Please Support Free Republic Tonight!
Posted on 02/11/2013 3:59:52 PM PST by lbryce
Norman Vincent Peale, author of "The Power of Positive Thinking," once wrote these words: “Change your thoughts, and you change your world.”
His statement is highlighted at the beginning of my new book, "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage." Its premise is that if women want to be successful in love, they should reject the cultural script they’ve been sold and adopt a whole new view of men and marriage.
As products of divorce, the modern generation has few role models for lasting love. That alone is a problem. But young women have an added burden: they’ve been raised in a society that eschews marriage. They’ve been taught instead to honor sex, singlehood and female empowerment.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Case in point:people will make arguments in conclusions that are fallacious based on one of the most oft-quoted yet egregiously misinterpreted aphorisms of our society that all men are created equal, men and woman likewise.
Now, the phrase "all men are created equal" was never meant to apply in a universal manner regarding all things that people are capable of in terms of skills, talent, ability. As a matter of fact hardly anyone is created equal in terms of abilities, skills the fruits of which they enjoy over those less productive.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
This statement seems to capture the very essence of human beings as being fundamentally not equal, as being not equal speaks only as it applies to their capacity to create for themselves in all the myriad iterations of human production, creativity or lack thereof in terms of the inherent capacity as means of being self-supportive and beyond mere subsistence level.
Origin of the phrase:From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the 'Critique of the Gotha Program' is as follows:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in "The organization of work".The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including
I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work. II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense. III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
The utter irony, of course is that the phrase was part and parcel of the Communist way of life, even if they hadn't applied it as it should have been.
Yet here, in this country, the term "all men are created equal" is recognized as the highest calling regarding governmental expression to its citizens.
The glaring difference between the two assessments of the equality of men is that one is in reference to personal capability, capacity, in being bestowed as inherent endowment, gifts inherited under random, fortuitous circumstances.
In too many instances, as in this case, "all men (and women) are created equal" ONLY APPLIES AS EQUALITY as say legal status, for say, voting but much too often it is abused, misused,corrupted to mean all men, women are created equal in terms of economic, social status, the difference between democracy and meritocracy.
Liberals, women’s groups, those politically correct might say, having equality has nothing to do with your personal happiness. No one has to give a rat’s a** about your happiness to achieve equality in our society/
Men and women are equal, but not equivalent.
People would be a lot happier in life if they simply do what they can, with what they have. Milling about and being jelous of everyone else, and being outraged at injustices will simply make you a bitter unhappy person. Consequently, most liberal-minded people I know smile on the outside but are boiling over with rage inside.
Your message “Men and women are equal, but not equivalent.”
It’s as good a statement in a succint way as I’ve seen.
I might add, equal in what way? Society deliberately misuses words which demand an expanation, but are left dangling in mid-stream. It is like the term “tolerance”. Tolerant to what or of what?
Men and women are complementary, and are created that way so as to renew the face of the earth with new life. God loves all people, both genders, all races, etc.. To declare certain groups as better than others in God’s eyes is ridiculous. Maybe in a secular society it can be done by measurements that are not spiritual, but God uses other criteria.
Your message “Men and women are equal, but not equivalent.”
It’s as good a statement in a succint way as I’ve seen.
I might add, equal in what way? Society deliberately misuses words which demand an expanation, but are left dangling in mid-stream. It is like the term “tolerance”. Tolerant to what or of what?
Men and women are complementary, and are created that way so as to renew the face of the earth with new life. God loves all people, both genders, all races, etc.. To declare certain groups as better than others in God’s eyes is ridiculous. Maybe in a secular society it can be done by measurements that are not spiritual, but God uses other criteria.
Men accept that they are men. Feminists can’t accept that they’re women. Or put slightly differently, feminists can’t accept that they are NOT men. And that - is the root of feminist angst.
bkmk
My husband built a 5,000 sq. ft. log home from logs he milled himself. I on the other hand, birthed children. Different strokes for different folks. lol
as people they are equal, but in other ways and roles and positions, they are not equal.
Is that even the way to say it??
As people they are equal their roles and positions are just different!
Be careful there because if you say they are “unequal” you run the risk of devaluing their roles which are so very important.
The author says
Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings.
Pretty sure the author is not at odds with what you say. I read the entire piece and found statements such as
Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings.
Men and women are equal, but not equivalent.
&&&
Another way of saying what this writer says:
Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings.
“You’re not too smart, I like that in a man” Kathleen Turner “Body Heat” 1981. :-)
But, if all men are created equal, why is it, that 6 out 7 Dwarfs are not Happy?
You can tell she’s not a hardcore feminist — she’s cute.
Ooh, am I allowed to say that??
I hem his pants and iron his shirts.
The contract works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.