Feminisms effect on women

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Gregory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just as anti-feminists really should educate themselves about the real driving force behind the feminist “movement” from sources other than the more rabid ultra-right, of course.

Anyway, while this may be terribly interesting and we’d undoubtedly have a lots and lots of fun being unpleasant about each other and our respective points of view, it doesn’t get us anywhere at all. So, let me ask what I think are the central questions - what would you suggest as a set of practical ‘solutions’ to all these supposed ills and how would you propose to sell them to a skeptical market?
It would be AWESOME if we could all refrain from personal insults, if it be possible.

For some background info, I WAS a card-carrying, march- organizing, petition-getting, front line feminist activist back in the day. So your accusation is WAY off base. I actually DO know both sides of the story and consider myself well informed. While there may have been isolated pockets of good intention among SOME of the women who spearheaded the “movement”, the primary goal was to “liberate” females from the oppression of men and family. The books I listed for you to read were the tomes written by those very women THEMSELVES, not the so called “anti-feminists”. The book I linked at the end is simply a Catholic woman’s overview of the impact of the movement.

This is not a thread about how to “fix” the negative effects of feminism so I do not feel compelled to engage in that discussion. However, I will say that I agree with Ed in that a return to Biblical PRINCIPLES is needed. If women believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, is incapable of presenting the perfect blueprint for the harmonious eo-existence of men and women, then the problem is larger than the issue of “equality” and feminism.

I was struck by this Sunday’s reading about the widows. We hear all the time about the “patriarchal” oppression in the Church. Yet we see how the earliest Christians were commanded to care for the most vulnerable women in society, the widows. Everything we need to know about the relationship between men and women is provided for us in the Bible and through the teachings of our Church. Betty Frieden has added nothing to the treasures given to us by our God.
 
The movement did start in upper class because those women were much more educated. But the challenges that they faced were different. These women often didn’t work and they stayed home. After the women’s movement, they had just started to make a bigger presence in the workplace
Funny…You never mentioned Sojurner Truth Ida B. Welles, Mary Ann Shadd Cary, Margaretta Forten, Harriet Forten Purvis. Why is that? You seem to percieve that before feminism, that things were much better for all women.
Like I said, The non white experience with feminism is very different from the White majority model. You have to seperate them according to socioeconomic class experience. African American women regarded their families with higher esteem since for over 400 years, the hadn’t the luxery of being in a stable family. Ther husbands were taken from them and their children were often sold. They were not allowed to observe marriage like White women were so they didn’t regard it as the “prison” that white feminist writers had. They just wanted their rights.

Lol again silly and niave. That Untoucable & pure BS only applied to white women. Black women were considered dirty little hussys and compared to animals. Black women were raped and abused ALL the time but they had no legal recourse against them. No one cared about a black woman’s “virtue” Are you saying that black slave women were fearful of being raped because of feminism? Women have always wanted to have sex with men, To infer otherwise is proposterous.
After all, if men were having sex more than women pre-feminism just WHO were they having sex with? Other men?

How do you presume to speak for any woman at all? I personally would NOT like things to go back to how they were before because there was nothing for me to go back to, save my Native American heritage which was Matrilineal in nature. I have nothing to benafit from a pre feminist society. I wouldn’t be able to vote, travel the world, Attend most colleges, own my own land, or have any say in politics or the economy. I wouldn’t have been blessed with all the wonderful expereinces that have been denied women over the years. The other poster was correct, we are going backwards in regards to feminism, Girls only care about being attractive to the opposite sex which is always a marker that women becoming dependant on mates to do things that women in the last few decades have done themselves. Women often did this because they felt powerless to do anything else and manipulating men through sex was their only way. That is not a feministic ideal. the feminist ideal is to use your mind and talents to achieve. Sex and the City isn’t the reality of America, In truth more girls aspire to be a stupid whore like Paris than a smart whore like Samantha Jones. It requires no effort, no diligience or intelligence. It seems to me like Eds dream is coming true already. Soon every American girl will be going back to gold digging for a husband.
I have no argument with you about the inherent evil of RACISM, which is what you are describing in your posts. I agree completely that black women, and minority women in general, were victimized by institutional racism and that the Suffrage movement, whose members did include the names you cited, originally set out to address the harsh and inhumane inequality that existed for many black women. But the Suffragists and the feminists of the 60’s “revolution” have very little in common and should not be lumped together as one group.
 
For some background info, I WAS a card-carrying, march- organizing, petition-getting, front line feminist activist back in the day. So your accusation is WAY off base.
Careful reading might have saved you quite a bit of typing.
This is not a thread about how to “fix” the negative effects of feminism so I do not feel compelled to engage in that discussion. However, I will say that I agree with Ed in that a return to Biblical PRINCIPLES is needed.
Isn’t going to happen though, is it? Certainly not through moaning ‘ain’t it awful’ in some corner of the internet. Perhaps you have practical suggestions about how one returns to 1950’s economic relationships through Biblical ‘PRINCIPLES’?

Since I’m Jewish, all the Church stuff just floated past me.
 
Careful reading might have saved you quite a bit of typing.
:confused:
Isn’t going to happen though, is it? Certainly not through moaning ‘ain’t it awful’ in some corner of the internet. Perhaps you have practical suggestions about how one returns to 1950’s economic relationships through Biblical ‘PRINCIPLES’?

Since I’m Jewish, all the Church stuff just floated past me.
I did not propose a return to “1950’s economic relationships”, whatever that means. I am not idealizing the 50’s, or any other era. The question of this thread is “feminisms effect on women.” Since the feminist movement took place in the mid-60’s, I was using that as a marker for statistical changes. Problems between the sexes have always existed but I think it’s simplistic to attribute it to “sexism”. As Christians (and certainly as Jews), we have a blueprint to follow for so called “equality” between men and women.

I don’t see any “moaning” here, except for the endless litanies of victimizations of women.
 
I did not propose a return to “1950’s economic relationships”, whatever that means. I am not idealizing the 50’s, or any other era. The question of this thread is “feminisms effect on women.” Since the feminist movement took place in the mid-60’s, I was using that as a marker for statistical changes. Problems between the sexes have always existed but I think it’s simplistic to attribute it to “sexism”. As Christians (and certainly as Jews), we have a blueprint to follow for so called “equality” between men and women.
I would argue that in both your old guise as a feminist and your new one as a Christian, you’ve significantly overestimated the results of feminism in and of itself. Feminism has been only one factor in the huge changes that have taken place since the Second World War but has the advantage for the ultra-right of being a much more convenient target for clichéd blame than things like ‘technological and economic developments’.

Change can only be change in existing circumstances and where we ‘are’ does not just consist of sets of personal relationships, those personal relationships exist in the context of economic, financial, industrial and employment etc circumstances. Talking about following biblical blueprints for ‘relationships’ cannot take place in some kind of vacuum, there would be economic, financial, industrial and employment etc consequences - any ‘social’ action has complex consequences, most of the important ones unforeseeable.
I don’t see any “moaning” here, except for the endless litanies of victimizations of women.
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?
 
For women who may be reading this:

(1) I’ve noticed that there are “old girl networks” and cliques, that are exceptionally exclusive; near impossible for a man to get in this loop.

(2) Women don’t network as well with people; they network well among other women. But I can recall lining up informational interviews: the older guys would make time for me, perhaps 80-90% of the time; women, never. Some, in fact, were hostile-ly suspicious and off-putting. Nice professionalism, there.

(3) One thing I EXTREMELY dislike are these young women just out of college that put on airs at the workplace. They spiffy themselves up, and then they talk down at you. . . curtly. I’m a Phi Beta Kappa and have an advanced degree, so I’m not terribly overwhelmed by the pretensions here. But there are a LOT of hard, even mean, young women. My wife says perhaps it’s the effect of birth control pills.
  1. Men invented the 'old boys network" long before any women did.
  2. Please refrain from anecdotal “facts” Can you prove that women are poorer at networking with men and women equally?
  3. Your personal dislikes are not evidence. I suspect it has more to do with having women bosses younger than yuou and it offends your male ego. Any evidence for your wife’s opinion on birth control? I assume you ask all these women what kind they use if any?
The fact that you express your bigotry toward a certain kind of women is laudable. Better than to pretend.
 
Once again, what do any of you think should be done? Solution oriented as opposed to fear oriented?
Ed
done about what Ed? and exactly what are the solution oriented what? and fear oriented what?
 
On the contrary, the “war” fought by NOW has enabled women to largely take their place alongside men as equals in the workplace. Today, female and male employees are largely considered fungible by most employers due to that struggle. Instead of victimhood, their struggle opened the doors to millions of young women who reap the benefits of feminism daily. I would wager less women are victimized today than were in the 1950’s for the simple reason that more women have the skills needed to live on their own and therefore the ability to walk out of a bad marriage. Even having that ability to walk, I would guess, improves her lot in life because her partner can’t simply take it for granted that she will put up with anything.
Well said. I am always constrained what exactly men want to happen if they can negate the advances made by women in the last 50 years or so. Back the way it was? LOL…most of course don’t answer that not wanting to be defined as bigots. I wonder who they thought was going to give us our rights? Haven’t women and all minorities always had to force the majority to give in? When they say they don’t like feminism, they tell me they prefer the old ways where men made much more money doing the same work because they somehow feel it was right. If not, please show me what you did as a man to change things before the nasty feminists did it for themselves and all their sisters./
 
Then why get married in the first place? Should lawyers be on hand in case a woman wants to date a man?

The equality you talk about is not a truly functional equality but a description of a power struggle involving money. This is unBiblical.

The correct, Biblical approach involves trust, understanding, commitment and true love, not the Sex and the City variety that turns women into predatory fornicators, like the men they were not supposed to imitate.

Love involves commitment and is not always easy, especially when imperfect human beings are involved. Too much emphasis is placed on sex and almost none on building a real relationship based on compatibility, trust and understanding. This should be the goal of both men and women. This is Biblical. This is what should be promoted.

Ed
Show us where and how women’s rights were being pursued absent the women’s movement.

Building a proper relationship between men and women is not particularly supported in the bible. The bible supported multiple wives, and subservience for the most part. Jesus attempted to teach differently but men of course missed that part of the message. Paul may well have spoken in some respects about the love of men and women for each other and the mutual respect deserved, but for the most part Paul continued to mouth misogynst remarks along the lines acceptable in the Greco-Roman world to protect his fledgling church. One hopes deeply that Paul did not always mean what he said, but it has caused harm to millions of women who have been told over the centuries to remember “their place” much as blacks were told the same, using similar pronouncements. In all such cases, Jesus’ message was ignored or misunderstood.
 
Sad. I’ve given the solution but people are reading past it like I didn’t write it. It’s in the Bible. It’s not about sex or politics. It’s about true love - real love. Not Sex and the City.

You can have your power fantasies that revolve around the idea that the only time women will be “equal” to men is when they become men. Power and money are not the answer.

The answer, once again, is real love between men and women. Real caring, real understanding and real respect. It’s in the Bible.
You give no solution except to say its love and in the bible. Where? How is love and a loving relationship going to ensure that I am paid a fair wage ? That I have the opportunity for the profession I desire? That I retain my right to vote? You offer zero solutions but mere platitudes.
 
What do you base this broad, sweeping assessment on? We all have personal stories to bring to the table. Yours appears to center on the difficult experiences of your grandmother and mother, both of whom had the difficult challenge of overcoming racism. My ancestral history is quite different from your’s, and not because we were affluent or elitist. If you do your homework, you will see that the early feminist movement was INDEED an elitist movement. It has never been about reaching the average woman. Still isn’t today - despite the pc rhetoric.
It is usually the well-to-do who have the time and money to spend their time on causes. That does not mean that the women’s movement has not helped mostly women who were working or poor. They have assured that colleges and universities now use the same standards in admitting men and women. They insure that equal numbers have access to professional schools. I and tens of millions of women have them to thank for where we are today.And I dare say that most members of NOW are not elite women, but common everyday middle class and working class women and poor women. The group probably most highly underrepresented are the rich. They have no need for it.
You may not say it, but ed was correct in his selection of quotes from the “mothers” of the feminist movement. One need only read the early books written by Frieden, Steinman, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, etc., to see that their intent was to “free” the woman from the “prison” of the family. How else to do that but demonize men and children? And guess what - they did a really great job!
If they meant to free women to be educated and to make money sufficient to support themselves and not have to be victimized in abusive relationships then you are right. More to the point it enabled young women to not have to settle for a miserable marriage but to support themselves as singles until such time as a good man came along they could really build a life with. Women no longer have to settle in order to survive.
You do realize that we have feminism to THANK for this? Prior to the sexual revolution, men would not have dared to treat women as they do today. But feminists were not happy with the idea of men doing things for them or treating them as though they were “pure and untouchable”. They wanted to get down in the dirt WITH the men. Another success, wouldn’t you say?
You make statements with no proof. I would like to see where there is a corrolation that women are treated worse by men today then they were 50 years ago. Your refer to anecdotal remarks that a small segment of men considered women pure and untoucheable. This is pure fantasy. Do you really think women were that much more chaste or men were 50 years ago? Statistics say otherwise.
Let’s break this down using the facts.

Prior to the rise of militant feminism:
Divorce:
The American divorce rate today is more than twice that of 1960, but has declined slightly since hitting the highest point in our history in the early 1980s.
Pornography
1960 Playboy
2008 Porn available everywhere, including in the privacy of one’s home at the click of the mouse
Abortion
1960 Illegal
2009 4,000 per day in the US alone
Child Abuse
The rate of infant homicide reached a 30-year high in 2000.
The rate more than doubled from 4.3 homicides per 100,000 children under age one in 1970 to 9.1 per 100,000 children under age one in 2000.
Rape
1960 - 17,190
2006 - 92,455
disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Now please show the studies that place all these numbers at the doorstep of the Women’s movement. You can’t dear, just run a bunch of numbers and then assign them a cause because you think they relate. Prove it.
Women should educate themselves about the real driving force behind the feminist “movement” before so quickly jumping to it’s defense.
disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
What exactly is the driving force and what is their "real " agenda?
 
It would be AWESOME if we could all refrain from personal insults, if it be possible.

For some background info, I WAS a card-carrying, march- organizing, petition-getting, front line feminist activist back in the day. So your accusation is WAY off base. I actually DO know both sides of the story and consider myself well informed. While there may have been isolated pockets of good intention among SOME of the women who spearheaded the “movement”, the primary goal was to “liberate” females from the oppression of men and family. The books I listed for you to read were the tomes written by those very women THEMSELVES, not the so called “anti-feminists”. The book I linked at the end is simply a Catholic woman’s overview of the impact of the movement.

This is not a thread about how to “fix” the negative effects of feminism so I do not feel compelled to engage in that discussion. However, I will say that I agree with Ed in that a return to Biblical PRINCIPLES is needed. If women believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, is incapable of presenting the perfect blueprint for the harmonious eo-existence of men and women, then the problem is larger than the issue of “equality” and feminism.

I was struck by this Sunday’s reading about the widows. We hear all the time about the “patriarchal” oppression in the Church. Yet we see how the earliest Christians were commanded to care for the most vulnerable women in society, the widows. Everything we need to know about the relationship between men and women is provided for us in the Bible and through the teachings of our Church. Betty Frieden has added nothing to the treasures given to us by our God.
caring for women is but the first step to assuming they cannot think for themselves and thus paternalism. I too was in the movment, and I have no clue what got you so turned off.
 
I think you people need to stop arguing. While some aspects of feminism has valid points, there are many severe moral outrages done in the name of the “liberation” of women. We need to condemn the immoral, and support the side that is valid. It’s that simple. I don’t think that it gives anyone the right to have a figurative war over anything at all. Hypocrisy is pretty rampant on both sides of the matter.
 
Hypocrisy is pretty rampant on both sides of the matter.
Are you referring to participants on this thread, or in the wider world?
While some aspects of feminism has valid points, there are many severe moral outrages done in the name of the “liberation” of women.
I know of abortion, but could you list some more of these severe moral outrages?
 
Ed, trite soundbites of poster board rhetoric fails to convince anyone. Steinem said important things and you choose a silly aside that probably was made up by someone else as a statement of her claims. There is and never was a war against men. It was and is a war against an institutionalized sexism that continues to pervade much of American life. It is not the in the least unbiblical, in fact it is clearly the message of Jesus. It does not I would agree resemble the historical life picture one sees in the bible, for that was indeed patriarchal in nature. But Jesus did his best to explain that that way of living was wrong. I guess you didn’t get it.
Spirit it sounds like you have some anger issues on the subject. Steinem is about as unbiblical and wicked as you can get. Mind you she is for abortion.

How can a movement that pressured 60 Million unborn children to be slaughtered be any good? This shows how much feminists truely hate humanity deep down in their souls. Enough hate to even advocate the killing of their own unborn children. And if they have no respect for the unborn how do you expect for them to have respect for others? Wicked is and wicked does.
One thing I EXTREMELY dislike are these young women just out of college that put on airs at the workplace. They spiffy themselves up, and then they talk down at you. . . curtly. I’m a Phi Beta Kappa and have an advanced degree, so I’m not terribly overwhelmed by the pretensions here. But there are a LOT of hard, even mean, young women. My wife says perhaps it’s the effect of birth control pills.
Oh how I agree. This is why I don’t like feminism. Because it effects the minds of so many young women and it turns them into hard, uncaring, stuck up jerks. Look at the divorce rate in society and the abortion rate. The sewage that comes from the feminism movement is alarming. Recently I was at the grocery store and I saw a woman bossing her husband around his he was a puppy dog. It was the most unnautral sad thing I had seen in months. “What an ungodly woman” I thought, considering that the gospel says that the wife should respect her husband the same way she should respect Christ himself. Where is the mutual respect between husband and wife anymore? Its nearly nonexistant in todays world and has turned into a “Sex and the City” type respect between woman and man that is deplorable.
 
Sadly, this “us vs. them” mentality was created. It is unnatural and unBiblical.
The “us vs. them” is a result of the Fall. The solution is God’s grace received through faith rather than any particular -ism one can of.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
The answer, once again, is real love between men and women. Real caring, real understanding and real respect.
Well feminism is itself against natural Law. It trys to turn to woman into the man. Which messes up the natural process between man and woman. Ever notice how alot of feminists are lesbians also? And like I said, anything that pressured and caused the butchering of 60 million infants cannot be good.

Im sorry to say but Im saddened to hear some of the replys from people who are actual professing Catholics, who are defending a movement that is so anti-God and anti-family. I can’t help but be saddened that so many haven’t returned back to their biblical values.
 
Are you referring to participants on this thread, or in the wider world?
Not particular users here, I believe, but I think it’s pretty widespread. Anomalies are awesome.
I know of abortion, but could you list some more of these severe moral outrages?
Contraception, availability of pornography, cohabitation, and such.
 
I would argue that in both your old guise as a feminist and your new one as a Christian, you’ve significantly overestimated the results of feminism in and of itself.
Don’t know how you could possibly argue such a thing without knowing me personally. But, if it floats your boat…😉
Feminism has been only one factor in the huge changes that have taken place since the Second World War
I agree. There were HUGE cultural, social, economic, religous, and political upheaval’s, some of which were noble and advantageous for our society. I could argue the point that suffrage was a leap forward for our country, but I will just concede the point. Obviously, civil rights was also pivotal in American history. But the feminist movement of the 60’s? Sorry. Any good that may have come from the idea of supporting women in the workplace WOULD have happened without the bra-burning, divorce-championing, pro-abortion, gay marriage supporting embittered feminists of that time.
but has the advantage for the ultra-right of being a much more convenient target for clichéd blame than things like ‘technological and economic developments’.
Wow. A new category: “ultra right”. Why don’t you tell me how technological and economic developments have led to 4,000 abortions every day, a near 50% divorce rate, skyrocketing child abuse statistics, etc.
Change can only be change in existing circumstances and where we ‘are’ does not just consist of sets of personal relationships, those personal relationships exist in the context of economic, financial, industrial and employment etc circumstances. Talking about following biblical blueprints for ‘relationships’ cannot take place in some kind of vacuum, there would be economic, financial, industrial and employment etc consequences - any ‘social’ action has complex consequences, most of the important ones unforeseeable.
:confused: You lost me here.
 
Don’t know how you could possibly argue such a thing without knowing me personally. But, if it floats your boat…😉
It’s called ‘reading’ and here’s the secret about doing it - what you do is: (i) read what people have written about a subject; (ii) read what they currently are writing about a subject.
I agree. There were HUGE cultural, social, economic, religous, and political upheaval’s, some of which were noble and advantageous for our society.
What an irrelevant statement! Technological and economic development don’t ‘care’ about what we think about them - they just ‘are’. Old economic and associated social relationships didn’t disappear because people got together and thought it would be a nice thing to do, they disappeared because they were no longer viable.
But the feminist movement of the 60’s? Sorry. Any good that may have come from the idea of supporting women in the workplace WOULD have happened without the bra-burning, divorce-championing, pro-abortion, gay marriage supporting embittered feminists of that time.
Well, I wasn’t around at the time but, you know, there are things about your use of language that just don’t read right for somebody who was supposedly part of it.
Wow. A new category: “ultra right”.
Really? Well, now you know.
Why don’t you tell me how technological and economic developments have led to 4,000 abortions every day, a near 50% divorce rate, skyrocketing child abuse statistics, etc.
Oh, breaking down your paradigms would be beyond my abilities and certainly beyond my ability to care.
:confused: You lost me here.
Picture me surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top