[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Alright, what is feminism?
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Oh? Ask any man what he thinks feminism was meant to be.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Oh? Ask any man what he thinks feminism was meant to be.[/quote]
Yes, that would be really scientific.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Nice avi, Deb![/quote]
Thank you kind sir! 
If the answer isn’t yes, it’s no.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
Oh? Ask any man what he thinks feminism was meant to be.[/quote]
Yes, that would be really scientific.
[/quote]
Ask a million if you really want.
Record the answers and see which one is most common.
Men think “true” feminism is about equality (for the most part). A lot of women know that’s what it’s meant to be, but want to have their cake and eat it too. But that’s not female specific, that’s just human nature.
Okay, a more complete answer. I was tired last night, for god’s sake.
Feminism’s tentacles have spread in ways that are not offensive to me, though whether they should relabel themselves is open to question. They advocate for very basic women’s rights internationally, moving more and more away from the rights of middle class white women (which fight you’re talking about, Push, and which fight I would agree is arguably won) into other areas of civil rights.
I have noted a push for battered women’s shelters to accommodate teen boys and for domestic violence arrests to trigger mandatory FAMILY education, since it is rarely just the male who plays into the abusive dynamic and because children need to learn another way to run a relationship. Is this feminism? No, not exactly, and in fact it originates from men’s groups’ call for fair treatment*, but the men’s groups are not organized to the extent needed to do more than complain about injustice. Not a criticism, just where they are. Maybe will always be, I don’t know. But feminism is fighting that fight, too.
Some of the things they do are near and dear to my heart. An example would be pushing for increased access to substance abuse treatment that accommodates women with children. Currently kids have to be placed somewhere in order for moms to receive inpatient treatment. Problems that arise from this are the disincentive for women to pursue treatment, and if they do the paucity of family work while there. Kids are a huge incentive for women and a good program will utilize this intrinsic motivator.
So I don’t know that it’s lack of information about their various agendas that leaves me unwilling to offer pronouncements as much as seeing a scope that defies easy answers, at least for someone as given to “on the other hands” as me.
*Yes, men’s groups…getting involved in policy that has nothing to do with divorce issues. None of it is as simple as it seems at first glance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think part of the problem is that “feminism” is a terrible name for feminism, if the ultimate goal is across the board equality.
We wouldn’t dream of calling a movement aimed at racial equality “blackism.”[/quote]
Might we want to call it “racism?”[/quote]
Haha!
Karen, take it away:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s a pity that the majority of people who don’t know what feminism is tend to be women.[/quote]
Doubtful.
[/quote]
I just asked Ms Kamui “What’s feminism ?”
She answered :
“Des nanas qui veulent une part égale du droit des hommes à opprimer les autres femmes”
translation :
“Women who want their fair share of men’s right to oppress other women”.
Too bad her mother is a ugly new-age witch.
It’s also about making women ashamed of becoming “just home makers” All the while ignoring the fact many women have strong maternal drives. I wonder how many unhappy women there are out in the workforce wondering why they have little satisfaction in their lives.
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds?[/quote]
Don’t you drag McDonald’s down into this. I built a lot of muscle with their food.
Also, I liked that video Orion posted, but I don’t really agree with that woman. I don’t see the necessity in holding everyone in a group accountable for their most radical members or sub-factions. Hold the individual(s) responsible, period.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s also about making women ashamed of becoming “just home makers” All the while ignoring the fact many women have strong maternal drives. I wonder how many unhappy women there are out in the workforce wondering why they have little satisfaction in their lives.
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
OK. So more women should stay home. Let’s say that the average age for marriage is 26. That means between 18 and 26 the woman will either go to school or enter the job market.
BUT, what employer is going to hire a person he knows is going to be exiting the work force at 26 to raise a family? That’s just bad business. Hmmmm. Looks like our fair lady will be relegated to the secretarial arts or other “temporary positions” with little to no room for advancement. Because…you know…its not like they are going to need it.
And really, if she is just going to become a secretary or cashier, is there a huge reason to rack up college loans? It seems unfair that her future husband should have to shoulder the financial burden of paying off her loans so she should probably just skip that.
And then at 26 she gets married. She has 3 kids. Stays home to raise them. When they are old enough to leave the nest she finds herself a 50 year old with no education. Her then 50 year old husband begins to resent her for not contributing more to the family’s finances. HE wanted to play a larger role in the children’s lives but was always so busy working to support them that he missed out on the best years.
Things become so unbearable that the couple decides to separate. The woman hasn’t been in the work force for 25 years and has limited education. She sacrificed that part of her life to family and while she doesn’t regret her decision, she cannot afford to support herself at all.
But, you know, why the hell should the guy have to pay alimony just so she can live a comfortable life? After all. HE was the one who sacrificed time with family to earn that money. It is HIS.
This disparity is where Feminism was born. Its not fighting to keep one group down. It is just wanting to be given the chance to follow your dreams; whether that be raise a family or become a chemist.
The world has changed. Women are not getting married at a young age. What are they supposed to do with their time until their knight in shining armor comes along? Sit and look pretty? The ironic thing is that there ARE women who do this. They get dressed up and hit the clubs looking for rich, older men to take care of them. But these women are gold digging whores, right? Are you suggesting that the woman sits on her couch knitting until her father brings home potential suitors? Would YOU be satisfied with this life?
Yes. Just as in any movement, there are extremes and there are those who fight against it. Some women want to kill all of the men and others think feminists are a bunch of whiny bitches who are fighting against men having nudie calendars on their desks at work.
Just as with politics, the extremes are so busy shouting at each other that the ones in the middle lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, they want the same things.
My definition of Feminism is the ability for a woman to have control of her own life; whether that be fiscally or through the very basic right to have control over her own reproductive system. Are there other factors? Sure. But in the end, my central question remains, “Does this impede my ability to do what I want”?
And no, I am not referring to glass ceilings or alimony payments. That is the “fringe” stuff that grabs the headlines. I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech. Give me this and I will take it the rest of the way (as will MANY women).
And please keep in mind, all of this is coming from a single mother who works full time, is putting herself through college and has never been more satisfied in her entire life.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It’s also about making women ashamed of becoming “just home makers” All the while ignoring the fact many women have strong maternal drives. I wonder how many unhappy women there are out in the workforce wondering why they have little satisfaction in their lives.
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
OK. So more women should stay home. Let’s say that the average age for marriage is 26. That means between 18 and 26 the woman will either go to school or enter the job market.
BUT, what employer is going to hire a person he knows is going to be exiting the work force at 26 to raise a family? That’s just bad business. Hmmmm. Looks like our fair lady will be relegated to the secretarial arts or other “temporary positions” with little to no room for advancement. Because…you know…its not like they are going to need it.
And really, if she is just going to become a secretary or cashier, is there a huge reason to rack up college loans? It seems unfair that her future husband should have to shoulder the financial burden of paying off her loans so she should probably just skip that.
And then at 26 she gets married. She has 3 kids. Stays home to raise them. When they are old enough to leave the nest she finds herself a 50 year old with no education. Her then 50 year old husband begins to resent her for not contributing more to the family’s finances. HE wanted to play a larger role in the children’s lives but was always so busy working to support them that he missed out on the best years.
Things become so unbearable that the couple decides to separate. The woman hasn’t been in the work force for 25 years and has limited education. She sacrificed that part of her life to family and while she doesn’t regret her decision, she cannot afford to support herself at all.
But, you know, why the hell should the guy have to pay alimony just so she can live a comfortable life? After all. HE was the one who sacrificed time with family to earn that money. It is HIS.
This disparity is where Feminism was born. Its not fighting to keep one group down. It is just wanting to be given the chance to follow your dreams; whether that be raise a family or become a chemist.
The world has changed. Women are not getting married at a young age. What are they supposed to do with their time until their knight in shining armor comes along? Sit and look pretty? The ironic thing is that there ARE women who do this. They get dressed up and hit the clubs looking for rich, older men to take care of them. But these women are gold digging whores, right? Are you suggesting that the woman sits on her couch knitting until her father brings home potential suitors? Would YOU be satisfied with this life?
Yes. Just as in any movement, there are extremes and there are those who fight against it. Some women want to kill all of the men and others think feminists are a bunch of whiny bitches who are fighting against men having nudie calendars on their desks at work.
Just as with politics, the extremes are so busy shouting at each other that the ones in the middle lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, they want the same things.
My definition of Feminism is the ability for a woman to have control of her own life; whether that be fiscally or through the very basic right to have control over her own reproductive system. Are there other factors? Sure. But in the end, my central question remains, “Does this impede my ability to do what I want”?
And no, I am not referring to glass ceilings or alimony payments. That is the “fringe” stuff that grabs the headlines. I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech. Give me this and I will take it the rest of the way (as will MANY women).
[/quote]
Yes, EXACTLY.
That was a good post.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
The world has changed. Women are not getting married at a young age. What are they supposed to do with their time until their knight in shining armor comes along? Sit and look pretty? The ironic thing is that there ARE women who do this. They get dressed up and hit the clubs looking for rich, older men to take care of them. But these women are gold digging whores, right? Are you suggesting that the woman sits on her couch knitting until her father brings home potential suitors? Would YOU be satisfied with this life?[/quote]
Your examples are a bit extreme here. I just don’t see the girls going to the clubs as the same ones sitting at home knitting. Could be wrong.
I actually don’t think most of those women are gold digging whores. There’s too much negative connotation there. I think it’s pretty normal for a woman to be attracted to money, power, status. Just as it’s pretty normal for a man to be attracted to youth and beauty.
Where I think ‘feminism’ gets some things wrong is where it’s pretended that some of these forces should be equalized. If a woman wants to get an advanced degree in something and be successful, that’s very respectable. In fact, most men I’ve known show just as much respect toward women based on merit and accomplishment as they do to men.
But it’s when it comes to sex drive, pair bonding, that sort of stuff, I think there’s a lot of places where feminism screws things up.
A woman can justify leaving a guy by saying “he’s hot, he’s funny, but he doesn’t have a car, doesn’t have a job” or even just “doesn’t really have enough ambition”. And it’s ok for a woman to judge a man by those kinds of standards.
However, at the same time, it’s not ok for a guy to say “she was intelligent and successful, very ambitious, very educated, but she just wasn’t attractive enough.” And women often seem to get all up in arms about it, as if the things that matter to a woman in a man (career, ambition, stability, etc.) are also “supposed to” matter to men. But they really don’t, and they probably never will.
This really has nothing to do with ‘equality’. I’m all for empowerment and equal opportunities for women. I really don’t think anyone should be held back or discriminated against for anything; male, female, gay, straight, young, old.
But I think it’s really important that women also understand and accept the consequences of their actions on a pair-bonding standpoint and not just ‘blame men’ for not finding the mate they wish they had. If a woman chooses not to take advantage of youth and beauty, fashion, the gym, makeup, etc – all of the various things that DO attract men – then really, it’s not our (men’s) fault that she’s not able to find a quality guy.
Just like it’s not women’s fault if a guy who bums around most of his life, has no ambition, can’t hold down a job, and because of that, can’t find a quality mate… no matter how good looking he happens to be.
Once you actually accept those dynamics, I think probably the best move would be for a woman to actually find an rich older successful guy when she’s young, get married, and then pursue a career. And I really really doubt that her husband is going to “hold her back”, considering the changes that feminism HAVE made in this country.
I just think it’s wrong when women think that an education and a successful career make them somehow more ‘valuable’ in the dating/marriage arena, especially as compared to a hot 19yo gym bunny with great conversational skills. And I think feminism has directly or indirectly planted that concept in a lot of women’s minds. When it doesn’t pan out the way they were told, the result seems to be to blame men, rather than to realize the fallacy.
[quote]My definition of Feminism is the ability for a woman to have control of her own life; whether that be fiscally or through the very basic right to have control over her own reproductive system. Are there other factors? Sure. But in the end, my central question remains, “Does this impede my ability to do what I want”?
And no, I am not referring to glass ceilings or alimony payments. That is the “fringe” stuff that grabs the headlines. I’m talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. I’m talking about the right to education and free speech. Give me this and I will take it the rest of the way (as will MANY women).
And please keep in mind, all of this is coming from a single mother who works full time, is putting herself through college and has never been more satisfied in her entire life.[/quote]
I agree with you, and fully support that sort of equality of rights and opportunities.
Thanks LoRez.
I hope this next bit comes across the proper way as I am not trying to attack you on anything, but better understand your position.
You ask the question, why is it OK for women to judge men on a relatively “superficial” level while men cannot do them same? That’s a fair point and very similar to a question many women ask themselves, “Why is a man who has many sexual partners a stud and women are sluts”. Really, it all comes down to not wanting to be judged for your preferences or opinions.
My question would be, “who are the people that are judging you”? It took me a long time to get to this point, but I am not going to be upset because some random guy is judging me for having a sexual history. In the same respect, why should you care that some random woman thinks you are a pig for dumping your girlfriend?
I think what a lot of the older men on this site were saying is that the time comes when what other people think doesn’t matter nearly as much to you. A time when you have the strength of your conviction behind you and don’t feel bad for going after those things that make you happy. And once you get to that place, you will find that you attract a different sort of woman; one who appreciates the honesty.
Push, I don’t know why some are so down on being a stay-at-home mother. I think some of it is a knee jerk reaction to the idea of some SAHM that women who work don’t love their children as much.
As some of the posts here have shown, there are still a lot of people in this world who want to blame working mothers for everything from obesity to gun related deaths. I would say a lot of the animosity is more from frustration than actual hatred of women who stay at home.
In fact, nearly all of the women I know who also work, regret that they don’t get to spend more time with their children, but being able to provide a better life for your child by having two incomes is a huge reason a lot of women return to work (particularly in today’s economy). It might not be taking care of your child in the classic sense, but it is 100% for your child.