Feminisms effect on women

[Calliso]

Ok I misread and thought you were. These forums are dangerous…That’s why I got upset. I thought you were saying that I personally should never get married b/c I would just end up getting divorced.

My parents got divorced when I was in high school and it almost destroyed me. I know all about the psychological effects on children who have been through their parents divorce. My mom fought tooth and nail to keep her marriage together but my dad was insistent on being selfish. He liked a lady 20 years younger than him, blonde, and thinner than me! Which is saying something.

Divorce terrifies me and I would do anything in my power to prevent that from happening…unless he beat me…which I know he wouldn’t.

Yep divorce is awful my parents got divorced when I was in elementary school. Well actually they announced it then…it took years for the actual divorce to be finalized. That being said I do kinda wish they would have gotten divorced sooner. They wanted to…but apparently they were going to try to “stay together” for my sister and I until we were almost grown up or something. But I think it just got to the point where the hate and anger and what not just built up and built up and built up until it just became too much. Sometimes I think if they had gotten divorced the better things would have been.

Course I should add I think the majority of the time divorce is bad…there just comes a time I think when staying together can actually hurt the kids more then divorcing. Kids pick up on how there parents act towards eachother and other little things and it can give them the wrong idea of what a normal healthy marriage is suppose to be. Anyway hope I am being clear here lol running late for work…

 

[a_cermak]

Someone upthread complained that it was unfair to judge the nation’s founding fathers for practicing slavery due to the fact that the person judging was using a 200+ year old prism to look through.

The fact is, there is no need to look through 200+ years to know that slavery is wrong. First of all, the Quakers (who I tend to believe were about the only real Christians of their era in America) knew at the time that slavery was wrong. They had originally practiced it in their colony, but quickly repented and stopped the practice and done everything they could to ensure that all the bondsmen and bondswomen they had held were freed. How did the Quakers know that it was wrong? They read their Scriptures. A quick skimming of the Gospels reveals a message where one is to love your enemies, not enslave them. An indepth reading of the Torah indicates how slaves are to be treated and it is much more like indentured servitude than it is American style slavery. If those Scriptures were available to the Quakers, they were available to all the other “Christians” of the era. If you read over some of the proceedings of the Convention, you will find arguments over slavery. The northerners, who did not need slavery for their system, sold out in order to keep their trade and ships business without interference from the South.

So people knew better, they simply chose expedience over rightness. They can be judged for that.

And while the Founders were important for creating a post-Enlightenment form of government, that government was very different from what we have today. The system they created allowed each State to have its own established Church, it allowed each State to infringe on its citizens rights to free speech and free press. Check out some of the anti-abolition laws of the Southern states. Those laws applied not to slaves but to “free” people! Why? because a natural consequence of holding slaves has always been slave rebellions.

The system we live under today is far more affected by the 14th amendment, passed after the Civil war. It was #14 that required every state of the Union to abide by the Constitution and to guarantee equal rights to every citizen.

And to bring the thread back to Feminism, it was lucky #14 that guaranteed equal rights to women. So even if you wanted to unsqueeze feminism back into the toothpaste tube of history, how would you do it without violating #14?

Even if society has been harmed by Feminism (and I still don’t believe it because of so many other changes that happened simultaneously), does government or anyone else have the right to rob women of their #14 given rights due to those harms?

 

[a_cermak]

Yep divorce is awful my parents got divorced when I was in elementary school. Well actually they announced it then…it took years for the actual divorce to be finalized. That being said I do kinda wish they would have gotten divorced sooner. They wanted to…but apparently they were going to try to “stay together” for my sister and I until we were almost grown up or something. But I think it just got to the point where the hate and anger and what not just built up and built up and built up until it just became too much. Sometimes I think if they had gotten divorced the better things would have been.

My parents also divorced when I was young. It, too, was a good thing in my family. The anger and hurt become oppressive after a while.

Because I was deemed old and mature enough, I got to choose which parent I wanted to live with. I chose my father, who I have always had a stronger relationship with, and have never regretted it.

 

[Maxply]

I posted early on, and now skimming this, it makes me glad I’m not a woman. There’s just too much thinking involved.

Some of the most egotistical people I have met have beens spoiled young women. And they are rude to the people around them. . . they’re so much smarter (than you), have such better taste (than you), are so much better put together (than you). When you talk to them, they snip at you, rather than converse.

They will tell you they are not trying to be like men, but they are.

Totally off-putting. I grew up more or less agreeing with feminist notions, but as they’re becoming more and more played out and realized in concrete form in the world around us, I am having second thoughts.

What’s particularly distressing is the rise of “I just want you for sex” approach among young women. This hurts young men, as well as the women themselves (although they’re often so full of themselves that they don’t recognize this) and I have seen this hurt marriages.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Yeah, I don’t understand cohabitation at all. I think it is about the most degrading thing a woman can do- allow herself to be used like a pretend wife. Why would a man want to get married when he gets it all for nothing. Like we used to say- why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

I find this manner of thinking HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and HIGHLY SEXIST. As though men have to be manipulated into marriage because it couldn’t possibly be something they actually WANT, despite that throughout all the ages of “patriarchy” marriage was maintained BY MEN as an institution. Would your husband have refused to marry you if he could have gotten “it all for nothing”, I wonder, and if so, how do you maintain your high opinion of him.

And, as though it is women who always and everywhere have the moral high ground on sexual/romantic relationship issues. Codswallop. I could just as well say, women are doing this because, why buy the pig when you can get a little pork for free. Or I could just as well say, women like you view marriage as prostitution - cash for sex - why “give it away” when you can get paid for it.

I will continue to call you and other women out on this. If you don’t respect men then I will disrespect you, and maintain that you and your fellow members of the “sisterhood” do not deserve the respect of men. Period. And believe me , I am not the only man who feels this way. Not by a long shot. If you want to know why there is such disrespect for women by men these days, take a good hard look in the mirror.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

SeekingCatholic,
I applaud your patient efforts.

Perhaps the most damaging effect on SOCIETY from feminism is the absurd over-emphasis on the need for men to “learn” absolutely everything about women and their “feelings”. Now, we have an entire culture that not only knows the most banal minutiae about the female, but also men who feel guilty if they don’t abdicate their own needs to the “rights” of women.

It’s so obvious on this thread that the men, who are making eloquent and FACT - BASED statements are completely ignored (as are the facts) and absolutely misunderstood.

Women have DEMANDED that men “understand” them and yet refuse to devote the same attention and energy to understanding men. I am convinced (especially after this thread) that the only way to unravel the nasty knot of feminist psycho-babel is through a men’s liberation movement.

Hope to see it happen in my lifetime.

And it is happening. As an example:

Why Feminism Is a Farce

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Ok, I should have said my personal qualities that God gave me instead of my feminine. I know some very compassionate, understanding men. lol I apologize

Apology accepted. You do seem willing to confront and analyze your own stereotypes and I give you credit for that.

 

[blessedtoo]

And it is happening. As an example:

Why Feminism Is a Farce

Thanks! Will read and forward to my 29 year old son who is just now beginning to question the feminist propaganda his mama (me, God forgive me!) raised him with!

 

[edwest2]

SeekingCatholic,
I applaud your patient efforts.

Perhaps the most damaging effect on SOCIETY from feminism is the absurd over-emphasis on the need for men to “learn” absolutely everything about women and their “feelings”. Now, we have an entire culture that not only knows the most banal minutiae about the female, but also men who feel guilty if they don’t abdicate their own needs to the “rights” of women.

It’s so obvious on this thread that the men, who are making eloquent and FACT - BASED statements are completely ignored (as are the facts) and absolutely misunderstood.

Women have DEMANDED that men “understand” them and yet refuse to devote the same attention and energy to understanding men. I am convinced (especially after this thread) that the only way to unravel the nasty knot of feminist psycho-babel is through a men’s liberation movement.

Hope to see it happen in my lifetime.

Such a “movement” is not necessary. All women are not to blame for the current state of affairs. See the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan who calling the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” By demonizing the family by comparing it to a death camp, I hope you can see the type of agenda people like her were after. Death to the family!

Or how about NOW’s Gloria Steinem who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Does that tell you anything about how this woman and her followers viewed men?

I think Catholics, both men and women, need to wake up and realize that these two people, and those who chose to believe them, were out to destroy the family. To disfigure male-female relationships and to turn them into ugly battles.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Such a “movement” is not necessary. All women are not to blame for the current state of affairs.

Totally illogical. Such an “abolitionist movement” was not necessary. All whites were not to blame for slavery. I make no apologies whatsoever for standing up for my, and other men’s rights. If you think that men’s rights are not important than you, that’s right you and others like you are to blame for the current state of affairs, despite your fine rhetoric.

See the book The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan who calling the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” By demonizing the family by comparing it to a death camp, I hope you can see the type of agenda people like her were after. Death to the family!

Or how about NOW’s Gloria Steinem who said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Does that tell you anything about how this woman and her followers viewed men?

I think Catholics, both men and women, need to wake up and realize that these two people, and those who chose to believe them, were out to destroy the family. To disfigure male-female relationships and to turn them into ugly battles.

Catholics like you also need to wake up and realize how the family has been destroyed by our legal system which has stripped men of their rights in marriage. As long as you continue a “chivalrous”, “womenfirster” approach you will not succeed in restoring the family.

 

[Maxply]

Here’s another voice. Perhaps muddying the water.

A male movement, in addition to the female movement, only furthers the general trend toward conceptualizing human beings only as packets of individual rights. . . and not acknowledging broader relations among people.

I tend to see every aspect of genuine personhood being whittled away from people, making people simply individual atoms.

In the end, we could just become individual economic units.

 

[blessedtoo]

Here’s another voice. Perhaps muddying the water.

A male movement, in addition to the female movement, only furthers the general trend toward conceptualizing human beings only as packets of individual rights. . . and not acknowledging broader relations among people.

I tend to see every aspect of genuine personhood being whittled away from people, making people simply individual atoms.

In the end, we could just become individual economic units.

Ok. Forget the word “movement”.

How about “Reclamation Project”?

 

[a_cermak]

Catholics like you also need to wake up and realize how the family has been destroyed by our legal system which has stripped men of their rights in marriage. As long as you continue a “chivalrous”, “womenfirster” approach you will not succeed in restoring the family.

What are you talking about? I would argue the family law system is more fair to both parties than it was just a few decades ago. Today, it is who has the income and assets that determines who if anyone pays anything to the other. Assets accrued during the life of the union are usually split 50/50 and in many states joint custody is the default custody provision.Claims of unfit-ness can be filed by either party and so can orders of protection.

Divorce may have been a woman’s game back in the 60’s and 70’s, but I’m going to argue that today the system is far fairer than it was back then.

But you were saying men had been stripped of their rights in marriage, not just divorce. How do you mean?

 

[a_cermak]

Here’s another voice. Perhaps muddying the water.

A male movement, in addition to the female movement, only furthers the general trend toward conceptualizing human beings only as packets of individual rights. . . and not acknowledging broader relations among people.

I tend to see every aspect of genuine personhood being whittled away from people, making people simply individual atoms.

In the end, we could just become individual economic units.

But that is the point of the American system. It is highly individualistic, it’s supposed to be. It was individualism which formed the basis of our institutions and myths.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Here’s another voice. Perhaps muddying the water.

A male movement, in addition to the female movement, only furthers the general trend toward conceptualizing human beings only as packets of individual rights. . . and not acknowledging broader relations among people.

I tend to see every aspect of genuine personhood being whittled away from people, making people simply individual atoms.

In the end, we could just become individual economic units.

This is feminist BS; this was never a criticism of the “female movement” but somehow it miraculously surfaces when men dare speak up for their rights. Before you can actually accomplish furthering broader relations among people you must acknowledge their rights as individuals first. Deny their rights and you will not have “broader relations” you will get nothing but strife.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

What are you talking about? I would argue the family law system is more fair to both parties than it was just a few decades ago. Today, it is who has the income and assets that determines who if anyone pays anything to the other.

No, it’s who has the children. And guess who gets them the vast majority of the time?

Assets accrued during the life of the union are usually split 50/50 and in many states joint custody is the default custody provision.

Joint legal custody, not joint physical custody. Understand the difference.

Claims of unfit-ness can be filed by either party and so can orders of protection.

Yeah, but whose gets taken more seriously, do you think?

Divorce may have been a woman’s game back in the 60’s and 70’s, but I’m going to argue that today the system is far fairer than it was back then.

It isn’t.

But you were saying men had been stripped of their rights in marriage, not just divorce. How do you mean?

Mainly by the absurd provision of “no-fault” divorce which makes the marriage “contract” essentially a joke.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

But you were saying men had been stripped of their rights in marriage, not just divorce. How do you mean?

Let’s take a look. This booklet was published in the UK but things are pretty similar in the US.

Marriage and Fatherhood

 

[edwest2]

Totally illogical. Such an “abolitionist movement” was not necessary. All whites were not to blame for slavery. I make no apologies whatsoever for standing up for my, and other men’s rights. If you think that men’s rights are not important than you, that’s right you and others like you are to blame for the current state of affairs, despite your fine rhetoric.

Catholics like you also need to wake up and realize how the family has been destroyed by our legal system which has stripped men of their rights in marriage. As long as you continue a “chivalrous”, “womenfirster” approach you will not succeed in restoring the family.

The solution to an argument in any relationship is not more arguing. It is understanding, reconciliation and healing.

There is no law that prohibits or encourages the way I behave toward women as long as I am being respectful.

Do what you want. But “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Or you can involve yourself in a failed social engineering project started by anarchists who prefer class warfare and eternal strife to attainable solutions.

If this is about a power struggle for you, then stay away from women. Problem solved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SeekingCatholic]

The solution to an argument in any relationship is not more arguing. It is understanding, reconciliation and healing.

I am sorry but you will not succeed in using typical female shaming tactics (and that’s what they are, even though you are a man) against me. Aggression isn’t always bad. That’s feminist BS (and hypocritical, since women themselves use aggression quite a bit, just not of the physical kind).

Your highfalutin rhetoric doesn’t apply when my enemy has a 12-gauge pointed right at my head. Aggression can only be repelled by more aggression, or at least the threat of it.

Or, we shouldn’t have gone to war against the Taliban. We needed “understanding, reconciliation, and healing” after 9/11. We shouldn’t have fought the Cold War. We should have just rolled over and let ourselves be taken over by the Communists. We just need “understanding, reconciliation, and healing” with them. Yeah right. For that matter, we just should have let Hitler conquer Europe. We needed “understanding, reconciliation, and healing” with the Nazis.

Do what you want. But “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Or you can involve yourself in a failed social engineering project started by anarchists who prefer class warfare and eternal strife to attainable solutions.

No, I’m going to fight this “failed social engineering project”. How about you? Or do you think it doesn’t count if men are the victims - their lives just don’t count?

If this is about a power struggle for you, then stay away from women. Problem solved.

So the solution to “power struggles” is just to roll over and let everyone else have power over you and others. Yeah, right.

 

[a_cermak]

No, it’s who has the children. And guess who gets them the vast majority of the time?

And why is that? Men can hire lawyers too, you know, and they can go after joint physical custody.

Joint legal custody, not joint physical custody. Understand the difference.\quote]

And again, men can hire lawyers and go after joint physical custody.
SeekingCatholic;3624549:

Yeah, but whose gets taken more seriously, do you think?

One of the reasons for that, is probably that the incidence of women killing their partner while that partner holds an order of protection is uncommon, whereas the inverse is quite common. Doesn’t make the supposition that men are more likely to kill their parnters right in every case, but it does explain it.

It isn’t.

Says you, I’ve seen change. Certainly best interest of the child is interpreted these days to include either partner. My father was divorced back in the 70’s and he was awarded custody and it was unusual back then (the judge allowed me to choose). Today, it is more common than it was back then.

Mainly by the absurd provision of “no-fault” divorce which makes the marriage “contract” essentially a joke.

And this benefits the woman more, how? He can divorce her just as easily as she can him. No fault sure seems to beat the heck out of the couple hiring PIs to spy on each other or just plain out making false statements and coaching their friends on same.

It is not the law’s place to keep couples where one or the other is unwilling together. The marriage “contract” is there for the regulation of benefits and presumed paternity of children, not much else that I can see.