Feminisms effect on women

[edwest2]

Your examples are illogical and irrelevant and are only appeals to emotion.

I suggest you contact your lawmakers and use the energy you are using here to get all those laws changed. Then stay away from women. Apparently, their only purpose is to upset you

Peace,
Ed

 

[SeekingCatholic]

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

Yeah, of course they don’t have the advantage of their legal bills being paid by the government. And it still doesn’t explain why, in fact, the vast majority of custody decisions are sole custody to the mother.

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.

QUITE COMMON???

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.

It’s more common perhaps. It’s still unusual.

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’s ridiculous to think that “fault” should not be a consideration in determining how the divorce should be handled.

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.

And just what benefits does such a contract give to a man? Just what “presumed paternity” are you talking about, when an unfaithful wife can stick her husband with the bills for the children, if conceived during the course of the marriage?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Your examples are illogical and irrelevant and are only appeals to emotion.

No, they aren’t, they are highly relevant ones you can’t refute. You have no answer for why pacifism applies here but not elsewhere. Your “chivalrous” nature simply can’t stomach that men would dare assert their rights against women. All of a sudden the most highfalutin rhetoric becomes employed against a “men’s movement” - which would not be applied in other circumstances.

I suggest you contact your lawmakers and use the energy you are using here to get all those laws changed. Then stay away from women. Apparently, their only purpose is to upset you

And I suggest you go jump in a lake.

 

[edwest2]

Us against Them? Not solution oriented.

The Catholic Church has in place a way for men and women to get along. I was taught to have respect for myself and others.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Us against Them? Not solution oriented.

The Catholic Church has in place a way for men and women to get along. I was taught to have respect for myself and others.

But it has no way for normal, masculine men and feminist women to get along. Anymore than it has a way for Capitalists and Communists to get along. And when they don’t, it is the fault of the feminist women, not the men. There is no solution until and unless THEY change.

But many, including many feminized members of the Church, would have it that masculinity is the problem. For the Church to SUPPORT right now (as it does) some key aspects of the feminist agenda and then to wring its hands and say, oh how awful isn’t it that men and women aren’t getting along right along - it must be “models of male domination”, or only “radical” feminism, or that women aren’t “appreciated” - even though anything and everything feminine is praised to the skies right now - anything else besides the feminism itself - is just hypocrisy. Abortion, contraception, divorce, and the rest of it are symptomatic of a matriarchy and they will not go away until the current matriarchy is destroyed.

 

[a_cermak]

Yeah, of course they don’t have the advantage of their legal bills being paid by the government. And it still doesn’t explain why, in fact, the vast majority of custody decisions are sole custody to the mother.

How are women’s legal bills paid by the gov’t but men’s legal bills aren’t? It would seem to me that would be a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

QUITE COMMON???

Twice in the past year here in Chicago. Multiply that out accross all the big northern cities and you’ve got at least a score, maybe more. That seems to be common.

It’s ridiculous to think that “fault” should not be a consideration in determining how the divorce should be handled.

Why? The government shouldn’t care how or why the couple’s union broke up. Their only job should be to dispose of communal property and determine child custody arrangements.

And just what benefits does such a contract give to a man? Just what “presumed paternity” are you talking about, when an unfaithful wife can stick her husband with the bills for the children, if conceived during the course of the marriage?

What benefit does it give to the woman? It’s an arrangement, voluntarily entered into. The benefits I was referring to are government or employee benefits such as health care and survivorship in pensions etc. The presumed paternity refers to the fact that in most states, the mother of a child is determined to be the woman who bore the child and the father is presumed to be her spouse if she is married. I agree with you that is not a good measure of who is the father, especially since we have a better indicator in DNA. The only difficulty is what of couples that use surrogate sperm but want the father of the child to be the spouse. Right now the law is with them, but if it changes it won’t be.

Of course, an easy way to deal with it would be to prosecute women who lie about paternity for fraud and require them to pay back child support obtained fraudulently. I would support those actions and don’t even see why the laws would have to be changed to do so.

 

[Tracyms1974]

I just thought I’d share my personal experiences with all this stuff.

I wanted to respond to a post I couldn’t find. A lady said that women have always had to work, it’s just that they did not have the choice to work outside the home. I agree, and I thought that what I was saying was a “given” but I guess not. I meant that it’s not fair that women at one time were not allowed to work outside the home. It’s good that they do now, but I still maintain that one side-effect of this has been a kind of inflation that has caused our society to expect a two-earner income. In my opinion, this is not good for the kids, because at least one spouse should stay home, preferrably the woman simply because she can breastfeed a baby if she wants. A man can be a stay-at-home dad if the woman makes enough money.

  I work in a place now that is not very family friendly in terms of hours.  When you work 6am to 6pm, you cannot get your child to daycare or school on days when you work, and you certainly can't be there when they get off.  It would be nice if businesses considered this stuff before they decided on hours.  Most everyone I know who works there has family or a stay-at-home spouse/significant other to help them, or they simply don't have custody of their kids.  

  Another thing about where I work, and this will probably make you laugh.  I work with a lot of people in their 20's and 30's, so there are unspoken, unofficial ways to segregate the men from the women in order to cut down on or eliminate flirting and chit-chat, at least outside of breaks.  I asked to go to shipping before I got pregnant, just so I could fill in over there and get some more hours.  They told me that they would do it when they had the time.  Do I know how to do shipping now?  Did they ever have the time?  No.  There's a bunch of men over there, and they know good and well that I'm a sweet friendly person.  They were probably afraid the guys wouldn't get any work done if i went over there giggling and punching shoulders like I have a tendency to do.  :p   The "women's" work in that place is picking and packing, and the men's work is driving cherry pickers and loading/unloading trucks.  There are few exceptions.  Right now I'm in picking - a woman's job - because I'm pregnant.  Oh, and anytime there is excessive flirting between any man and any woman, one of them is reassigned to another dept. pronto.  These people don't play, I guess.  I still think it's funny, though.

Tracy

 

[edwest2]

But it has no way for normal, masculine men and feminist women to get along. Anymore than it has a way for Capitalists and Communists to get along. And when they don’t, it is the fault of the feminist women, not the men. There is no solution until and unless THEY change.

But many, including many feminized members of the Church, would have it that masculinity is the problem. For the Church to SUPPORT right now (as it does) some key aspects of the feminist agenda and then to wring its hands and say, oh how awful isn’t it that men and women aren’t getting along right along - it must be “models of male domination”, or only “radical” feminism, or that women aren’t “appreciated” - even though anything and everything feminine is praised to the skies right now - anything else besides the feminism itself - is just hypocrisy. Abortion, contraception, divorce, and the rest of it are symptomatic of a matriarchy and they will not go away until the current matriarchy is destroyed.

It takes two people to create a pregnancy. It takes two people to divorce. It takes a small group of Leftists, Communists and Anarchists to derail solid Christian values and traditions. During his visit to the United States, Pope Benedict said that America needs to return to its Christian roots. Roots which the same radicals deny even exist.

I watched the disintegration of dating and proper relationships between men and women beginning in the late 1960s and watched it spiral into No-Fault Divorce. It simply boiled down to the people buying into the lies promoted first by the Hippies, then NOW and then, the media in general.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Calliso]

But it has no way for normal, masculine men and feminist women to get along. Anymore than it has a way for Capitalists and Communists to get along. And when they don’t, it is the fault of the feminist women, not the men. There is no solution until and unless THEY change.

But many, including many feminized members of the Church, would have it that masculinity is the problem. For the Church to SUPPORT right now (as it does) some key aspects of the feminist agenda and then to wring its hands and say, oh how awful isn’t it that men and women aren’t getting along right along - it must be “models of male domination”, or only “radical” feminism, or that women aren’t “appreciated” - even though anything and everything feminine is praised to the skies right now - anything else besides the feminism itself - is just hypocrisy. Abortion, contraception, divorce, and the rest of it are symptomatic of a matriarchy and they will not go away until the current matriarchy is destroyed.

I donlt think we could quite call where we live a Matriacrchy but if you wanna call it go ahead!

Also my husband is most definately a masculine man…and I am a feminist though certainly not radical and we get along just great! Even though we disagree on things once in awhile.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It takes two people to create a pregnancy. It takes two people to divorce. It takes a small group of Leftists, Communists and Anarchists to derail solid Christian values and traditions. During his visit to the United States, Pope Benedict said that America needs to return to its Christian roots. Roots which the same radicals deny even exist.

I watched the disintegration of dating and proper relationships between men and women beginning in the late 1960s and watched it spiral into No-Fault Divorce. It simply boiled down to the people buying into the lies promoted first by the Hippies, then NOW and then, the media in general.
Ed

So now leftists, communists and anarchists are in league? You forgot atheists, throw them in there too Ed. Best to get out all your hated groups and lump them together. Do you have any proof for these claims?

We as a country were first peopled by mostly christians. Jews were banned in most colonies, as were Catholics. Catholics and Jews were required to pay taxes to support protestant churches, Catholics were not allowed in some colonies to own property, vote or hold any office. Every colony that attempted to combine into a church/state failed, and failed miserably. Washington had to ban the burning of the pope in effigy in the continental army. The upshot of all this was that it was Baptists who drove the revolution and they drove the idea of freedom of conscience or freedom of religion. As the years went by, church memberships went down significantly as fewer belonged to any church at all. So get some facts correct at least.

You are doing a lot of free association and drawing conclusions from them. Just because one thing follows another in time does not prove they are causally associated. You provide zero proofs to your angry arguments. You just don’t like the world since vatican II. You don’t like anything modern. I am constrained why you didn’t join one of those very strict monk brotherhoods and retired from this hideous world you so detest.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

You just don’t like to share. ROFL

 

[nannygirl]

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.

Boy, are you right. I suppose I hadn’t seen it that way. Please forgive my stupidity.

 

[Camron]

You give no solution except to say its love and in the bible. Where? How is love and a loving relationship going to ensure that I am paid a fair wage ? That I have the opportunity for the profession I desire? That I retain my right to vote? You offer zero solutions but mere platitudes.

I think one possible target would be a return to a single income family so that a parent can be around their family more (so that their children are not shipped off to the most convenient baby sitter or day-care).

I don’t care if the parent who stays home is the mother or the father. One parent should be home with their children.

Exactly how this target could be reached is another matter entirely.

 

[leftistdestroye]

a_cermak;362355

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.

Regardless, things wer, in fact, much different then. Slavery WAS the norm. Was it right? Of course not, but were the Founding Fathers scumbags, as was suggested, because of it? Well, back then, no. Today, in certain circles, Yes. Long story short: It is over. It’s been over a long, long, time and the system that they built, had major positive influences on us, and the rest of the world. They deserve much credit for that.

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.

And if I am correct, indentured servants evolved into race based slavery in America.

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

Sure we can judge them, but should we bypass their accomplishments because of slavery? If so, then how about other parts of the world where it happend too? My whole point is that it is not fair to hate the Founding Fathers because of the system that was in place, since before THEY were born. It is not fair to trash them because of slavery and ignore their other, massive accomplishments. That is one sided, especially coming from someone who was never a slave herself!

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.

As opposed to one singular, massive government? I’ll take it. You can always move out of that state. And, absolute free speech/press, can be just as dangerous as none at all.

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?

The same way that it was since the 14th, but prior to the 60’s. Have the government stay out of it and let society govern society.

As it says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The STATE, is not society at large.

Even if society has been harmed by Feminism (and I still don’t believe it because of so many other changes that happened simultaneously),

Can you share some examples?

does government or anyone else have the right to rob women of their #14 given rights due to those harms?

Government NO, society, YES.

 

[leftistdestroye]

edwest2;3624370]

were out to destroy the family.

O, the abolition, of the family. For those who like their Marx.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Tracyms1974;3625405]

I work in a place now that is not very family friendly in terms of hours. When you work 6am to 6pm, you cannot get your child to daycare or school on days when you work, and you certainly can’t be there when they get off. It would be nice if businesses considered this stuff before they decided on hours.

And that is exactly why a woman should stay at home. And you want the world to accomodate, you??? Come on!

 

[Swan]

The role of government is to serve the people that make up society, IMO.

 

[Calliso]

Tracyms1974;3625405]

And that is exactly why a woman should stay at home. And you want the world to accomodate, you??? Come on!

Or a man could stay home too! I think it should be either or. Though to be fair alot of parents donlt have the option of one of them staying home. I do agree with you though that businesses shouldn;t have to change their hours or anything to accomadate people that need to take their kid to daycare or whatever.

 

[leftistdestroye]

SpiritMeadow;3625681]

So now leftists, communists and anarchists are in league? . Do you have any proof for these claims?

Which one are you? And he is 100% correct.

ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1125roberts.html
fathersforlife.org/culture/ideology.htm#Friedan

Abolition of the Family! Karl Marx. And his plan for growing Communism was: “to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”

On Religion:
“Religion is the opiate of the people.”

angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/marxrel.html

Some others:

1. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
2. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
3. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
4. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
5. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
6. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

1. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Predictions made by a former FBI agent in the 50’s. Pretty scary, aint it?

uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

You want some more? I can fill this thread if you want.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Swan;3626200]

The role of government is to serve the people that make up society, IMO.

But by serving the people, we will end up serving the government. It is society’s job to serve their fellow man.