So…let me get this straight. You’re saying it was better when women depended upon men for their livelihood? When miserable, dissatisfied, stifled wives stayed with their unsatisfactory, sometimes abusive, presumptious and oh-so-entitled husbands because it was that or be a starving social outcast?
What many posters on this thread seem to be longing for is the appearance of social stability. Never mind that under the surface there are torrents of sadness, anger and longing for happiness that can’t be attained because of social constraints. As long as people look the part, shut up and toe the party line, then surely everything must be okay.
It’s that very mentality that allows domestic violence to flourish. Sure, everybody knows that it happens, some people might even recognise the signs, but as long as no-one complains, and it stays within the family circle, we can ignore it, right?
Instead of the coercive social structures that used to force women to settle into family life even if they were disinclined to do so, and even if there were no men with whom they felt true companionship and love, we now have a society where people are a bit more free to choose marriage for more noble motives than mere financial security. I hope this upward trend continues.
You are repeating the same line used by the radical feminists. Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression! Now or in the future, ALL of you
will be victims of men. You cannot reason with the
enemy! You cannot negotiate with him. We are in the eternal struggle forever!!
“Coercive social structures” are the invention of the Communist-Feminist Revolutionaries. One way to sell a product, like radical feminism, is to convince your audience that they all lack something and that by buying your product, some basic need of their’s will be met. So, if you buy this car, hair gel or similar, chicks or men, as the case may be, will want you. It would be amazing if it were true but it wasn’t.
The radical feminists were selling fear, suspicion, doubt and, in some cases, outright hatred. The enemy, men, was clearly identified and dehumanized. Soon, the potentially nice guy down the street became one of them - the enemy. Instead of meeting each other halfway, the woman would always feel that he was just one step away from harming her, psychologically and physically.
Were women more likely to be victims of abuse? Yes. Were all women in this category? No. And, surprisingly, there were social service agencies available to help women before radical feminism. It would have been nice if the radical feminists were directed toward solving problems and identifying ways toward cooperation. Equal pay and equal access to jobs were their only two good ideas. The rest were anti-Christian and anti-woman. Convincing women to kill their own babies in the womb became a right to them.
This upheaval in the 1970s had an impact on divorce in the 1980s. Both men and women felt justified, especially with the no-fault aspect, to not work things out. And soon, this became the trend. Inconvenient pregnancy? End it. Inconvenient relationship? End it. Life too boring? Drug it, preferrably with something illegal. Now it’s not unusual to see people in their 40’s on marriage 2 or 3. This is better? Now it’s not unusual to see impoverished young mothers, and men working two jobs for child support. With all this supposed freedom, are people making better choices now? There’s no evidence to show they are. The current model for young men and women is to shack up, fornicate, have a good time, and discard the relationship for greener pastures or for no particular reason. I think these young people will find themselves in their early 30’s with no real roots anywhere, except their original families.
This isn’t about women as single, isolated units, but about their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers and their communities. Their future is unguided.
God bless,
Ed
Must have been great coming home to a home cooked dinner every night, feet up resting on the couch reading the paper. Ah, it must have been bliss!!!