DNW:

The harsh words vented a little anger.

Reasonable anger, I would say.

I have the examples of women in my family who pulled themselves out of poverty and into full citizenship within a few generations. My maternal grandmother was yanked out of grade school after the 5th grade to milk cows. Nevertheless she went on to educate herself…. My mother was also lacking a full formal education. … these women as well as many others I’ve known, [N]ever gave up an ounce of dignity. Maybe it was the Victorian influence, or the fact that they were descended from pioneers. Whatever the reason they held the moral high ground and yet advanced their own well being. Both were born without voting rights and fought to achieve equality.

Where have they all gone?

Their descendants are still here. My grandmother was born on a ranch in a state where women had the vote two generations before they did nationally.

These women had daughters and granddaughters who probably share many of the traits of independence and self-respect that their maternal ancestors evinced.

I know that in the case of my sisters, who descend from her on the parental side, they certainly do. Although my mother’s mother was also famous for having at age 16 socked a man who tried to molest her in her place of work. She was fired, but her act of defiance and retaliation became a family legend.

It is just that there are also many go-with-the-flow materialists, for whom the value of personal dignity pales in comparison with social acceptance, feelings of being approved of, an orgasm, and a bit of “finery”.

This probably has an evolutionary aspect to it. Strictly speaking, I cannot see how women’s honor or dignity is relevant to the reproduction of the species considered in its lowest forms of social and intellectual development.

Women are probably first proud [historically speaking] when the men who value them are proud of them and see them as more than beasts of burden and sexual receptacles. And men likewise proud and careful of their behavior when they are valued by women and held in check by other men who will brook no nonsense.

It’s probably a matter of both culture and descent … I would guess.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/30/women-need-to-use-their-voices-and-stop-defending-scumbag-men/

“The question really should be: What’s so toxic in our culture that some of our most accomplished women seek to rationalize such vile behavior? To salvage what they still see as friendships with men who’ve revealed themselves to be nothing but craven misogynists?”

* * *
Reply: “But they’re OUR misogynists, not some creepy conservative or Christian, so it’s okay to still be friends.”

Another fall-out from the Clinton era, but it really started much further back, with JFK and FDR having their own sexual escapades hidden and excused.

The Other Chuck Says:
November 30th, 2017 at 10:49 am
Was there anything that really prevented them from making complaints, filing lawsuits, or just walking away?
* **
Interesting that these two comments were next to each other.
Clearly they did not have to tolerate predations in order to have a career or make a living — just to have THIS career. You can make a living doing lots of things that don’t involve putting out for your boss or co-workers.
The only thing that prevented the three back-lash actions was the belief that they just had to keep THIS career.

Schools, churches and the popular media used to teach that doing the right thing was more important than success. It’s a shame that we seem to have lost that part of our culture. Today’s scandals are a direct result of that loss.
* * *
Our children’s classes at church have been teaching “It’s better to do the hard right than the easy wrong.”
I hope they figure out what that means in practice.

Personally, I don’t think they are going to be successful. The moral framework that served to hold predators of both sexes in check has been dismantled. They continue to act as they please, and expect there will be no consequences, but it was our Christian morality they dismantled that prevented this kind of behavior.
* * *
It’s always amazing to see the arsonists get surprised when the fires burn down their own houses.

The harsh words vented a little anger. I have the examples of women in my family who pulled themselves out of poverty and into full citizenship within a few generations. My maternal grandmother was yanked out of grade school after the 5th grade to milk cows. Nevertheless she went on to educate herself. I have a special photograph of her standing in front of my then 14 year old mother, both dressed in white, holding a “Let Women Vote” sign as they were preparing to march in a parade.

My mother was also lacking a full formal education. When she was 15 and in the first year of high school, my grandfather brought home a pair of boy’s lace up boots for her. She refused to wear them to school. When he told her that was all she was going to get, she quit school and got a job at the local match factory. Later she went to night school and continued her education on her own. She married but always worked so that she would have some independence.

Neither of these women as well as many others I’ve known, ever gave up an ounce of dignity. Maybe it was the Victorian influence, or the fact that they were descended from pioneers. Whatever the reason they held the moral high ground and yet advanced their own well being. Both were born without voting rights and fought to achieve equality.

Where have they all gone?

“Personally, I don’t think they are going to be successful. The moral framework that served to hold predators of both sexes in check has been dismantled. They continue to act as they please, and expect there will be no consequences, but it was our Christian morality they dismantled that prevented this kind of behavior. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

They are reaping what they have sown.

Waidmann”

Yes.

You might be interested to know, or be reminded if you have forgotten, of Tacitus’ remarks on marriage in “Germania”.

Claim is, that it was didactic in intent rather than strictly ethnological. But it makes for interesting reading all the same. Especially as it occurs in the context of a glance back at a moral sensibility presumed to have been swamped by the fashions of the then present Roman age.

” … The dress of the women does not differ from that of the men; except that they more frequently wear linen, which they stain with purple; and do not lengthen their upper garment into sleeves, but leave exposed the whole arm, and part of the breast.

The matrimonial bond is, nevertheless, strict and severe among them; nor is there anything in their manners more commendable than this. Almost singly among the barbarians, they content themselves with one wife; a very few of them excepted, who, not through incontinence, but because their alliance is solicited on account of their rank, practise polygamy. The wife does not bring a dowry to her husband, but receives one from him. The parents and relations assemble, and pass their approbation on the presents–presents not adapted to please a female taste, or decorate the bride; but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, spear, and sword. By virtue of these, the wife is espoused; and she in her turn makes a present of some arms to her husband. This they consider as the firmest bond of union; these, the sacred mysteries, the conjugal deities. That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; to suffer and to dare equally with him, in peace and in war: this is indicated by the yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the offered arms. Thus she is to live; thus to die. She receives what she is to return inviolate and honored to her children; what her daughters-in-law are to receive, and again transmit to her grandchildren.

They live, therefore, fenced around with chastity; corrupted by no seductive spectacles, no convivial incitements. Men and women are alike unacquainted with clandestine correspondence. Adultery is extremely rare among so numerous a people. Its punishment is instant, and at the pleasure of the husband. He cuts off the hair of the offender, strips her, and in presence of her relations expels her from his house, and pursues her with stripes through the whole village. Nor is any indulgence shown to a prostitute. Neither beauty, youth, nor riches can procure her a husband: for none there looks on vice with a smile, or calls mutual seduction the way of the world. Still more exemplary is the practice of those states in which none but virgins marry, and the expectations and wishes of a wife are at once brought to a period. Thus, they take one husband as one body and one life; that no thought, no desire, may extend beyond him; and he may be loved not only as their husband, but as their marriage. To limit the increase of children, or put to death any of the later progeny is accounted infamous: and good habits have there more influence than good laws elsewhere”

If this is true of the “Germans” I am not sure it would be true of the Scandinavians of a somewhat later time, whose paganism and sexual morals were pretty awful if sources such as Ibn Fadlan or the Sagas are to be believed.

https://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/12938.ch01.pdf