Feminism: whats wrong with it?

[John21652]

At least she had the choice. There is no obligation in a free society that individuals will use their freedom wisely and make the best choices for themselves. She has no one to blame but herself for misunderstanding her needs.

No doubt that’s the argument you will use when confronted with the millions of lives harmed by abortion, teenage sex, unsound marriages, high divorce rates and all the children so harmed and disadvantaged. Your argument is typical of those who will never accept responsibility for what they preach and teach. The feminist arguments can saturate newspapers, magazines, academic journals and even infiltrate the curricula of academic institutions, but according to you, anyone who listens and is harmed, well, its all their fault for listening and believing.

If you had bothered to read the article in its entirety, you would have noticed that she was not simply speaking for herself, but for the countless thousands of women who feel cheated by what the feminist movement has thrown at them. If you’d bothered to do even more research, you’d find she has been quite vocal over a long period of time as a left wing, progressive feminist social commentator. That’s what makes her admission such a big deal. Virginia Haussegger is not the only one to come to this realisation. If you ever get your head out of the sand and do some research, you’d notice.

 

[edwest2]

At least she had the choice. There is no obligation in a free society that individuals will use their freedom wisely and make the best choices for themselves. She has no one to blame but herself for misunderstanding her needs.

When the social engineers appear, they have a product to sell: Their Agenda. Some like to see, like Karl Marx, if their version of Das Kapital will work on others. In this case, guess not.

Is being a woman all about power and control? Freedom to do what others tell you? The radical feminists, as teachers of young women, share part of the blame. No one can say that their guidance meant nothing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well worth a read: A 2002 article in the Melbourne, Australia, daily newspaper The Age, written by a feminist who woke up to the ‘con’ that is feminism.

The Sins of our Feminist Mothers
Virginia Haussegger writes -

"As we worked our way through high school and university in the '70s and early '80s, girls like me listened to our mothers, our trailblazing feminist teachers, and the outspoken women who demanded a better deal for all women. They paved the way for us to have rich careers.

They anointed us and encouraged us to take it all. We had the right to be editors, paediatricians, engineers, premiers, executive producers, High Court judges, CEOs etc. We were brought up to believe that the world was ours. We could be and do whatever we pleased.

Feminism’s hard-fought battles had borne fruit. And it was ours for the taking.

Or so we thought - until the lie of super “you-can-have-it-all” feminism hits home, in a very personal and emotional way…

We’re alone, childless, many of us partnerless, or drifting along in “permanent temporariness”, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman so aptly put it in a recent Age article by Anne Manne to describe the somewhat ambiguous, uncommitted type of relationship that seems to dominate among childless, professional couples in their 30s and 40s…

The point is that while encouraging women in the '70s and '80s to reach for the sky, none of our purple-clad, feminist mothers thought to tell us the truth about the biological clock. Our biological clock. The one that would eventually reach exploding point inside us…

For those of us that did marry, marriage was perhaps akin to an accessory. And in our high-disposable-income lives, accessories pass their use-by date, and are thoughtlessly tossed aside. Frankly, the dominant message was to not let our man, or any man for that matter, get in the way of career and our own personal progress.

The end result: here we are, supposedly “having it all” as we edge 40; excellent education; good qualifications; great jobs; fast-moving careers; good incomes; and many of us own the trendy little inner-city pad we live in. It’s a nice caffe-latte kind of life, really.

But the truth is - for me at least - the career is no longer a challenge, the lifestyle trappings are joyless (the latest Collette Dinnigan frock looks pretty silly on a near-40-year-old), and the point of it all seems, well, pointless.

I am childless and I am angry. Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfilment came with a leather briefcase."

Power, money and meaningless sex. Now that we’ve seen the end result, I hope that other women reading this will realize that real trust, real friendship, real commitment and marriage are the real answers. And if not marriage, a life of service to others as God gives us strength.

We are all part of a community. The first community is the family.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

No doubt that’s the argument you will use when confronted with the millions of lives harmed by abortion, teenage sex, unsound marriages, high divorce rates and all the children so harmed and disadvantaged. Your argument is typical of those who will never accept responsibility for what they preach and teach. The feminist arguments can saturate newspapers, magazines, academic journals and even infiltrate the curricula of academic institutions, but according to you, anyone who listens and is harmed, well, its all their fault for listening and believing.

I don’t object, in principle, to the freedom that allows bad decisions. Kind of like putting that Tree in reach of Adam and Eve. Freedom to make bad choices IS what adult life means.

If you had bothered to read the article in its entirety, you would have noticed that she was not simply speaking for herself, but for the countless thousands of women who feel cheated by what the feminist movement has thrown at them. If you’d bothered to do even more research, you’d find she has been quite vocal over a long period of time as a left wing, progressive feminist social commentator. That’s what makes her admission such a big deal. Virginia Haussegger is not the only one to come to this realisation. If you ever get your head out of the sand and do some research, you’d notice.

Stop slandering me with petty ad hominem claims.

 

[John21652]

I don’t object, in principle, to the freedom that allows bad decisions. Kind of like putting that Tree in reach of Adam and Eve. Freedom to make bad choices IS what adult life means.

So, it’s now God’s fault for putting the tree into the Garden of Eden?!

Stop slandering me with petty ad hominem claims.

Criticism sits badly with you, doesn’t it? Despite evidence to the contrary, you wrote that Marxism has no role in shaping feminist doctrine. You simply avoided the issue by writing “none of this is true”.
You dismissed Virginia Haussegger’s article by stating it was she who was at fault, conveniently forgetting that she wrote of being a victim of bad teaching. You profess to be a teacher, yet your dismissla of her article effectively means you are suggesting that teachings have little impact on those being taught. I find that strange, to put it mildly. I also find it strange that you do not mount any arguments to the contrary on this thread, but instead snipe and then react to criticism by labelling it as an ad hominem attack. That is, again, just avoiding the issues.

 

[larkin31]

So, it’s now God’s fault for putting the tree into the Garden of Eden?!

No. My point was that FREEDOM OF CHOICE was God-given in Eden–even the FREEDOM to make the wrong choice. Don’t automatically turn what I write into what it is not.

Criticism sits badly with you, doesn’t it? Despite evidence to the contrary, you wrote that Marxism has no role in shaping feminist doctrine. You simply avoided the issue by writing “none of this is true”.
You dismissed Virginia Haussegger’s article by stating it was she who was at fault, conveniently forgetting that she wrote of being a victim of bad teaching. You profess to be a teacher, yet your dismissla of her article effectively means you are suggesting that teachings have little impact on those being taught. I find that strange, to put it mildly. I also find it strange that you do not mount any arguments to the contrary on this thread, but instead snipe and then react to criticism by labelling it as an ad hominem attack. That is, again, just avoiding the issues.

Criticism is fine. Petty slander is not.

Ms. Haussegger was not a “victim of bad teaching.” That is an irresponsible position. Ironically, I was called unwilling to take responsibility for my actions, all the while that I was saying that any adult who regrets adult decisions but blames “feminism” is not taking full responsibility.

I don’t tend to keep answering every question asked of me because they end up off the point of my original statement and I am not interested in the other points. What else can I say? I don’t get involved in matters that don’t intellectually interest me. That a single case of a feminist who regretted her decisions has been brought up, I acknowledge. I simply say, “So what? I am sorry that she feels that way, and I think that she is wrong to blame a movement for her own personal decision not to have children. There are many many many feminists over the last 100 years who did not make the same decision. Feminism does not require NOT having children. Some feminists have argued for freedom from the social pressure to marry and have children even if a woman does not wish to. I agree with that freedom to choose.”

 

[In_Spiration]

what is wrong with getting out the house?

Nothing, of course. Unless you’re of the female persuasion. Then, everything.

what is wrong with getting a career?

Based on this, I’m guessing you’ve never actually had a career. The difference for men and women, though, is that for one of them it’s a necessary evil for a good family life; for the other, it ain’t.

wait a minute…are you saying that men can smoke cigars and women can’t? Why?

Of course. ‘Cigar’ is masculine; ‘cigarette’ is feminine. The woman who smokes the former, much like that she smokes, will only burn longer.

what’s wrong with a women wearing a three piece suit?

Aesthetics.

OK, basically, God calls us to family life or religious life. An independent career interferes with both. Opting for a career for selfish reasons is harmful to self, family and society. Feminism only equates career independence with power because of our ridiculous American worship of labor and rugged individualism.

ending bad marriages is a good thing. I do not consider the rise in the divorce rate as a “damage” to society any more than longer bad marriages are “damaging.”

Breaking a vow to God is a bad thing, and reneging on a promise to another, a loved one, is also a bad thing. Bad things are damaging. And even assuming there’s a legitimate reason to split, high divorce rates harm everyone in the family. Divorce is the leading cause of suicide in men; children are psychologically scarred; society depends on the preservation of the family for order and cohesion, especially for properly developing the next generation, which is also reduced when a couple divorces and stops having kids, etc. Please see the stats I provided on replacement rates for more.

feminism’s “contribution” to divorce is a weak case, and most of america dismisses that cause and effect suggestion.

No it isn’t. No it doesn’t. (My bare assertions and ad populam fallacies are better than yours. There’s also this. Yes, feminism plays a part in premarital promiscuity.)

I also do not see the causal link between feminism (as a movement) and declining fertility rates, particularly when the decline in rates occur in place with no strong feminist tradition. Secondly, here again, i do not see this as a “damage.” this is a rate change. You have not shown what the “damage” is from it.

Feminism promotes the rise in females who put off or neglect marriage in order to develop their careers. This lowers marriage rates, which tends to result in a drop in fertility rates. That drop is mostly buffered by out-of-wedlock children. Women who do marry, limit their pregnancies according to job demands, and also increase the baby’s health risks the further the woman is from peak fertility age. Career women also increase the amount of abortions done in order to save her career options. Abortion damages a baby 10 times out of 10, studies show.

Feminists lobby in favor of abortion all over the world. I hear abortion lowers fertility rates. As I mentioned, declines in fertility, especially once it goes below replacement rate, are devastating to national stability and strength. (See: Roman empire.) Surely nations wouldn’t be so concerned in raising fertility rates if it weren’t the least bit damaging, right? (No, the mere fact I have left some connections to be made by you does not suggest any absence of such connections in fact.)

All of us have damaged souls, and all these conditions existed prior to women asking for equal access to jobs, equal access to pay, equal treatment under the law, and equal punishment for equal behavior (non-biased expectations and judgment).

Um, OK. Agreed. Yet somehow it’s still the case that the more one sins, the more his soul is damaged. Feminism has promoted divorce and abortion, as well as convinced women that these are not sinful, rendering them ignorant of the fact they need to repent.

abortion has existed for millenia, as well, long before “feminism” was even a word. Feminists are clearly not responsible in any way for abortion.

Please tell me that the alleged clarity is not supposed to be an implication of pre-Feminist abortion. Just in case: (1) Illicit drug use existed long before “Mafia” was even a word; (2) Therefore [yeah that’s right – no middle term or premise needed], the Mafia clearly bears no conceivable responsibility whatsoever, in any possible sense for illicit drug use.

 

[larkin31]

Nothing, of course. Unless you’re of the female persuasion. Then, everything.

Based on this, I’m guessing you’ve never actually had a career. The difference for men and women, though, is that for one of them it’s a necessary evil for a good family life; for the other, it ain’t.

Of course. ‘Cigar’ is masculine; ‘cigarette’ is feminine. The woman who smokes the former, much like that she smokes, will only burn longer.

Aesthetics.

OK, basically, God calls us to family life or religious life. An independent career interferes with both. Opting for a career for selfish reasons is harmful to self, family and society. Feminism only equates career independence with power because of our ridiculous American worship of labor and rugged individualism.

Breaking a vow to God is a bad thing, and reneging on a promise to another, a loved one, is also a bad thing. Bad things are damaging. And even assuming there’s a legitimate reason to split, high divorce rates harm everyone in the family. Divorce is the leading cause of suicide in men; children are psychologically scarred; society depends on the preservation of the family for order and cohesion, especially for properly developing the next generation, which is also reduced when a couple divorces and stops having kids, etc. Please see the stats I provided on replacement rates for more.

No it isn’t. No it doesn’t. (My bare assertions and ad populam fallacies are better than yours. There’s also this. Yes, feminism plays a part in premarital promiscuity.)

Feminism promotes the rise in females who put off or neglect marriage in order to develop their careers. This lowers marriage rates, which tends to result in a drop in fertility rates. That drop is mostly buffered by out-of-wedlock children. Women who do marry, limit their pregnancies according to job demands, and also increase the baby’s health risks the further the woman is from peak fertility age. Career women also increase the amount of abortions done in order to save her career options. Abortion damages a baby 10 times out of 10, studies show.

Feminists lobby in favor of abortion all over the world. I hear abortion lowers fertility rates. As I mentioned, declines in fertility, especially once it goes below replacement rate, are devastating to national stability and strength. (See: Roman empire.) Surely nations wouldn’t be so concerned in raising fertility rates if it weren’t the least bit damaging, right? (No, the mere fact I have left some connections to be made by you does not suggest any absence of such connections in fact.)

Um, OK. Agreed. Yet somehow it’s still the case that the more one sins, the more his soul is damaged. Feminism has promoted divorce and abortion, as well as convinced women that these are not sinful, rendering them ignorant of the fact they need to repent.

Please tell me that the alleged clarity is not supposed to be an implication of pre-Feminist abortion. Just in case: (1) Illicit drug use existed long before “Mafia” was even a word; (2) Therefore [yeah that’s right – no middle term or premise needed], the Mafia clearly bears no conceivable responsibility whatsoever, in any possible sense for illicit drug use.

Neither getting a job nor delaying marriage and the onset of childrearing are sins. Neither for men or for women. Ask the CC (if you won’t take my word for it).

 

[In_Spiration]

Neither getting a job nor delaying marriage and the onset of childrearing are sins. Neither for men or for women. Ask the CC (if you won’t take my word for it).

Feminism is damaging to individual men, women, and children, as well as society and civilization in general (thus further affecting individuals). That was my clear point. The damage of sin is only part of its total damage in general. I’m not going to try to figure out how you interpreted me to be saying that either of those two things above is necessarily sinful in the eyes of the Church. (One could of course argue that they’re usually indicative of sin, at the least, but that would lead us into an unnecessary theological argument and derail us from the simple fact that feminism causes many damages.)

Since you once again failed to address a single point I made, let’s narrow our focus to only one of my many points. Do you think feminism, or essentially feminist principles, have played a substantial causal role in the prevalance of abortion, either in America, the West, or worldwide? Yes or no?

This is the difficult, tedious way to argue, by the way. We’re probably never going to agree on what constitutes “damages”, because our disagreement is most likely far deeper – at the philosophical level, hidden in certain basic assumptions. My first post tried to highlight some of those more fundamental philosophical issues, but of course you dismissed it… somehow because of your rejection of “natural law”, which I haven’t even mentioned until now. Natural law theory has pretty much nothing to do with Rationalism vs. Empiricism, idealism vs. materialism, intellectualism vs. voluntarism, etc.

Maybe we could first establish some fundamental points of agreement about the role and scope of government, particularly the balance between freedom and stability, or the epistemological/metaphysical basis of ethics, or the similarities and differences between men and women. Or we can just keep on highlighting the varieties of our disagreement by trading appeals to “obvious, intuitive common sense.” If you can’t agree that abortion – the actual killing of the unborn, not just the option – is damaging, then I underestimated your feminist credentials.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm
Definition of FEMINISM

1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
[Merriam-Webster]

This is what feminism is. If you agree, you are a feminist. If you disagree, you are an anti-feminist. It’s very simple. Feminism has nothing to do with homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, etc. it’s about equality of the sexes, at least by definition. Some people like to add what they “think” or “feel” feminism really means in defiance of the definition of it, but there are people who like to add what they “think” or “feel” being a Christian means and there will be 100 people who all claim to be Christian telling them they’re in fact not a Christian because of reason A and reason B and lack of reason C. The same thing with feminism, however there is a basic premise of what feminism (and Christianity) are supposed to be. If someone violates the basics of feminism we can say they are not a feminist (for instance, if a “feminist” said he or she disagreed with women being able to vote, we can rule them out being a feminist according to the definition of feminism). In the same way we can say someone who defies the basics of Christianity is not a Christian (for instance, denying that Jesus Christ is God or that he ever existed).

So not everyone who says they are a feminist is truly a feminist by definition. You can find quotes by some self identified feminists which are bad in some way and you can also find quotes by some self identified Christians which are bad in some way. The whole feminist movement should not be disregarded because a few self identified feminists said something wrong in the same way the whole religion of Christianity should not be disregarded because a few self identified Christians said something wrong.

On the topic of “what’s wrong with feminism?” Nothing. There’s no wrong with “political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”

 

[John21652]

Since you once again failed to address a single point I made, let’s narrow our focus to only one of my many points. Do you think feminism, or essentially feminist principles, have played a substantial causal role in the prevalance of abortion, either in America, the West, or worldwide? Yes or no?

In Spiration, congratulations on your scholarly and erudite posts. Here is an excerpt from a scholarly paper which supports all that you have covered. It covers the feminist poltical movement in the U.K, which saw activism similar to that in the U.S and Australia and mentions abortion, promiscuity, the family unit, female sexuality, Marxism and even references Larkin’s old pupil, Millett. You made mention of natural Law, something which Larkin and I have crossed swords over before this. A prudent read of this excerpt will show fairly plainly where the Natural Law argument against feminism would start =

… Many second wave feminists, and certainly NAC, were quite different. A central concern was not only to reject familial policies but actively to challenge the authority of the state to govern women’s choices.

                  In turn, abortion rights rapidly became one of the most                        important issues in second wave feminism (Rowbotham 1989;                        Randall 1987). As Dahlerup (1986:10) puts it, '[f]ree abortion                        on demand became one of the most central, if not the central,                        demands of the new women's movement of the 1970s. It became                        a catalyst, a mobilizing factor for the women's movement.                        Free abortion on demand was an end in itself, but it also                        became a symbol of women's fight against patriarchal society                        and the establishment'. Free contraception and abortion                        on demand was one of 'four demands' which formed the basis                        of much feminist campaigning activity in the 1970s (Bouchier                        1983). Following the formulation of the Four Demands a group                        was set up around each demand. The Women's Abortion and                        Contraception Campaign (WAC) was one of these groups which                        comprised a combination of International Marxist Group (IMG)                        women members and other feminists. This group was subsumed                        into NAC at its formation in 1975. The Women's Charter Campaign                        was also involved in the formation of NAC, as was a small                        'Ad Hoc Committee against SPUC'. There was thus present                        within NAC, from its formation, elements loosely based on                        the WLM, the extra-parliamentary socialist left and the                        labour movement. 
                  
                  Central to the politics of second wave feminism was the                        onslaught on the institution and ideology of the nuclear                        family (Barrett and McIntosh 1985; Rowbotham 1989). The                        knowledge that women's experience of paid work was mediated                        by their place in the family played a large part in feminist                        analyses. There was also a growing awareness that women's                        'burden' of domestic labour in the home helped generate                        inequalities, and sexual segregation, in employment (Rowbotham                        1972). What this signified was a shift in the sexual division                        of labour, in the direction of women taking on two roles,                        worker and mother (Myrdal and Klein 1956). This 'double-burden'                        of work in and out of the home became an established part                        of the lives of middle-class and working-class women and                        was attacked as such by second wave feminists (Cambridge                        Women's Studies Group 1981). The importance of the restrictions                        imposed by motherhood and women's responsibility for childcare                        was stressed, and much feminist writing identified the family                        as a source of women's subordination (Barrett and McIntosh                        1982; Firestone 1979; Greer 1971; Millett 1977; Riley 1981).                        The demand for improved reproductive control was linked                        to this feminist recoil from the family....**Cont.d**

 

[John21652]

Cont.d…
Reproductive control as a prerequisite for freedom and equality was related, by NAC, to the campaign for abortion rights: ‘full control over our fertility is one of the absolutely basic preconditions for women’s liberation’. There was a recognition within NAC that it was fighting against women being confined to the restricted roles of mother and wife within the family: greater reproductive control was seen as vital in order to help women avoid dependency.

                  NAC also addressed the question of sexuality,  arguing the                        need to break the link between sex  and reproduction: '[t]he                        fight for abortion  rights is an essential part of the fight                        for  women's liberation and against all those forces who                         want to ensure women's sexuality remains forever tied to                         the reproductive function in the nuclear family'. Mary Evans                         (1997) argues that sex and sexuality became an  explicit                        part of the political agenda of the  1960s and that by the                        end of the decade sexual  codes had changed and 'permissiveness'                        had  arrived. These new sexual politics have been described                         as constituting a 'sexual revolution'. 
                  
                  The relationship between the emergence of second  wave feminism,                        growing sexual liberation, women's  reproductive control                        and the technological  breakthrough of oral contraceptives                        is complex.  Second wave feminism, and the 'sexual revolution'                         were viewed by many feminists as responses to the breakthrough                         in contraceptive technology (Firestone 1979; Millett  1977).                        Other feminists adopted a quite different  approach, arguing                        that social change preceded the  technological developments                        and created the high  demand for the new contraceptives,                        including by  unmarried women (Ehrenreich, Hess and Jacobs                         1987; Rowbotham 1989). Linda Gordon (1977: 412) comments:                         '**irth-control use is more a measure of women's increased                         self-esteem and sense of opportunity than a cause of  it'.

From Feminist Principles meet Political Reality: the case of the National Abortion Campaign**
What makes this excerpt and indeed the entire article worthy of consideration is the high number of independant researchers who are quoted by the author as sources for this paper.

 

[larkin31]

Feminism is damaging to individual men, women, and children, as well as society and civilization in general (thus further affecting individuals). That was my clear point. The damage of sin is only part of its total damage in general. I’m not going to try to figure out how you interpreted me to be saying that either of those two things above is necessarily sinful in the eyes of the Church. (One could of course argue that they’re usually indicative of sin, at the least, but that would lead us into an unnecessary theological argument and derail us from the simple fact that feminism causes many damages.)

Since you once again failed to address a single point I made, let’s narrow our focus to only one of my many points. Do you think feminism, or essentially feminist principles, have played a substantial causal role in the prevalance of abortion, either in America, the West, or worldwide? Yes or no?

This is the difficult, tedious way to argue, by the way. We’re probably never going to agree on what constitutes “damages”, because our disagreement is most likely far deeper – at the philosophical level, hidden in certain basic assumptions. My first post tried to highlight some of those more fundamental philosophical issues, but of course you dismissed it… somehow because of your rejection of “natural law”, which I haven’t even mentioned until now. Natural law theory has pretty much nothing to do with Rationalism vs. Empiricism, idealism vs. materialism, intellectualism vs. voluntarism, etc.

Maybe we could first establish some fundamental points of agreement about the role and scope of government, particularly the balance between freedom and stability, or the epistemological/metaphysical basis of ethics, or the similarities and differences between men and women. Or we can just keep on highlighting the varieties of our disagreement by trading appeals to “obvious, intuitive common sense.” If you can’t agree that abortion – the actual killing of the unborn, not just the option – is damaging, then I underestimated your feminist credentials.

Arguing at CA is tedious anyway one puts it. I have no interest in trying to persuade you of anything. You keep trying to bait me to argue with you, but I am not interested in it. I wrote my summary above about work and delaying children because that is what the thesis of your argument was: it is what it all boiled down to. I am not at all intellectually interested in discussing the aesthetics of women’s clothing choices (or the other items from your list), so I did not comment on that. As I said, I do not comment on what I am not interested in, and I am not here to debate or persuade.

Has a part of modern feminism supported abortion rights? Of course. Must one support abortion rights to be a feminist? Absolutely not. Do I consider abortion to be damaging to society? No. It never has been, and it has existed for a long time. Do I want to argue for abortion on this thread? Not at all. Do I mind if you consider abortion to be a sin? Not at all. I fully understand moral disagreement over this.

 

[larkin31]

I am male. Are only men discussing this here now?

 

[PRmerger]

On the topic of “what’s wrong with feminism?” Nothing. There’s no wrong with “political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”

Indeed. There is nothing wrong with feminism in the way that the Catholic Church proposes feminism.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It’s disgusting what is happening in the classrooms. High school and higher education are propagating the wrong kind of values, greatly damaging families and society. Feminism and the evil of abortion are intertwined. Yet, there will be those who call themselves enlightened and who insist to see the ‘empirical evidence’ first.

Consider this current thread. The first five posts are telling:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530369
,

 

[John21652]

At least she had the choice. There is no obligation in a free society that individuals will use their freedom wisely and make the best choices for themselves. She has no one to blame but herself for misunderstanding her needs.

It is also a reason why there can be no such thing as total, unfettered freedom in a civil society. It’s why, for example, we have speed limits on the road. Without them, too many irresponsible people hurt themselves and others.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It is also a reason why there can be no such thing as total, unfettered freedom in a civil society. It’s why, for example, we have speed limits on the road. Without them, too many irresponsible people hurt themselves and others.

You nailed it, John.
,

 

[larkin31]

It is also a reason why there can be no such thing as total, unfettered freedom in a civil society. It’s why, for example, we have speed limits on the road. Without them, too many irresponsible people hurt themselves and others.

Sure: adult freedom can mean consequences.

But no one is arguing to take away cars from men just because men have most of the accidents, right? we still merit and deserve the FREEDOM to demonstrate our responsibility–or not. Without the option, there is no freedom. So again, at least women HAVE THE OPTION to find what they love and then pursue it. Neither gender should be saddled with stereotypes or withheld from their potential because someone else thinks that they should not delay marriage and childbearing. Women should be as free as men to discover their own calling and pursue it. Period.

 

[kozlosap]

If I was to read this thread without knowing the prevailing attitudes about women who are educated (beyond highschool) and have jobs (other than in the home), then I would be terribly dismayed. I’m sorry if you don’t think that your daughter’s should be allowed to attend college and graduate school and be a part of society, it’s a shame. I can only hope that when those poor uneducated, never employed women are 40 that their husbands don’t die suddenly and they are left with a mortgage and 3 kids to raise, or if they find it necessary to leave their spouse because they are beat-up every other Tuesday. It’s sad too that we cannot live in 1950. No matter how much you rant and rave about the Pill and radical feminism ruining Western culture, you can’t go back. What you can do is to live in the read world, with it’s real problems, and try to help as many people as you can. Yes, you might have to deal with women who don’t follow your personal rules, but maybe, just maybe, you might make a few new friends along the way and learn something new. What will you do when there is a woman President of the United States one day (and I don’t mean the likes of Palin, or the idiot from Minnesota)? Will you say that the only reason she is president is because of some Marxist conspiracy?