Feminisms effect on women

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Gregory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Calliso;3609713]
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?/
askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/142_dating_advice.html

(Minus the last line)

wwnh.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/152-when-women-act-like-men%E2%80%94part-2/

Feminism let men off of the hook. Men should not be pushovers to women, and women should not try to control or run men. Women should demand that men take responsibillity for being a man, and they should let 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
That is just semantics, and normally I wouldn’t even reply to this.
 
Calliso;3609713]

That is just semantics, and normally I wouldn’t even reply to this.
You wouldn’t believe how important it is to properly address a woman as being a woman. You don’t think it’s important but it has ruffled many a women’s feathers for a very long time. It’s like how you never address an adult black man as “boy”. It has a history attached to it. What you say and what you don’t say can offend people. People often address women as girl in order to belittle them and insult them. Since you aren’t exactly the nicest person I’ve ever met and I constantly am feeling some sort of aggresion in your words. I could easily misinterpret your choice of words as purposefully meaning to offend.
 
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.
sayanythingblog.com/entry/defending_the_feminization_of_boys/

That woman was acting manly.

My parents were children of the 60’s as well, so it is obvious that they would not feel the effects of it, because it was they, who made the changes we have today.

Feminism does not mean that a woman hates men, and I never said that it did. The 60’s radicals did, but we have a new generation of feminists, ones who are a product of the radical wave of the 60’s.

Schools are geared towards feminization. Colleges enroll at least 10% more woman than males. And they do it on purpose. More women are graduating from college than males. They don’t teach Home Economics anymore. A coincidence? Nope.

When women are choosing a career over family, that makes them manly. When women run things and men are subserviant to them, then that is a role reversal. When men become pushovers, then they become feminized.

When women become the sexual aggressors, then they have become manly.

The marriage rate has dropped substantially because of feminism. Sperm banks are seeing a 30% rise in single women wanting to be mothers because they waited too long, because of feminism.

Woman want what men had, and that made them manly.
 
Naztakuan;3610077]
You wouldn’t believe how important it is to properly address a woman as being a woman. You don’t think it’s important but it has ruffled many a women’s feathers for a very long time. It’s like how you never address an adult black man as “boy”. It has a history attached to it. What you say and what you don’t say can offend people. People often address women as girl in order to belittle them and insult them. Since you aren’t exactly the nicest person I’ve ever met and I constantly am feeling some sort of aggresion in your words. I could easily misinterpret your choice of words as purposefully meaning to offend.
Well, I know the word “boy” as a southern thing, not a black thing. So yeah, if they were from the south, I would say that to anyone as a joke, no matter what color they were. I do not subscripe to political correctness. And that is all that this is.

I don’t like being told how to speak by PC junkies, and I have never heard a woman addressed as a girl in order to insult them. Do you have an example?
 
Calliso;3609713]

askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/142_dating_advice.html

(Minus the last line)

wwnh.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/152-when-women-act-like-men%E2%80%94part-2/

Feminism let men off of the hook. Men should not be pushovers to women, and women should not try to control or run men. Women should demand that men take responsibillity for being a man, and they should let them.

That is just semantics, and normally I wouldn’t even reply to this.
The first article implies that men are stupid and are easily manipulated by their desire for sex. If a person is that weak that they allow themselves to be manipulated that way, it seems like men are shifting the blame to women for their sexual problems. Personally, I would have nothing to do with someone that stupid.
the second one just outlines what women shouldn’t do but it only pertains to sex and relationships. If your only hangups about feminism is sex and more specifically unmarried sex. It has nothing to do with me. I’m not doing any of those things on that list as they all pertain to having sex.

This one is complete bollocks and has no christian basis for teaching. It centers around sexual desirability and men’s insecurities.
  • If she can depend on herself, she doesn’t need him. If that happens, she’s not grateful for him. If that happens, he’s not too interested in staying with her.*
It implies that women should act weak and helpless to attract a man. It’s pathetic and unrealistic namely because these women are “acting”. If I was acting like I am helpless when they really are not, I’m sure when I arrive at the pearly gates, Jesus might question the fact that I acted so fake just to attract a man.
No one likes fake people. Not even Jesus.
Unless they are implying that a woman should put herself into debt just so she can realistically play the part of a helpless financially insecure girl and then get a man. But I’m pretty sure that Jesus would question someone pursuing a sexual relationship with the same meticulous planning of a billion dollar corporation.

This one I don’t get the context

*Women think everything should be more equal, so they upstage men by initiating sex. Men welcome it, but it short-circuits a man’s respect so essential for enduring love to develop. *
If she isn’t married, she shouldn’t be initiating sex to begin with. But if she is married and she wants to have sex. She shouldn’t be forced to hold out only when he initiates it. It works both ways. I’m sure that if I was married and I wanted to have sex, I’d ask for it. I didn’t wait all that time to get married NOT to have sex. Men get all huffy about women holding out but no one could possibly believe that maybe just maybe the woman is the one with the stronger libido and she WANTS sex. It’s not like they’re thinking about upstaging men. They’re thinking about the same thing that men are thinking. I’m sure people like to make it seem like men are the only ones with carnal desires but it simply isn’t true. If a man does it, it’s his nature, if a woman does it, she’s being contrary to her nature? PUHleeeeze. her hormones are screaming at her just as loud.
 
The first article implies that men are stupid and are easily manipulated by their desire for sex. If a person is that weak that they allow themselves to be manipulated that way, it seems like men are shifting the blame to women for their sexual problems. Personally, I would have nothing to do with someone that stupid.
the second one just outlines what women shouldn’t do but it only pertains to sex and relationships. If your only hangups about feminism is sex and more specifically unmarried sex. It has nothing to do with me. I’m not doing any of those things on that list as they all pertain to having sex.

This one is complete bollocks and has no christian basis for teaching. It centers around sexual desirability and men’s insecurities.
  • If she can depend on herself, she doesn’t need him. If that happens, she’s not grateful for him. If that happens, he’s not too interested in staying with her.*
It implies that women should act weak and helpless to attract a man. It’s pathetic and unrealistic namely because these women are “acting”. If I was acting like I am helpless when they really are not, I’m sure when I arrive at the pearly gates, Jesus might question the fact that I acted so fake just to attract a man.
No one likes fake people. Not even Jesus.
Unless they are implying that a woman should put herself into debt just so she can realistically play the part of a helpless financially insecure girl and then get a man. But I’m pretty sure that Jesus would question someone pursuing a sexual relationship with the same meticulous planning of a billion dollar corporation.

This one I don’t get the context

*Women think everything should be more equal, so they upstage men by initiating sex. Men welcome it, but it short-circuits a man’s respect so essential for enduring love to develop. *
If she isn’t married, she shouldn’t be initiating sex to begin with. But if she is married and she wants to have sex. She shouldn’t be forced to hold out only when he initiates it. It works both ways. I’m sure that if I was married and I wanted to have sex, I’d ask for it. I didn’t wait all that time to get married NOT to have sex. Men get all huffy about women holding out but no one could possibly believe that maybe just maybe the woman is the one with the stronger libido and she WANTS sex. It’s not like they’re thinking about upstaging men. They’re thinking about the same thing that men are thinking. I’m sure people like to make it seem like men are the only ones with carnal desires but it simply isn’t true. If a man does it, it’s his nature, if a woman does it, she’s being contrary to her nature? PUHleeeeze. her hormones are screaming at her just as loud.
Great post! oh and about the sex thing go to the marriagebed.com and read the forums most men WANT their wives to ininiate sex!

And yeah I can;t stand women who fake being weak it is insulting to all those women who fought against the stereotype that women are helpless. Not to mention yeah fake people suck. 😦
 
40.png
Naztakuan:
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?
Oh, I remember that late 1970’s song. youtube.com/watch?v=g95T4kn8HKg
I am sure that the people singing it weren’t interested in girly men, but were looking for manly men.
Considering how many men don’t get married anymore because of feminism
Huh?? Tell us, how many men don’t get married because of feminism? This sounds like an interesting statistic.
40.png
leftistdestroye:
40.png
Naztakuan:
I think American women have enough self esteem issues
Sure, because like you, they are concentrating on physical characterists(
Really? Would you care to explain what are these physical characteristics?
 
sayanythingblog.com/entry/defending_the_feminization_of_boys/

That woman was acting manly.

My parents were children of the 60’s as well, so it is obvious that they would not feel the effects of it, because it was they, who made the changes we have today.

Feminism does not mean that a woman hates men, and I never said that it did. The 60’s radicals did, but we have a new generation of feminists, ones who are a product of the radical wave of the 60’s.

Schools are geared towards feminization. Colleges enroll at least 10% more woman than males. And they do it on purpose. More women are graduating from college than males. They don’t teach Home Economics anymore. A coincidence? Nope.

When women are choosing a career over family, that makes them manly. When women run things and men are subserviant to them, then that is a role reversal. When men become pushovers, then they become feminized.

When women become the sexual aggressors, then they have become manly.

The marriage rate has dropped substantially because of feminism. Sperm banks are seeing a 30% rise in single women wanting to be mothers because they waited too long, because of feminism.

Woman want what men had, and that made them manly.
Are you implying that sexual aggresssion is a good thing?
Are you implying that women should be pushovers?
Are you implying that men choose careers over family? If so why is that a good thing? I’m pretty sure children hate when their fathers spend all that time at work as well.
are you implying that it’s okay if men outnumbered women by 10% in college? Everyone should be educated. We shouldn’t take women out of college just to make it so more men are smarter.

We should concern ourselves with making it equal.
Women wanted equality. It made them women not girls anymore.
The “woman” you described is not a woman but a helpless child with no will of her own. Let her have a choice in what she wants to do. Hausfrau is not a career choice that you can “work” toward. It’s something that happens or does not happen. It’s nice that person says they want to be mother…but telling women that should be the main focus of their life can backfire. Say you tell every girl she’s going to grow and become a wife and mother. God did not bless her with fertility and she’s got all sorts of physical defects. Instead of focusing on the fact that she is now doomed to a life of potential spinsterhood, it would be more appropriate to encourage her to pursue what she is good at. My mother always talks about how a person should pursue their passion whatever it may be. What truly gives you joy in life. If a woman is perfectly happy to paint for the rest of her life instead of having babies. Then fine, God has called her to that. If a woman decides that she really loves ice skating and that’s what she feels called to do, then she should do that. What they shouldn’t be doing is taking cues from people who think women should ONLY be wives and mothers. When a woman pursues a “career”, that is different from a “job”. A career is usually what a person feels she should be doing based on her talents,skills and passions. Working at an office building in a cubicle in order to pay for your lifestyle is a “job”. Starting your own clinic for people with eating disoders because it’s something you have talents and experience in is a “career”. I had a teacher who was musician. The teaching was his “job”. The music was his “career”. If your have a five year old girl who has dreams of being a great harpist, encourage her but don’t pelt her with the pressure of worrying about marriage and getting a man all her life. If she feels called to marry, she’ll know and she will make that decision. But that is her decision to make. Most women I know because we are around the same age intend to get married one day. It isn’t until they are pushing 30, that they give up their goal or they settle.
Code:
There is one girl who's a "friend" of mine that I doubt is ever going to get married. She's as stupid as can be. She's got all the submissive girl characteristics that would make one of you anti-feminists proud.
But I know she won’t be getting married. she’s incredibly dumb about just about everything. And she ain’t a girl who’s pretty AND dumb. A guy could marry her and tell her what to do but she wouldn’t be able to do any of it properly. I just pity her because her life revolves around what her parents expect for women which isn’t much. Marry, have babies, menopause, die. She has no talents or skills. And she doesn’t have a very engaging personality either(when i asked what she wanted to do after HS, she said she planned to wait for the rapture). I only hang with her because we’re neigbors and I’m friends with her older sister who’s the polar opposite. Smart, pretty, interesting, passionate, and a good mom to her 4 year old son.

we gotta be honest.
There are just some women out there that no man will want. No sane man anyway. Rather than making them feel bad about their failure, they should be encouraged to pursue something else. Careers make women feel less bad about feelings of inadequacy as some man’s little obediant frau. If the wife thing never works out, at least you have a hobbie to distract you. That’s what a career is , it’s a really fancy word for a hobbie, that you happen to get paid for. My brother likes to play guitar. that’s a hobbie that could potentially make him some money one day. My other friend is in ballet, I’m sure she’ll get paid for that some day. But it’s a hobbie. Maybe you’re really good at cooking, so you open a restaurant. That’s their dream. Who are you people to go crushing peoples’ dreams?
 
You point us to an article which asks if women are feminizing men?
:rotfl:
My gosh, if a man is that insecure about being male, he needs a psychologist. He shouldn’t be running around trying to blame women for his personal insecurities.
40.png
leftistdestroye:
Feminism let men off of the hook. Men should not be pushovers to women, and women should not try to control or run men. Women should demand that men take responsibillity for being a man, and they should let them.
Are you joking? You seem to be saying that women should submit to men, and accept the consequences.
 
Well, I know the word “boy” as a southern thing, not a black thing. So yeah, if they were from the south, I would say that to anyone as a joke, no matter what color they were. .
Wow. That will get you into so much trouble. But don’t say you weren’t warned - because you are being warned now, just in case you weren’t before. Take a step back and be considerate of others.
 
How feminism has affected many women related to myself personally:
Given one a means to nurture and protect hundreds through a social work career, rather than being left with no substantial way to protect even herself and her own daughters, if she had remained a powerless domestic worker/homemaker/agricultural laborer.
Given one the opportunity to become deeply read and trained in several disciplines and physically fit, rather than a barely-literate, insecure prostitute, beggar or at best live-in, underpaid, hungry domestic.
Given two the opportunity to see the world, rather than being stuck where they were born, perhaps in an orphanage, perhaps in a reformatory as “in need of supervision” for coming into the world at a difficult time etc.
Given one the opportunity to learn about and enjoy music.
Enabled several to escape dangerous men, possibly saving their lives.
Allowed most to deal with men as human beings with minds, and be related to the same way, rather than women as conquests for the men, men as starvation-deflection shields for the women.
Enabled them to treat other women as allies and interesting people rather than as rivals for said starvation-deflectors.
Allowed them the time to take part in protecting the defenseless as political activists and volunteers without having to marry scarce rich men first to obtain that time and freedom.
Allowed them to grow up knowing what to expect from thir bodies without being told frightening and humiliating stories from the imaginations of men who interpret the men’s own meager information about women according to the men’s own copious fantasies and fears.
Allowed one the breadth of experience to conceive of God as a loving Father, rather than continuing the pattern of associating fathers with tyranny and thereby remaining atheist/agnostic.
 
How feminism has affected many women related to myself personally:
Given one a means to nurture and protect hundreds through a social work career, rather than being left with no substantial way to protect even herself and her own daughters, if she had remained a powerless domestic worker/homemaker/agricultural laborer.
Given one the opportunity to become deeply read and trained in several disciplines and physically fit, rather than a barely-literate, insecure prostitute, beggar or at best live-in, underpaid, hungry domestic.
Given two the opportunity to see the world, rather than being stuck where they were born, perhaps in an orphanage, perhaps in a reformatory as “in need of supervision” for coming into the world at a difficult time etc.
Given one the opportunity to learn about and enjoy music.
Enabled several to escape dangerous men, possibly saving their lives.
Allowed most to deal with men as human beings with minds, and be related to the same way, rather than women as conquests for the men, men as starvation-deflection shields for the women.
Enabled them to treat other women as allies and interesting people rather than as rivals for said starvation-deflectors.
Allowed them the time to take part in protecting the defenseless as political activists and volunteers without having to marry scarce rich men first to obtain that time and freedom.
Allowed them to grow up knowing what to expect from thir bodies without being told frightening and humiliating stories from the imaginations of men who interpret the men’s own meager information about women according to the men’s own copious fantasies and fears.
Allowed one the breadth of experience to conceive of God as a loving Father, rather than continuing the pattern of associating fathers with tyranny and thereby remaining atheist/agnostic.
You explained it better than I could.
 
How feminism has affected many women related to myself personally:
Given one a means to nurture and protect hundreds through a social work career, rather than being left with no substantial way to protect even herself and her own daughters, if she had remained a powerless domestic worker/homemaker/agricultural laborer.
Protect them from what?
Given one the opportunity to become deeply read and trained in several disciplines and physically fit, rather than a barely-literate, insecure prostitute, beggar or at best live-in, underpaid, hungry domestic.
Why do you think she would have ended up this way? That seems a classic either/or fallacy, to say that if she wasn’t this, she must have ended up this way. In fact, women were very well cared for in many historical patriarchal civilizations, though they received less rights than men. In the Puritan communities in America, for instance, or in Ching China before the Communist feminist movement, local village councils or community leaders would assemble to protect women who were severely abused.

Also, lack of rights has not always made women unhappy. Some men would feel happier if they were living under a monarchy (me, for instance), which would cut off a lot of my rights right now. My mother submits to her husband’s leadership in the household, though she has a great deal of influence too, and the pair of them work as a team. My Mom serves as a support for him, though. They love each other dearly and my mother is extremely happy with the situation.
Given two the opportunity to see the world, rather than being stuck where they were born, perhaps in an orphanage, perhaps in a reformatory as “in need of supervision” for coming into the world at a difficult time etc.
Many women were enabled to see the world during the Enlightenment, when their husbands would sail with them overseas. Missionaries often took their wives with them. The British army often even brought along their women and children :eek:. If men were in the navy or were sailors, it’s true that their women couldn’t usually come with them on voyages. Kind of logical, really, if you ask me, considering the conditions of those trips. But feminism has not created the ability of women to travel.
Given one the opportunity to learn about and enjoy music.
Women have been involved in music since ancient days. You can see it in the ancient Israel, in Biblical accounts, and it has existed throughout history among women in many cultures. Including patriarchal ones. This is not a new thing feminism created.
Enabled several to escape dangerous men, possibly saving their lives.
That is good . . . but I know that in many historical patriarchal societies, there were safeguards. Perhaps not as good of safeguards as there are in modern societies, though considering the rate of rapes in the US, I have doubts about this :eek:. The number of women being raped in the US is stunningly high. It’s shockingly horrible.
Allowed most to deal with men as human beings with minds, and be related to the same way, rather than women as conquests for the men, men as starvation-deflection shields for the women.
It is true that historical views of women in patriarchal societies could often be very condescending. That is a stereotype of those eras, though.
Enabled them to treat other women as allies and interesting people rather than as rivals for said starvation-deflectors.
This is not historical. Women in historical patriarchal eras had very good relationships with one another, most of the time. This isn’t true at all of the wife/mother-in-law relationships in historical patriarchal societies in China, though. Those relationships were awful and very abusive, almost all the time. In Europe, though, during the Medieval Ages, women and men often had very good relationships in villages and small communities. And women were generally contented with their lot, I think, because they believed that their condition was God’s will and thus were satisfied. My grandmother doesn’t think women should be in the work place. She is very happy with that view- in fact, she is a woman that is full of joy all the time. I wish you could know her, so you could have a firsthand knowledge of the truth of what I’m saying. But to me, this proves that women who grow up believing that their condition is right and ordered in the way it is according to God’s will, they can be very, very happy with it. Expectations and beliefs about right and wrong make a big difference. When women believe they should have the same place as men, they become unhappy and angry when they lack it, often. If they believe that they shouldn’t have the same place as men, then they’re happy without it.

Just like I might be happy without premarital sex because I don’t believe I should have it, but if I believed I was being restricted from having it by other people when I should be allowed it, I would become angry and dissatisfied. It makes a big difference what our expectations and beliefs are.
 
Allowed them the time to take part in protecting the defenseless as political activists and volunteers without having to marry scarce rich men first to obtain that time and freedom.
It’s true that political power for women has been a result of feminism. Of course, there have been women with power throughout patriarchal history too, such as queens or noble women, or peasant women that had a great deal of influence on their husbands. Any woman with a great deal of influence on her husband has had corresponding power, and there have been a lot of them throughout history (thankfully :)). Political strength for women has greatly increased as a direct result of feminism though, I agree.
Allowed them to grow up knowing what to expect from thir bodies without being told frightening and humiliating stories from the imaginations of men who interpret the men’s own meager information about women according to the men’s own copious fantasies and fears.
I agree that there have been mysoginistic attitudes toward women that feminism has helped to remove, and this is good.
Allowed one the breadth of experience to conceive of God as a loving Father, rather than continuing the pattern of associating fathers with tyranny and thereby remaining atheist/agnostic.
That’s ridiculous. Women throughout history have been extremely religious. I think that a lot of female opposition to God as the Father is a result of the feminist movement, because women have been lashing out at male gender roles.
 
That’s ridiculous. Women throughout history have been extremely religious. I think that a lot of female opposition to God as the Father is a result of the feminist movement, because women have been lashing out at male gender roles.
This whole thread has become ridiculous. It’s clear that people are interested only in discussing their personal “feelings” about the feminist movement. It’s clear that women who self identify as “feminist” are not interested in learning the truth about this group they align themselves with. It’s clear that the facts get in the way of personal “feelings” and impressions about what actually happened during those years.

While it continues to be a huge disappointment to find this type of rhetoric repeated constantly on a Catholic forum, I still pray that women, especially those who are still young, will abandon their association with this label and it’s idealogy.
 
It’s clear that some people think that threads on feminism should be a continuous stream of ‘ain’t it awful’ ranting.
 
Here’s an idea that might aid the clarity of thought in this thread: be specific.
As to feminism. Distinguish, at the very least, between the extremes of Simone Beauvoir and Amy Welborn.

As to its benefits and ills. Economic? Cultural? Crime-related?

And also: stop and think before making blanket statements about the previous 8,000 years of human culture spanning six continents. If you’re going to write, as I know you will, “Women were treated like property,” please first consider:
  1. What do I know about property laws and customs in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  2. What do I know about the treatment of women in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  3. Is there really any overlap between the two?
  4. What was the treatment, in the matter, say, of arranged marriages, of sons? What was the status of men in the given society, as relates to, for instance, family responsibility vs. individual rights?
When you have realized you are totally unaware of the answers to any of those questions, and of the existence of several of them, please reconsider the content of your post.
 
Here’s an idea that might aid the clarity of thought in this thread: be specific.
As to feminism. Distinguish, at the very least, between the extremes of Simone Beauvoir and Amy Welborn.

As to its benefits and ills. Economic? Cultural? Crime-related?

And also: stop and think before making blanket statements about the previous 8,000 years of human culture spanning six continents. If you’re going to write, as I know you will, “Women were treated like property,” please first consider:
  1. What do I know about property laws and customs in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  2. What do I know about the treatment of women in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  3. Is there really any overlap between the two?
  4. What was the treatment, in the matter, say, of arranged marriages, of sons? What was the status of men in the given society, as relates to, for instance, family responsibility vs. individual rights?
When you have realized you are totally unaware of the answers to any of those questions, and of the existence of several of them, please reconsider the content of your post.
 
Here’s an idea that might aid the clarity of thought in this thread: be specific.
As to feminism. Distinguish, at the very least, between the extremes of Simone Beauvoir and Amy Welborn.

As to its benefits and ills. Economic? Cultural? Crime-related?

And also: stop and think before making blanket statements about the previous 8,000 years of human culture spanning six continents. If you’re going to write, as I know you will, “Women were treated like property,” please first consider:
  1. What do I know about property laws and customs in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  2. What do I know about the treatment of women in any other culture, including my own in a past era?
  3. Is there really any overlap between the two?
  4. What was the treatment, in the matter, say, of arranged marriages, of sons? What was the status of men in the given society, as relates to, for instance, family responsibility vs. individual rights?
If you realize, as you probably ought to, that you are totally unaware of the answers to any of those questions, and of the existence of several of them, please reconsider the content of your post.

You also might want to consider the point that looking down on “women’s work” would not, in all probability, be the mark of a group that really valued women as such. Generally speaking, agrarian movements do not look down on farm labor, and industrial solidarity movements do not devalue factory work.
 
Naztakuan;3610320]
The first article implies that men are stupid and are easily manipulated by their desire for sex. If a person is that weak that they allow themselves to be manipulated that way, it seems like men are shifting the blame to women for their sexual problems.
The point is how society is portraying men as bafoons and woman as the rational ones.
the second one just outlines what women shouldn’t do but it only pertains to sex and relationships. If your only hangups about feminism is sex and more specifically unmarried sex. It has nothing to do with me. I’m not doing any of those things on that list as they all pertain to having sex.
Sorry, that’s not at all what the second article was about. It perfectly describes the manliness of modern feminist women. And while it may not reflect you personally, I know for a fact, that it does describe many other women where it would not have applied to say, 40+ years ago. You asked how are women manly, where there it is.
This one is complete bollocks and has no christian basis for teaching. It centers around sexual desirability and men’s insecurities.
Exactly my point.
  • If she can depend on herself, she doesn’t need him. If that happens, she’s not grateful for him. If that happens, he’s not too interested in staying with her.*
It implies that women should act weak and helpless to attract a man. It’s pathetic and unrealistic namely because these women are “acting”. If I was acting like I am helpless when they really are not, I’m sure when I arrive at the pearly gates, Jesus might question the fact that I acted so fake just to attract a man.
No one likes fake people. Not even Jesus.
Unless they are implying that a woman should put herself into debt just so she can realistically play the part of a helpless financially insecure girl and then get a man. But I’m pretty sure that Jesus would question someone pursuing a sexual relationship with the same meticulous planning of a billion dollar corporation.
Exactly. But that is their attitude today. It explains why the marriage rate has dropped substantially in the last 40 years or so.(not just no fault) It explains why we are having less children, while third worlders and Muslims are having more. (Ex: Europe) It explains why men are not stepping up to the plate regarding marriage, it has let them off the hook. It may explain why out of all the divorces, 75% of them are instigated by women. Many men seek out independant women with money today. They want a second income. Men used to be expected to be the supporter, now, they are off the hook. That is one way that men have become girly and women have become manly. Duel incomes have helped skyrocket the costs of living.
This one I don’t get the context
*Women think everything should be more equal, so they upstage men by initiating sex. Men welcome it, but it short-circuits a man’s respect so essential for enduring love to develop. *
If she isn’t married, she shouldn’t be initiating sex to begin with. But if she is married and she wants to have sex. She shouldn’t be forced to hold out only when he initiates it. It works both ways. I’m sure that if I was married and I wanted to have sex, I’d ask for it. I didn’t wait all that time to get married NOT to have sex. Men get all huffy about women holding out but no one could possibly believe that maybe just maybe the woman is the one with the stronger libido and she WANTS sex. It’s not like they’re thinking about upstaging men. They’re thinking about the same thing that men are thinking. I’m sure people like to make it seem like men are the only ones with carnal desires but it simply isn’t true. If a man does it, it’s his nature, if a woman does it, she’s being contrary to her nature? PUHleeeeze. her hormones are screaming at her just as loud.
If they are not married, they shouldn’t be initiating sex, but guess what? Because of feminism and the sexual revolution(and the went hand in hand) they ARE doing all of that. Sure it happened in the past, but nowhere near like it is today. STD’s in teens are riseing at a frightening rate. One study showed how women in college are performing oral sex on as many as 50 different guys a year. In the past, we told women to hold out, make men chase us(for marriage) act like a lady. Today, society is telling them to be skinny little whores. They are taught to be the aggressors. What they complained about men for, they are now doing themselves, in the name of equality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top