

[LightSpectra]

I believe there's some truth to it.

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family -- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions -- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to 'help.'" - Thomas Sowell

It's moreso the collapse of public virtue that causes the decline of societies, and hedonism becoming integrated into the law.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

Since womens' suffrage the United States has been doing pretty good this past 90 years.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't understand what the Roman example is meant to illustrate. Is the institution of the "bachelor tax" supposed to be an example of extending women's rights? Or an unfortunate consequence of what happens when women's rights are extended? Either way it's nonsense: women had virtually no rights under the Roman empire, and this remained the case right the way through. In fact, Christian women seem to have had a much better deal than pagan women - they married later (i.e. not while they were children, at least not so much), they weren't forced to have abortions which might kill them, and they weren't left to die as babies. Since the main element of the Roman empire which survived its fall in the west was the church, i.e. that part of the Roman empire which treated women better, one might say that this is a fairly major problem with the thesis described in the OP. Unless, of course, the claim is that the spread of Christianity, with its better treatment of women, was what caused the fall of the Roman empire. But I'd like to see some evidence for that.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the mentioned examples are too vague and the causal patterns aren't expressed well.

The Babylon example is ridiculous. "No fault" divorce and child support are bad for society? LOL Sounds like a "mens' rights" proponent trying to wrap history around their viewpoints.

 

[Yeekim]

women had virtually no rights under the Roman empire, and this remained the case right the way through.

I beg your pardon?

Afaik they were disadvantaged only in that they could not vote or hold political offices. Apart from that I struggle to find examples of women's rights being lesser than these of men.
"Virtually no rights"... were you serious? I am no historian of course, but would you kindly provide some backup?

Sounds like a "mens' rights" proponent trying to wrap history around their viewpoints.

Obviously. However, there may some truth to what they are saying. If women get more rights, they tend to have less children. Less children means less soldiers and less soldiers does not end well for any empire.
Whether we should try and avoid this effect is, of course, a different question altogether.

 

[Arwon]

Right because super-patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are doing so well right now. There's not enough eyerolling emoticons in the world for this.

 

[cardgame]

Right because super-patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are doing so well right now. There's not enough eyerolling emoticons in the world for this.

@OP: I am 100% sure the concept is bullocks, and also assuming it's right on what ended Sparta (below-replacement birth rates), which sounds quite plausible because that was merely a consequence of its eugenics program, and had nothing to do with women's rights.

 

[Yeekim]

Right because super-patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are doing so well right now.

1) Depends entirely on what sort of metrics do you look at. Fast replacement rate of mujahhedin has allowed Afghans to pretty successfully fight back every other country for decades.
2) Even assuming that liberal family laws bring society to collapse, it does not follow that a society will necessarily be successful solely by the virtue of being super-patriarchal.

 

[Ahovking]

I do believe there's is some truth in it

 

[SnowlyWhite]

while the arguments are at least debatable, everyone who didn't agree with them didn't produce any.

basically - "it's wrong, because I don't think it's right"...

the only exception being:

Right because super-patriarchal societies like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are doing so well right now. There's not enough eyerolling emoticons in the world for this.

which basically says if A then B, then if not A, then not B which we all know from logic is absurd...

really, the theory at least seems interesting, which is something.

 

[Traitorfish]

while the arguments are at least debatable, everyone who didn't agree with them didn't produce any.

basically - "it's wrong, because I don't think it's right"...

Which, to be fair, is simply the reverse of the initial hypothesis. Why should we invest any more intellectual effort than the writer chose to? Unless, of course, you'd like a few hundred lines of aimless, poorly-written waffle to pad it out, in which case I'm sure that someone will be willingly to waste the same ten minutes it took for the original author to vomit up his little tract.