Feminism: whats wrong with it?

[John21652]

Neither of the terms I used is a criticism of what is referred to as The nuclear family." This is why I suggested that you read about them. And then I added my own details, so that you could see that I have no bias against “nuclear families.”

Larkin, you wrote the following -

*"…And certainly, in the time of Marx and for the next 50 years, the cult of femininity took on an even more passive, submissive, and weak set of expectations, *coupled with a flowering of a cult of domesticity for the entire family, but particularly for women."

If you don’t have some form of bias against the “nuclear family”, then you certainly hyave a warped idea of the value of the nuclear family. The phrase “…but particularly for women”, in light of your support for the notion that women have been oppressed, indicates that you see the “cult” of the nuclear family as something that is oppressive. If you truly had the respect for the nuclear family which you maintain you have, you would not entertain the notion that the nuclear family is in any way oppressive. Nor would you call it a “cult”. unless you were being critical of the idea of the nuclear family. “cult”, as it is commonly used, is a derogatory term.

secondly, I do not have a pessimistic view of women through history. You are misreading one comment for an entire perspective.

Cuz they don’t.

This is written only by those who are wrong to claim so.

These two responses from you still indicate to me that you either can’t see, or refuse to see, that the nuclear family and the role of women as domiciled mothers and wives, has been written about and spoken about by feminist leaders as being oppresive to women. Gree in particular identified the family unit as oppressing women and wrote that true freedom for women would only come once women learnt to express their sexuality as freely and openly as she supposed men do. Millett, whom you supposedly taught, has openly expressed Marxist values, as has Greer. These two were recognised leaders of the feminist movement. Are you now suggesting that they had no right to express the opinions of feminism?

Um, I’m a man. Are you allowing me to gender cross?

What you do in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you.

do you acknowledge my respect of the nuclear family? THAT was the point I mentioned it to you.

I will acknowledge that you respect the nuclear family, if you say you do. However, it intrigues me that you still support ideas and an ideology which denigrates the nuclear family as an ideal, as well as in practical terms and it intrigues me that you wont, or can’t, see the tension between your support for the family unit and your support for ideas which detract from the importance of the family unit.

In response to In Spiration, you wrote the following -

You have shown no causal relationship between feminism and declining birth rates. Indeed, you have shown no examination of the causes of a declining birth rate in any country. Moreover, you have shown no real damage done by a declining birth rate. Birth rates have risen and fallen for millenia, and yet you have shown no damage done to society by either its rising or its falling.

The various points you raise in this paragraph are worthy of an essay each. Suffice to say, there is a vast amount of academic research available on this topic and there is indeed concern around the world at the effects of a declining birth rate. Feminism bears responsibility because the issue of motherhood was denegrated and made subservient to the 'right’s of women to persue a career. I posted one example of this ‘con’ foisted upon women. Greer, Millett and Gloria Steinem all set out to ‘alert’ women to this oppressive state of affairs.

The much lauded 1971 Declaration of Feminism stated categorically that, “the end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women”. Former actress turned feminist leader, Robin Morgan, wrote in her 1970 book The Sisterhood is Powerful that *" We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." *Her book includes writings from Kate Millett. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW, said that *"… marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." *
Linda Gordon, a Professor of History at New York University, wrote in 1969 that -
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. … Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. … “Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.”

There is more, much more, Larkin and it doesn’t take a whole lot of intellectual effort to realise that feminism is a trojan horse.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin, you wrote the following -

*"…And certainly, in the time of Marx and for the next 50 years, the cult of femininity took on an even more passive, submissive, and weak set of expectations, *coupled with a flowering of a cult of domesticity for the entire family, but particularly for women."

If you don’t have some form of bias against the “nuclear family”, then you certainly hyave a warped idea of the value of the nuclear family. The phrase “…but particularly for women”, in light of your support for the notion that women have been oppressed, indicates that you see the “cult” of the nuclear family as something that is oppressive. If you truly had the respect for the nuclear family which you maintain you have, you would not entertain the notion that the nuclear family is in any way oppressive. Nor would you call it a “cult”. unless you were being critical of the idea of the nuclear family. “cult”, as it is commonly used, is a derogatory term.

secondly, I do not have a pessimistic view of women through history. You are misreading one comment for an entire perspective.

These two responses from you still indicate to me that you either can’t see, or refuse to see, that the nuclear family and the role of women as domiciled mothers and wives, has been written about and spoken about by feminist leaders as being oppresive to women. Gree in particular identified the family unit as oppressing women and wrote that true freedom for women would only come once women learnt to express their sexuality as freely and openly as she supposed men do. Millett, whom you supposedly taught, has openly expressed Marxist values, as has Greer. These two were recognised leaders of the feminist movement. Are you now suggesting that they had no right to express the opinions of feminism?

What you do in the privacy of your own home is entirely up to you.

I will acknowledge that you respect the nuclear family, if you say you do. However, it intrigues me that you still support ideas and an ideology which denigrates the nuclear family as an ideal, as well as in practical terms and it intrigues me that you wont, or can’t, see the tension between your support for the family unit and your support for ideas which detract from the importance of the family unit.

In response to In Spiration, you wrote the following -

The various points you raise in this paragraph are worthy of an essay each. Suffice to say, there is a vast amount of academic research available on this topic and there is indeed concern around the world at the effects of a declining birth rate. Feminism bears responsibility because the issue of motherhood was denegrated and made subservient to the 'right’s of women to persue a career. I posted one example of this ‘con’ foisted upon women. Greer, Millett and Gloria Steinem all set out to ‘alert’ women to this oppressive state of affairs.

The much lauded 1971 Declaration of Feminism stated categorically that, “the end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women”. Former actress turned feminist leader, Robin Morgan, wrote in her 1970 book The Sisterhood is Powerful that *" We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." *Her book includes writings from Kate Millett. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW, said that *"… marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." *
Linda Gordon, a Professor of History at New York University, wrote in 1969 that -
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. … Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. … “Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.”

There is more, much more, Larkin and it doesn’t take a whole lot of intellectual effort to realise that feminism is a trojan horse.

You misunderstand and misrepresent both my posts and feminism. Even right after you quote me you summarize my position incorrectly. I have never claimed that some radical feminists have never written against the ideal of the family or marriage. Of course a few have.

“much lauded Declaration of Feminism”? hahaha Are you kidding me?? Try finding that “document” anywhere on the net.

Your responses on this thread are no longer worth my time.

 

[John21652]

You misunderstand and misrepresent both my posts and feminism. Even right after you quote me you summarize my position incorrectly. I have never claimed that some radical feminists have never written against the ideal of the family or marriage. Of course a few have.

“much lauded Declaration of Feminism”? hahaha Are you kidding me?? Try finding that “document” anywhere on the net.

Your responses on this thread are no longer worth my time.

You have done this before, Larkin. You defend the indefensible and when the evidence which contradicts your stance mounts and mounts, you cut and run. Your last sentence reeks of intellectual arrogance, but I’ll remain generous and suggest to you that your feigned intellectual snobbery is rather unbecoming.

Now tell me this, how can I possibly be misrepresenting feminism when I (and others), continually quote the writings and speeches of leaders of the feminist movement? Or could it be that feminism is such a hollow notion that the feminist leaders don’t really represent what their followers believe? Nah, couldn’t be that, surely, because the contradiction is just so obvious.

You are correct; you have never written that some radical feminists have never written against the ideal of the family or marriage. You have never written that because it would be a totally misleading statement if you did write it. Furthermore, not writing that some radical feminists have never written against the ideals of family or marriage is not the same thing as writing, or aacceptiong, that feminism is based on the Marxist doctrine of wishing the family unit dissolved because it “oppresses” women. All the radical feminist leaders have supported this dissolution of marriage and the family unit. If they hadn’t, they wouldn’t qualify for their leadership positions. Furthermore, you do not have the good grace to admit the obvious, which is that feminism is built on a Marxist ideology, something you denied in an earlier post.

I and many others, would really like to know how you reconcile the obvious tension between supporting the family unit and at the same time supporting the movement which seeks to destroy it.