Jon Quincy Adams once said,

“From all that I have read of history and government of human life and manners, I have drawn this conclusion, that the manners of women were the most infallible barometer to ascertain the degree of morality and virtue of a nation.”


To get the thread rolling or spinning I would say he is right to a very high degree. What say yous guys.

Views: 660

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Assumption to a very high degree and a subjective statement based on the viewpoint of an upper-class white male almost two and a half centuries ago.

It's the product of a certain place and time, and it's interesting as a statement on men's view of women at that particular time and place, and surely we can analyze the context for clues as to the origins of the idea that womenfolk are the keeper of morals.

But it's not an absolute and doesn't really tell us anything about today. Even in colonial times you could find plenty of examples of morally "bad" women. Men as well. To use it as a measure of national morality is pure tripe.

Adam's assertion doesn't require analyzing how a nation treats it's women.  Granted treating women appropriately ought be expected of any civilized nation just as treating any person appropriately is.

Adam's assertion requires analyzing how a nation's women treats others.

It's supposed to be enlightened and flattering towards women - look how important they are - but with 0 context, why does he choose that half (or quarter, if you separate children) of the nation? What's irrelevant about men's manners? Also, using manners to discern morality and virtue is suspect. Manners vary; morality and virtue are derived from self-evident truths.

Tocqueville has similar comments about American women, but there I know the context. He particularly remarks on women traveling alone. To him, this shows both how law-abiding the nation is (weaker citizens protected by general order and stronger citizens) and how egalitarian (women not constantly under a man's authority).

I don't think it is saying that males manners are irrelevant, but just that if manners or morals swung in one direction for the worse then there would be balance or an origin. 

That's why I think the word barometer is pretty useful because it's not to say that men alone can't sway the moral high ground. But if as a group all agreed on acting a certain way and there was no contrast, then anything they do would appear to be right. Also taking my own life as an example, my Dad swears like  sailor. My mom never liked it or always stopped me if I did it, and now I rarely swear.

I would disagree about manners.

Manners are a subset of ethics, therefore ultimately morals and virtues will come into play.

I disagree that ethics necessarily reflect morals. Virtues, maybe. But manners and ethics are social constructs, not moral ones. Morals *may* come into play, but are not necessarily part of the equation. 

Perhaps so, I included morals to cover my bases, there are areas between the two that get cloudy.

It could possibly be during the time he wrote it there may have been a tighter correlation between manners and morals, virtues. 

I'm not seeing it.  Also not sure what the practical outcome would be if I adopted that perspective.

And this is bad for what reason?

Also, scantily-dressed women are not original to the 20th century!

RSS

Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"What you owe is a variable from the get-go based on the size of your payments, how long it takes you to pay back the money,how the lender decides to change the terms and conditions (which is his right), etc. In most settlements, the value of the…"
4 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"Seven years is how long it takes to drop off the credit report.  4-years is the SOL for filing a lawsuit on the debt. JB"
7 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"Why else would they do it?  ;)"
10 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"By the contract you agreed to.  Certainly principle and interest.  Penalties are arguable either way. JB"
11 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"I thought it was 7 years? Hmm, learn something new. When I met my wife she was aiming for that statute of limitations, we hit it awhile back, but that makes more sense on how much her score has gone up"
12 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"I don't follow.  How would paying the debt sink you deeper into debt?  If you have to borrow to live so you can pay a debt, you can't afford to pay it.   If you're not impoverished, and are living above your…"
13 minutes ago
John Pound replied to MiCHAEL J K.'s discussion being myself
"I like what I read here Michael and I am sure others will too. You are adding value to the lives of others and that is definitely a manly trait. If you read the articles relating to the 3 P's of Manhood this would come under both the…"
18 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"If you repay less than you owe, the forgiven part is charity.  If you don't genuinely need it, you shouldn't accept it. JB"
24 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service