Feminisms effect on women

[Dale_M]

nazatukan. I wonder since you list yourself as Catholic. How do you get around your Catholic faith while supporting feminism? Something that the church has condemned.

Huh?

Could you give a citation or two of when the Church has condemned feminism?

 

[Naztakuan]

You have a real gift for detouring the topic into personal “Speculation-ville”.

Hey I’m not the one that said things would be better if we went back to how things used to be. Everyone else did. That sort of going backwards thing rarely ever works. There are many Liberal people who do this too. Conservatives want to bring back times or practices of years gone by that are obsolete and are no place in modern society. Liberals tend to dig back even farther and want to bring back barbaric practices that were abandoned because people came to percieve them as cruel or deviant.
There was a time when people used to practice a sort of eugenics on their children by exposing the ones they thought were sickly, leaving them to die. Many liberals seem to embrace that sort of concept that any child less than perfect should be disposed of. That is an old idea that people are bringing back like a new one by calling it “progressive”. How is it progressive if we’re going backwards? But conservatives do the same thing, only they don’t lie about it being new. They try to go backwards into a time where women stayed at home and had little influence on politics or economy. When they could not vote, or own their own property. Ironically there was a woman who the govt tried to force her to pay taxes on “her” house although technically the house did not “belong” to her. She was a widow and technically she was just squatting. If women can’t own land, they don’t pay taxes on it meaning there must have been a bunch of women running around on a free meal ticket. If you have not father or husband to depend upon, I imagine that these women had alot more power over their lives. Often women who were somewhat “defective” simply did not marry and actually could not marry. Instead they had more time to dedicate to politics,economics, or even art. As I recall Charlotte Bronte was once shunned by a male publisher who thought that women had no bussiness writing but instead should get married and make babies. I find that amusing since proponets of this make it seem like pursuing a vocation of marriage is some sort of default mode for women. I believe that feminism helps women to just be themselves whatever that may entail. Some women just aren’t cut out to have a family but they shouldn’t be shunned for it if they’ve commited no sin. Now, if they abuse their bodies and are sleeping around and then end up getting an abortion, that’s the problem you have to fix. But look at the more positive side of the coin. You notice how all these celebrities are getting pregnant and actually having the baby? As I recall, pregnancy must have been more shameful regardless of the marital status. Most female actresses had to choose between family or career so they would take “sick” leave which simply meant they had an abortion. Nowadays everyone looks up to celebrities. I’m not saying that it’s healthy but at least they seem to portraying a more pro-life stance. If people are trying to model their lives after the stars, then would it mean that these women are embracing life, not rejecting it? I don’t recall ever seeing any 50s adds about the beauty of pregnancy. I’m pretty sure Lucille was the first to break the stigma. It seems to me that alot of the stigma centered around pregnancy and nursing come from conservatives. I have no idea how pregnancy in itself was potentially immoral. But censors never seemed to allow it to be said on tv. A liberal would not dare make a comment about a woman breastfeeding because they don’t want to be percieved as someone who has hangups about nudity,breasts, or sex. Sure there are alot of abortions of which I don’t disagree. But I think feminism also kicked off the idea of maturnity leave which makes it a better environment for a woman to have children and work too.Feminisim means to take our differences into account not treating us like miniature men.

Feminisms positive contributions:

–Women embracing their bodies meant that women’s products like tampons and pads were made taking their needs into consideration. My mother said that before there were only like two brands of pads & no tampons. Menstruation is often equated with some sort of shame in this country and we still haven’t shaken the uneccesary stigma. I find that people who are often defined as"liberal" by conservatives believe that It is something to be celebrated as it indicates fertility and health.

—Brasiers were made more comfortable and practical( I think more women burned bras because they were uncomfortable much like the corset) How many feminist women of ample size go without wearing a bra these days? Almost none unless you are flat chested.

—Pregnancy was no longer a dirty word. You have a baby, you breastfeed. It’s no big deal. If this was a society that really hated babies or children, we wouldn’t have so many websites and magazines dedicated to their care. I think people have come to put children at the center of their lives more NOW than ever. And that is what is making kids feel suffocated.

—maternity leave makes it easier for working women to spend time with their children.

—All around improvements in womens health studies which were very limited before. People had long insisted on using a male standard of medicine on women which simply does not work.

–fair and equal pay for doing the same job as a man.

 

[blessedtoo]

There was a time when people used to practice a sort of eugenics on their children by exposing the ones they thought were sickly, leaving them to die.

Can you elaborate? When, in America, was such a practice encouraged?

Many liberals seem to embrace that sort of concept that any child less than perfect should be disposed of. That is an old idea that people are bringing back like a new one by calling it “progressive”. How is it progressive if we’re going backwards? But conservatives do the same thing, only they don’t lie about it being new. They try to go backwards into a time where women stayed at home and had little influence on politics or economy.

Progress for it’s own sake is not always beneficial to a culture. Just because science can create a hybrid of human/animal DNA does not mean it should be done or that society will benefit.

Some things that are considered “backward” yield provable benefits. Study after study reveals that children raised in a home with two biological married parents will succeed in all areas of life more often than children raised in single parent homes. It has nothing to do with “conservative” versus “progressive”.

Often women who were somewhat “defective” simply did not marry and actually could not marry. Instead they had more time to dedicate to politics,economics, or even art. As I recall Charlotte Bronte was once shunned by a male publisher who thought that women had no bussiness writing but instead should get married and make babies. I find that amusing since proponets of this make it seem like pursuing a vocation of marriage is some sort of default mode for women.

Perhaps those who support the idea of marriage for women see it as a noble endeavor. It is just as possible that prior generations viewed marriage and child-rearing as the highest calling for women and did not wish to see them forced to navigate the highly stressful environment of the work place. It was not that long ago that it was considered a rather sorry fate for a woman to have to work and support herself beyond the age of 30. And while the feminist movement has successfully convinced our culture that a woman can “have it all”, the effects of this theory on the American family seem to disprove it’s “promise”.

You notice how all these celebrities are getting pregnant and actually having the baby? As I recall, pregnancy must have been more shameful regardless of the marital status. Most female actresses had to choose between family or career so they would take “sick” leave which simply meant they had an abortion. Nowadays everyone looks up to celebrities. I’m not saying that it’s healthy but at least they seem to portraying a more pro-life stance. If people are trying to model their lives after the stars, then would it mean that these women are embracing life, not rejecting it?

Intentionally having babies out of wedlock is NOT portraying a pro-life stance. It portrays a selfish lifestyle, one that is less concerned about what is best for the child and more concerned about the mother’s wants and needs. Celebrities who celebrate pregnancy with their “boyfriends” and attempt to portray single motherhood as something fashionable or trendy are doing a terrible disservice to their children. Keep in mind as well that very rich female celebrities are living an experience that is far removed from the average single mother.

I don’t recall ever seeing any 50s adds about the beauty of pregnancy. I’m pretty sure Lucille was the first to break the stigma. It seems to me that alot of the stigma centered around pregnancy and nursing come from conservatives.

It may “seem” that way to you but the truth is that groups like La Leche League were born of very conservative and RELIGIOUS roots.

"La Leche League is a an organization started in 1956 by a group of Catholic mothers who sought to mediate in a comprehensive way between the family and the world of modern technological medicine.

Because the decision to be a secular organization was made so early, when leaders explained the origin of their name, they emphasized that the name had been chosen to avoid offending sensibilities at the time. The emphasis was needed because ALL THE FOUNDERS WERE CATHOLIC. As a group of Catholic people who had given their organization one of Mary’s titles, they very quickly had to demonstrate that…it’s focus was breastfeeding."
books.google.com/books?id=ellt2OBj68MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

In searching for a name for our new organization, we Founders were struck by the importance placed on breastfeeding by early Spanish settlers in America. In 1598, they dedicated a shrine to “Nuestra Senora de la Leche y Buen Parto” (“Our Lady of Happy Delivery and Plentiful Milk”). The words “happy delivery and plentiful milk” spoke profoundly of yearnings that are common to many mothers. Like women of old, we rejoiced in breastfeeding our babies and wanted to share our newfound knowledge with others. Even though our name came from a religious shrine, we unanimously chose to be a nonsectarian organization from the start.

LLL founders
llli.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVDec97Jan98p141.html

In addition, religous groups like the Amish have been using midwives and breastfeeding long before the “feminists” decided to use it as a political football. As with almost everything that they involved themselves in, they did not launch any new ideas (other than abortion on demand) and, it could be argued, perverted traditions that had been around for some time and were successful in their own right.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Many feminists try to make the playing field more equal; they are not trying to make women be seen as superior. The movement is trying to give women choices as to what they would like to do. If some would prefer to have a career, then they should be allowed, just as they should also have the right to stay home with a family. Different women prefer different lifestyles, and they deserve the opportunity to choose the type that best suits their character.

 

[blessedtoo]

Feminisms positive contributions:

–Women embracing their bodies meant that women’s products like tampons and pads were made taking their needs into consideration. My mother said that before there were only like two brands of pads & no tampons. Menstruation is often equated with some sort of shame in this country and we still haven’t shaken the uneccesary stigma. I find that people who are often defined as"liberal" by conservatives believe that It is something to be celebrated as it indicates fertility and health.

Feminism is responsible for tampons?

The ancient Egyptians invented the first disposable tampons made from softened papyrus.
In 1929, the modern tampon (with applicator) was first invented and patented by Doctor Earle Haas who wanted to invent a tampon that could be effectively mass produced.
inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltampons.htm

—Brasiers were made more comfortable and practical( I think more women burned bras because they were uncomfortable much like the corset) How many feminist women of ample size go without wearing a bra these days? Almost none unless you are flat chested.

Feminists were responsible for comfortable bras too?

The first modern brassiere to receive a patent was the one invented in 1913 by a New York socialite named Mary Phelps Jacob. Mary Phelps Jacob had just purchased a sheer evening gown for one of her social events. At that time, the only acceptable undergarment was a corset stiffened with whaleback bones. Mary found that the whalebones poked out visible around the plunging neckline and under the sheer fabric. Two silk handkerchiefs and some pink ribbon later, Mary had designed an alternative to the corset. The corset’s reign was starting to topple.
inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventions/a/brassiere.htm

—Pregnancy was no longer a dirty word. You have a baby, you breastfeed.** It’s no big deal.** If this was a society that really hated babies or children, we wouldn’t have so many websites and magazines dedicated to their care. I think people have come to put children at the center of their lives more NOW than ever. And that is what is making kids feel suffocated.

What I’ve bolded in your response is perhaps the truest statement you’ve made so far. Pregnancy and motherhood is indeed considered “no big deal” today. Even though we know that the family is the cornerstone of a successful society, and even though we know that raising children is the most challenging vocation and even though we know that children do best when raised by two married parents, we have equalized all situations into which a children can be born or placed. We have also successfully made women who choose to stay home and raise their children feel that they have “betrayed” some higher calling to have a career.

Instead, Hirshman argues, feminism should rebuke the affluent, educated women who are increasingly (in what numbers is disputed) abandoning careers for family life. She even cites Friedan as an example of how radical the feminist movement once was on these questions, a radicalism she thinks the movement should return to. She notes that in her movement-inspiring 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique,” Friedan went so far as to compare housework to animal life: “Vacuuming the living room floor – with or without makeup – is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity,” Friedan wrote. “Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it … when he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being.”
gettoworkmanifesto.com/index2.htm

—maternity leave makes it easier for working women to spend time with their children.

While it is true that femininsts have agitated for government regulations concerning maternity leave, it is still more a business vs. family issue rather than a sexism concern. Businessess are still not required to provide maternity leave for female employees nor have they been willing to consider paternity leave for fathers. Equal opportunity neglect for family support.

—All around improvements in womens health studies which were very limited before. People had long insisted on using a male standard of medicine on women which simply does not work.

How does that have anything to do with feminism? Would you not attribute that more to the advancements in medical science?

–fair and equal pay for doing the same job as a man.

Since wage discrimination based on gender has been ILLEGAL sinc 1963, you would think they could put this canard to bed.
eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Arguing about what to do now is like arguing about how to close the barn door after the horse has escaped. Women got what they wanted; now we’ll see how much they like the results. More and more men simply have nothing but contempt for a society which has nothing but contempt for them. We’ll see how long society can maintain itself without a substantive male contribution.

Now I find it interesting that this poster (neat62) criticizes other women for an attitude which she herself possesses; namely, that of a feminine superiority.

Today’s women don’t want equality…they want superiority!

Yep. And now they got it. The gender war has turned into a complete rout in favor of women. But there are going to be some unintended consequences.

Women somehow have been made to feel that they need to seek “superiority” over man, instead of understanding that men and women are different, simply because we were created that way.

If you demand responsibility for women then you also need to demand responsibility for them taking this attitude, rather than saying they have been “made to feel” this way. Anyway, you yourself don’t think women need to seek superiority over man, you think they’ve already got it.

Today’s men are afraid of commitment and women don’t want it.

Men are rightfully afraid of “commitment” due to our one-sided and unjust divorce laws.

Men don’t know whether to hold open the door or allow the woman to hold it open for them. We have sent them so many mixed messages over the past 40 years, who can blame them? We tell them we want them to treat us with respect and love, but at the same time, we demand they treat us as if we were just “one of the guys.”

More and more men simply don’t care one way or the other. Nor should we. We weren’t put on the planet for the sole purpose of pleasing and being useful to women. The proper response to a woman complaining about a door being held open for her is to slam it in her face. Moreover, respect and love are two-way streets; women are simply not going be respected by us if they have nothing but contempt for us (and they do).

Now, apparently, being treated as just “one of the guys” means being not treated with “respect and love”. You decry women demanding special treatment with Affirmative Action and yet you demand special treatment here. Apparently just mere “guys” aren’t worthy of respect and love, only women.

Is it any wonder that men are so confused today? They don’t know if they want to marry us women or if they should stick with their own gender, because women have been telling them for so long that we are “just like them” in every way.

No, women have been telling us for so long how awful we are in every way. Guess what, we don’t care what you think anymore. Your problems are your problems now, not ours. You’ve “empowered” yourselves; now you take the responsibility. If men don’t behave like you think they should, tough. You won’t change your behavior to suit us; neither will we change ours to suit you.

They want to throw “it’s MY body” in the face of the man when they find themselves pregnant and looking to abort, but demand payment and support when they choose to give birth, despite what the father’s wishes may be.

Yep. A clear double standard.

Again, they don’t want equality…they want to be deemed superior to men…yet they fail to realize that in the greatest way they are “superior,” - simply because they are the one’s who were given the blessed gift of delivering new life…something NO MAN will ever be able to do!

So you actually do think yourself superior to men then, merely based on your biology and anatomical structure. You aren’t really any different from those women you criticize.

 

[Naztakuan]

The point is that feminist (name removed by moderator)ut results in more effective marketing to women because it atkes our actual opinions into consideration. Because marketers are now aware that different women need different things based on their interests. If woman aren’t part of the marketing stafff, how do you expect to get women to buy the product? Suppose your daughter wants to be an olympic track star when she grows up? Athletic girls have long had to endure the stereotype of lesbianism becasue it simply wasn’t “ladylike” to run or play sports. I actually had older relatives tell me that girls shouldn’t run. Only boys should. I have no idea where that comes from. But I guarantee that there were not all the sports leagues for women like there are now and we still don’t have womens’ baseball. Many things haven’t completely changed either. The idea that femenism has completely changed our social structure and it’s ideas is simply untrue. I still get the lesbian label by girls just for being athletic.
The same goes for women who are by nature assertive. That’s just their nature. It isn’t fair to say that because they know what they want that they are behaving manishly. We still have work to do as far as telling kids the truth about what differences in the sexes are real and which ones are manufactured and imposed. We still do that now. We tend to exaggerate the manliness of men and the womanliness of women. Feminism was about rejecting such narrow descriptions according to sex. My parents didn’t attempt to make me fit a specific role because they didn’t fit those roles themselves. I’m a feminist because I don’t believe that women should be anything other than who they are even if who they are conflicts with societal norms. In our society, a woman is still expected to look a certain way, dress a certain way and act a certain way. Anyone who deviates just the slightest from this expectation is suspect. Does it really matter? Our expectations are much too rigid for no reason other than to impose some degree of sameness under the false guise of godliness.
Sameness does not equal Godliness. I don’t take too kindly to some crackpot spouting of that a woman should know her place especially since he or she doesn’t even know what that place is.
My place is wherever God decides to place me.
If feminism women really didn’t believe in marriage or having children then I would suppose i wouldn’t be hearing them talk about it all the time. Staunch feminists have children too, they just believe more in quality over quantity. They also have higher expectations of their husbands which really just means modern guys are starting to do more of the houswork and sharing the childcare part. I really don’t see how that is a bad thing. Sometimes the dad might just be the better parent (minus the nursing part).

 

[leftistdestroye]

Arguing about what to do now is like arguing about how to close the barn door after the horse has escaped. Women got what they wanted; now we’ll see how much they like the results. More and more men simply have nothing but contempt for a society which has nothing but contempt for them. We’ll see how long society can maintain itself without a substantive male contribution.

Now I find it interesting that this poster (neat62) criticizes other women for an attitude which she herself possesses; namely, that of a feminine superiority.

Yep. And now they got it. The gender war has turned into a complete rout in favor of women. But there are going to be some unintended consequences.

If you demand responsibility for women then you also need to demand responsibility for them taking this attitude, rather than saying they have been “made to feel” this way. Anyway, you yourself don’t think women need to seek superiority over man, you think they’ve already got it.

Men are rightfully afraid of “commitment” due to our one-sided and unjust divorce laws.

More and more men simply don’t care one way or the other. Nor should we. We weren’t put on the planet for the sole purpose of pleasing and being useful to women. The proper response to a woman complaining about a door being held open for her is to slam it in her face. Moreover, respect and love are two-way streets; women are simply not going be respected by us if they have nothing but contempt for us (and they do).

Now, apparently, being treated as just “one of the guys” means being not treated with “respect and love”. You decry women demanding special treatment with Affirmative Action and yet you demand special treatment here. Apparently just mere “guys” aren’t worthy of respect and love, only women.

No, women have been telling us for so long how awful we are in every way. Guess what, we don’t care what you think anymore. Your problems are your problems now, not ours. You’ve “empowered” yourselves; now you take the responsibility. If men don’t behave like you think they should, tough. You won’t change your behavior to suit us; neither will we change ours to suit you.

Yep. A clear double standard.

So you actually do think yourself superior to men then, merely based on your biology and anatomical structure. You aren’t really any different from those women you criticize.

You got Neat62 all wrong, man. And believe me, she’s gunna tell you why.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Feminism has turned men girley, and woman manly. It is sickening.

 

[Naztakuan]

Now I find it interesting that this poster (neat62) criticizes other women for an attitude which she herself possesses; namely, that of a feminine superiority.

So you actually do think yourself superior to men then, merely based on your biology and anatomical structure. You aren’t really any different from those women you criticize.

DUH! That’s what I said too but she doesn’t seem to think she’s guilty of this. But then , what does determine superiority? Just to play devils advocate. A eugenics expert would claim that assertion to be true. Superior physical capabilities and mental capacities make certain creatures superior to others and therefore more apt to rule. After all that is the arguement we use to justify testing on physically or intellectually inferior creatures. However, our reasoning as to why we don’t do this to humans is supposedly because of their intellect, which can become a problem when you start referring to those who are developmentally handicapped in any way. Supposedly humans are superior to other humans but not on the basis of sex which is what neat62 seems to imply. But then, animals often have their own divisions according to sex.Often the females are the larger and superior of the species since in the wild, the female needs to be large in order to effectively protect her young I suppose. However, the reason Humans do not apply the animal kingdom standard of might makes right simply has to do with the exchange of ideas. Much of what humans think about how things should be done are from external influences. The thing about external idea exchange is that they will change and are never set in stone. The reason that male lions are the superior of the pride is because of behavioral programming instilled before birth even occurs. There is no behavioral indication that either men or women are superior. These assesments are external and are therefore artificially implanted into the psyche long after birth takes place by the society one lives in. A womans’ role in society is determined by the Communities agreement and influence, not by an instinct. That’s why you can go all over the world and get different answers about a womans degree of importance/influence.
It’s simply culturally based more than morally based. It is human nature however, to change things in society that we find unsuitable for practice.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The point is that feminist (name removed by moderator)ut results in more effective marketing to women because it atkes our actual opinions into consideration. Because marketers are now aware that different women need different things based on their interests.

Not to mention, these days it’s women who control most of the spending decisions…

The same goes for women who are by nature assertive. That's just their nature. It isn't fair to say that because they know what they want that they are behaving manishly.

And it isn’t fair to say that because some men behave a certain way they are behaving girlishly, which women accuse men of quite often (especially when they refuse to behave in a manner that benefits women).

I’m a feminist because I don’t believe that women should be anything other than who they are even if who they are conflicts with societal norms. In our society, a woman is still expected to look a certain way, dress a certain way and act a certain way. Anyone who deviates just the slightest from this expectation is suspect.

And I’m a masculist because I don’t believe that men should be anything other than who they are even if who they are conflicts with societal norms. In our society a man is still expected to look, dress, and act a certain way. If they don’t they’re suspect.

I don’t take too kindly to some crackpot spouting of that a woman should know her place especially since he or she doesn’t even know what that place is.

And I don’t take too kindly to crackpots spouting that men should know their place. Which is, mainly, to earn money for and protect women.

If feminism women really didn’t believe in marriage or having children then I would suppose i wouldn’t be hearing them talk about it all the time. Staunch feminists have children too, they just believe more in quality over quantity. They also have higher expectations of their husbands

And just where do they get off on that? If they refuse to abide by what men expect of them then how can they justify any expectation of men?

which really just means modern guys are starting to do more of the houswork and sharing the childcare part. I really don’t see how that is a bad thing. Sometimes the dad might just be the better parent (minus the nursing part).

Except of course if a divorce should occur. Then of course they wax eloquent about how it’s a man’s duty to provide for his family, and how he should just shut up and take it, and how deprived children would be without their mother.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You got Neat62 all wrong, man. And believe me, she’s gunna tell you why.

Oh, I’m sure of it, just like when some one gets called out for racist views some of his best friends are black.

Again, they don’t want equality…they want to be deemed superior to men…yet they fail to realize that in the greatest way they are “superior,” - simply because they are the one’s who were given the blessed gift of delivering new life…something NO MAN will ever be able to do!

That’s an unapologetic and clear affirmation of feminine superiority.

 

[Naztakuan]

Feminism has turned men girley, and woman manly. It is sickening.

What does that mean still? If you’re referring to Transexuals, they are only a small degree of people. I doubt any social movement can effectively alter natural inclinations of the sexes. That would require something invasive like hormones, pills or rewiring of the brain via surgery. If a movement could lead people to just will themselves into having the characteristics of another sex, I doubt those characteristics were real to begin with but more or less programmed and imposed. A person will need more than that to trigger some sort of radical shift in brain chemistry. But I also find it somewhat insulting that you are implying that Women should behave girly. Girlishness is attributed to a child not a woman. If you were going to make an assesment, You should say men act ‘womanly’ since he is still acting like an adult and in my eyes that is the only thing that is important. But I seem to recall a time in American history where men wore wigs, makeup and tights and the most frilly stuff I have ever seen. they cared more about their appearance more than they do now. And wasn’t Macho-man a gay anthem? ". I wouldn’t worry too much about making all human beings conform to your idea of sex appropriate behavior. What really matters is if you can get along with that person and have a good time. Nitpicking like that isn’t going to get you anywhere. I have no idea how I’m supposed to “act” in accordance to your rigid expectations. I can only be what I feel is right and if someone says that’s too manly, then oh well:shrug: . Not gonna worry about it. I think American women have enough self esteem issues.

 

[EasterJoy]

Has anyone made the very obvious point that there used to also be a warped view of what “trying to be a man” meant? Are we all too young to remember what kind of injustices were perpetrated?

I used to work in a cannery. When I got there, there was actually a dispute about whether women were qualified to run forklifts. Most of the candidates for these jobs were younger people: high school and college age.

Does it surprise you to hear that it was not long after women were admitted to this job that it was noticed that the young women were far less likely to be careless with the equipment, and to hotdog around with it without reason? It wasn’t a hard-and-fast rule, but clearly the young women were up to the job.

Does anybody remember the days when the sisters working at Catholic schools got a fraction of the pay (meaning less than half) what the priests who were teaching got? Not just what the sisters themselves had to cover their personal expenses. I mean what their orders got. These were not jobs in which, for instance, two laymen would have gotten different pay from each other.

Does anybody remember the days when organized sports were not “ladylike”, when girls teams played basketball by rules designed to not strain the young ladies? When menstruation was seen as a reason to avoid physical activity, in and of itself? Now we know that girls who participate in organized sports are less likely to engage in premarital sex, not to mention less likely to have health problems later in life due to inactivity. Their likelihood to be injured in sports is different than boys’; girls are more durable in some ways, more prone to injury in others, but all in all, sports benefit girls’ health and welfare. It took Title IX to get people to allow girls to fully participate in sports. Gee, how about that?

Men are men, and women are women. Tell me that the one who nursed you at her breast has a relationship with you that no one else does. Don’t tell me you can simply ask what kind of genitalia somebody has and predict whether or not they’re qualified to drive a forklift. Don’t tell me one deserves more pay for doing the same job. Don’t tell me, either, disciple of Christ, that there is work that is beneath a Christian, that there is “woman’s work” or “man’s work”, based on the status or pay attached to the job.

It will not surprise you to find that my views of feminism are similar to my views on unions: each has unquestionably perpetrated their own evils, which is sad, for they were brought about as answers to real injustices. Let us not let the evil they have brought blind us to the good that each has done.

 

[Naztakuan]

Not to mention, these days it’s women who control most of the spending decisions…

And it isn’t fair to say that because some men behave a certain way they are behaving girlishly, which women accuse men of quite often (especially when they refuse to behave in a manner that benefits women).

And I’m a masculist because I don’t believe that men should be anything other than who they are even if who they are conflicts with societal norms. In our society a man is still expected to look, dress, and act a certain way. If they don’t they’re suspect.

And I don’t take too kindly to crackpots spouting that men should know their place. Which is, mainly, to earn money for and protect women.

And just where do they get off on that? If they refuse to abide by what men expect of them then how can they justify any expectation of men?

Except of course if a divorce should occur. Then of course they wax eloquent about how it’s a man’s duty to provide for his family, and how he should just shut up and take it, and how deprived children would be without their mother.

Yeah but I don’t happen to believe any of that stuff either. I’m not old enough to believe that. My mother was the breadwinner in the family for as long as I can remember. I personally think people should have mates that balance them out personality wise. Hey if you want to wear a dress and make up and grow your hair out, go for it. I don’t care really. I’m a goth and most guys in the goth circle are romantics don’t think twice about getting their hair done or wearing makeup or what have you. You’re talking to the wrong woman if you’re trying to make a point. I don’t really expect all that much from men aside from the requirements of being a good human being and just nice to be around. I wasn’t raised on the same fantasy about some guy on a steed like everyone else. I don’t worry about it. If both partners agree on pursuing a traditionalist lifestyle, then that has to be a mutual agreement. but I honestly don’t see that happening to me or anyone else that I know. It doesn’t bother me at all if a guy likes to do things that girls traditionally like to do provided it isn’t destructive to themselves. I personally would not be attracted to someone who is extremely weak but that has nothing to do with the persons sex. Girls that purposfully behave like they are extremely weak are annoying too. I worked with a girl who I had to chide often about the fact that she insisted on acting helpless all the time when she was not. She was just lazy. So I don’t get what your point was in rebutting my post. You seem to think that I don’t believe it goes both ways when I do. I do think it was dammaging for men before feminism because of the unrealistic expectations put on them as well. Men should be allowed to cry if they want. It’s like Maya Angelou said. Oppression of a person anywhere is oppression of a person everywhere. If you hold one group to an unrealistic standard then you’re probably holding up another group to another standard that is dammaging as well. Men can now be effectively treated for depression. it’s like when you tell black people they can’t read or write or do anything because they are supposedly genetically inferior. That sort of idea emphasizes that all white people are absolutely brilliant which can cause problems when you realize that your white child cannot read as well as a black child in his class. Telling someone that they are so much better for such a simplistic reason makes people confused when they actually fail. It’s better to fail as an individual than to fail as a member of a supposed elite group.

 

[leftistdestroye]

That’s an unapologetic and clear affirmation of feminine superiority.

Yeah it is, but that is not what Neat62 is or wants. She is pointing out what the feminists want.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Naztakuan;3609303]

What does that mean still?

If you’re referring to Transexuals, they are only a small degree of people.

You know what I mean, don’t play stupid.

I doubt any social movement can effectively alter natural inclinations of the sexes. That would require something invasive like hormones, pills or rewiring of the brain via surgery. If a movement could lead people to just will themselves into having the characteristics of another sex, I doubt those characteristics were real to begin with but more or less programmed and imposed. A person will need more than that to trigger some sort of radical shift in brain chemistry.

Again, you know what I mean. But to play your game, I am not refering to physical characteristics, but attitudes.

But I seem to recall a time in American history where men wore wigs, makeup and tights and the most frilly stuff I have ever seen. they cared more about their appearance more than they do now.

Where did I say ANYTHING about physical characteristics?

And wasn’t Macho-man a gay anthem? ".

I don’t know, was it? Either way, it seems a bit girley for a man to let another man #$%^ him, no?

I wouldn’t worry too much about making all human beings conform to your idea of sex appropriate behavior. What really matters is if you can get along with that person and have a good time. Nitpicking like that isn’t going to get you anywhere. I have no idea how I’m supposed to “act” in accordance to your rigid expectations. I can only be what I feel is right and if someone says that’s too manly, then oh well:shrug: . Not gonna worry about it.

Considering how many men don’t get married anymore because of feminism, those same people do not know or don’t want to know how to be a man by supporting a family. Or how many men are told by society, not in so many words, to kowtow to women and lose their spine. Women are taught to act like men and not behave like ladies.

I think American women have enough self esteem issues

Sure, because like you, they are concentrating on physical characterists(you brought it up so much) rather than behavior. What do you expect?

 

[leftistdestroye]

Let us not let the evil they have brought blind us to the good that each has done.

But feminism was good for the woman(singular), not society as a whole. Many non feminists will disagree with that, but the fact is, is that feminism has achieved what it wanted to. If feminism only changed one aspect of society, it would be different. But since it created a ton of unintended consequences, I have to look at the negatives more than anything, because it affects all of society.

 

[Calliso]

Naztakuan;3609303]

What does that mean still?

You know what I mean, don’t play stupid.

Again, you know what I mean. But to play your game, I am not refering to physical characteristics, but attitudes.

Where did I say ANYTHING about physical characteristics?

I don’t know, was it? Either way, it seems a bit girley for a man to let another man #$%^ him, no?

Considering how many men don’t get married anymore because of feminism, those same people do not know or don’t want to know how to be a man by supporting a family. Or how many men are told by society, not in so many words, to kowtow to women and lose their spine. Women are taught to act like men and not behave like ladies.

Sure, because like you, they are concentrating on physical characterists(you brought it up so much) rather than behavior. What do you expect?

So explain to us who can;t read minds just what you mean? To be “girly” how should I act? what should my attitude be? Same questions go for how one can be manly. Also who set these standards? and why should we adher to them? Also you should use the word womanly it makes more sense… by saying girly you seem to implying that women should behave like little girls? but I seriously hope that isn;t what you mean…

 

[Naztakuan]

Naztakuan;3609303]

What does that mean still?

You know what I mean, don’t play stupid.

Again, you know what I mean. But to play your game, I am not refering to physical characteristics, but attitudes.

Where did I say ANYTHING about physical characteristics?

I don’t know, was it? Either way, it seems a bit girley for a man to let another man #$%^ him, no?

Considering how many men don’t get married anymore because of feminism, those same people do not know or don’t want to know how to be a man by supporting a family. Or how many men are told by society, not in so many words, to kowtow to women and lose their spine. Women are taught to act like men and not behave like ladies.

Sure, because like you, they are concentrating on physical characterists(you brought it up so much) rather than behavior. What do you expect?

No I honestly don’t know what you are talikng about. I’m not that old to know what role reversal you are referring to. The way things are now are the way I experience them. I guess I could only pick up what you are referring to in old movies but even in those really old black and white movies there are women in positions of power and influence. Reporters, journalists, agents etc. So I really don’t know what you are talking about. The concept of behaving manly is not an affixed state. I don’t know what it means and quite frankly you’ve got some of your own issues to work out. If you can’t TELL me in a specific concrete manner what it means to be womanly or manly, then you really don’t know what you’re talking about either. I don’t profess to know or impose some sort of standard on all men because I know that isn’t much help to tell them how to be because of their sex. Both my parents work and supported the family so I don’t identify that as some sort of male only capacity. I never met a guy who said they didn’t work just because women were at their workplace runin things. That’s petty and irrelevant. My father never begrudged anyone he worked for. He never blames feminism for anything in his life. If he did, he would have raised me differently. Niether do any of my male friends have a problem with women. It never comes up. You make it sound like a bunch of ornery grumpy guys complainin about the womin folk and what not. They aren’t like that at all. I don’t know what miserable world you live in but I want to stay clear away from it. People still fall in love and get married and have children. Some may never marry. Does it matter? I don’t think it does. The idea that every man out there is scum because of feminism also seems insulting to men. Plus you come across as a very aggressive angry person. That’s something you need to work out with a therapist, not lashing out at me. Maybe some woman hurt your feelings…I dunno. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that you seem to insist that it’s a onesided experience and women once again have to carry the brunt of the blame AGAIN! Perhaps some women are the ones that don’t feel like getting married. maybe they are the ones that are frightened by commitment. Forever is a long time. My parents have been married for almost 30 years. They’re a great example of a married couple. But…I don’t want to get married. There has never been a divorce in my family that I know of. Even when my great grandfather blew his wife’s brains out. My parents were children of the 60s. They marched and protested and what not. And then they got married. My mother always told me that you shouldn’t be looking for a man to complete you. You need to only work on yourself or you will never be happy. Focus on improving your skills and talents. That always attracts girls I’m sure.I’m a feminist but I do NOT hate men. To imply millions of feminist wives in America also hate men is an unfair judgement. Maybe it will get to a point in time when women will propose to men. I dunno, it could happen:shrug: .Things change.