General Relationship DiscussionAlthough anyone can post anywhere on Talk About Marriage, this section is for people interested in general relationship and marriage advice.
I used to. BC (before children) I was in a career in which males and females competed on equal terms. Really. Never met a dinosaur before my OH. Love him, of course. Don't like some of the attitudes. But other of his theories.... well now - let's say I'm questioning feminism and what it's done to, for example, the family and social behaviour etc. (prepare for onslaught)
I think that initially perhaps the push of feminism was good - something had to be done to level the playing field. However, I think that the way it was accomplished, by pushing down men, by sometimes pushing down being a wife and mother, by pushing away good, solid family values was not so good.
Yah, it would be great to be in a utopian society where all people, both men and women, were looked up to for the unique traits and characteristics that they each have - for the unique qualities that make up a good man, for the unique qualities that make up a good woman. Men and women should be complements to each other, not competitors.
I'm interested to hear some defintions of Feminism.
I don't personally know myself what it is, nor do I believe that's even really important or possible to know, for it's very definition FEMINISM, like that of "love" or "god", the word is thrown around a lot but tangible definitions are a shifting as grains of sand.
On this forum, speaking of sexual relationships between a man and woman, it is my opinion and experience that what the good man needs to know about Feminism is that it is a social manifestation of a "fitness test", and should be treated exactly as that. Period.
To attempt to chase shadows and deal with it literally is to fail, and to deal with it with amusement or humor is to pass with flying colors.
While I respect that most conversations turn to the workplace concerning feminism, I believe that is the least of feminist influence. Pay for work, benefits, the merits of salary matching the performance, these things can be argued as feminism or as good business or progress, etc et etc. Basically to me this is not even an argument.
But the real effects of feminism, as seen in social structures and sexual relationships, that is where in my opinion it is good to shine a light on otherwise dark and dangerous minefield, and where I simply urge all good men to ignore feminist demands and idealogy and be happy, or try to deconstruct himself or hide his masculine desires and be miserable. Likewise I would urge all women who desire happiness and success to be courageous to not support, even implicitly by silence or indecision, destructive philosophies that lead to misery and unhappiness and failed long term relationships.
For just this, sexual liberation for women, promoted as we usually imagine mostly by the huge baby boomer generation in '60s and '70s, and fueled by reproductive controls as abortion and contraception, results in one thing, a large group of women sexually pursuing a small group of highly desirable, sexually attractive men (often "bad boy" type "projects") for as long as possible, and then when age is making them less competitive with younger women and biological clock is ticking, switch gears to "settle" with the highest potential provider male who may not mind (or have boldness to inquire) her promiscuous past or even providing for several bad boy type project men's illegitimate children.
The negative effects of such promiscuity, dismissed often in such naive "good for goose then gander" logic, ignores basic relationship expectations. Good men looking for life mates and mother's of their children are not looking for a woman full of STDs and who may grow to look at men as disposable should a better prospect come down the line. Also it is naive to imagine the majority of men are as promiscuous and casual about sex as often implied in media, the great majority of men are very reserved concerning sex, and sex with many women for most men not naturally endowed with stunning appearance or physique would simply require a great amount of effort and resources. While even a modestly attractive girl can have sex with a man at will with very little effort. This is the facts.
So in summary, my opinion feminism is not much a negative issue in the workplace when associated with good business sense.
However, the word "feminism" when it is merely subsituted for "promiscuity", it is a devasting social destroyer of long term relationships, and as such is in direct opposition to sexual and successful marriages.
I think historically it was a movement to eliminate restrictions on women using their God- given talents. It resulted in 50% of the American population contributing to intellectual, political, financial and professional sheres of our society.
Currently it seems to be a code word ment to negate any expression of opinion that is in any way supportive of women exercising independent thought or action. For some feminism is the source of all of societies ills. This is ridiculous.
Relationships between men and women have evolved which is historically common. But the current changes have excited a virulent anger against women.
In my opinion the current definition is not accurate. I believe the current self identified feminist center their concerns on a privileged few women who do not represent the average American women's concerns.
There was a recent thread on this forum concerning a concerned step mother about a father sleeping with his teen daughter. I thought it was a ligit concern but one poster listed the female posters who were feminist and those who were not as if to indicate those women labeled feminist were hysterical.
I think the difference of opinion may have been due to men understanding how men think and attemting to explain the thought processes that women may not understand. I was willing to entertain that notion. But the post listing feminist did nothing to foster that understanding. The most convincing post was from Helien sp? It was measure and intelligent as are all of his post. My opinion changed because of his post.
To me it was outrageous but common anger directed at women who express a strong opinion that hints at criticism of men. I think it was an attempt to control the thoughts of people by employing a code word. .
I don't think differences of opinion can be labelled as feminist but it is seems to be a code word for "ignore opinions that do not follow the party line as defined by a few with the strongest voice". Like all code words, it attempts to control individual thought and discourage discourse. I think it is also meant to silence people with differing opinios lest they ridiculed by a few.
Of course, I may be wrong but that's how I see it. Posted via Mobile Device
Ms. SCHLAFLY: I think the main goal of the feminist movement was the status degradation of the full-time homemaker. They really wanted to get all women out of the homes and into the workforce. And again and again, they taught that the only fulfilling lifestyle was to be in the workforce reporting to a boss instead of being in the home reporting to a husband. That is an attitude toward marriage and homemaking that I think is intolerable and false.
__________________
And maybe I seem a bit confused. . .but maybe, I got you pegged! Ha! Don't know what to do about those tossed salad and scrambled eggs. . .they're posting again. Scannerguard has left the building.
MARTIN: Do you feel that feminism has made any contribution to American life?
Ms. SCHLAFLY: No. I think it's made women unhappy and it's to make them believe that we live in a discriminatory and unjust society, and that they should look to government to solve their problems.
MARTIN: What is your advice to the young women in your family - and the men, for that matter?
Ms. SCHLAFLY: Well, I think as we say in the book, that it's unfortunate that colleges and women's studies courses guide women to a career path that has no space for men, marriage or children. And I think you should plot a life that will give you the joy of marriage and children.
__________________
And maybe I seem a bit confused. . .but maybe, I got you pegged! Ha! Don't know what to do about those tossed salad and scrambled eggs. . .they're posting again. Scannerguard has left the building.
MARTIN: Can I ask you about race for a minute? There is a very large percentage of out-of-wedlock birth in the black community. But African-American women on the whole are not terribly supportive of the feminist movement, have not been kind of strongly identified with it, do embrace marriage, don't embrace a lot of the anti-male rhetoric that you're so critical of. And yet, marriage is not as prominent in our community, in the African-American community as it was even in 1959...
Ms. SCHLAFLY: Yeah. Well, I...
MARTIN: I'm just curious why you think that is. In 1959, for example, African Americans were more likely to be married than whites were, but now it's the reverse and I'm just wondering if you have an opinion about that.
Ms. SCHLAFLY: Yes. And you realize it's not poverty that's caused that, because all during the Great Depression the black family was intact and together and they didn't have these handouts. I think when Lyndon Johnson instituted lavish welfare, they gave the money only to the woman and that made the father irrelevant. He lacked his role, his duty as a provider so he took off. And that is just simply so unfortunate. The illegitimacy rate is now getting very large even across the board, among the white people. And it's too bad because we know that most of the social ills come out of mother-headed households. So if you're asking me for the cause, it doesn't really have anything to do with race. It has to do with the financial subsidies that were given to women making the father provider irrelevant.
Sorry. . .I know this forum leans liberal and that's okay because I am more centrist than you all suspect but I recently tipped a bit Conservative (Right of Center) on this issue and thought Ms. Schafly had great points.
The Government has become "The Man" in many female-headed household and women seem to be okay with that. . .they see it as power in a way I guess. . .unfortunately, it's the next generations that are suffering as Ms. Schafly points out.
It has been my recent conclusion that feminism is more of a toxic social philosophy than perhaps I used to think.
__________________
And maybe I seem a bit confused. . .but maybe, I got you pegged! Ha! Don't know what to do about those tossed salad and scrambled eggs. . .they're posting again. Scannerguard has left the building.
Last edited by Scannerguard; 06-11-2011 at 10:44 PM.
Really? Quoting a relic like Phyllis? She is also quoted as saying that a woman who gets raped should be judged on what she wore. She waxes on and on about how women are only to blame for their own assaults.
Scanner, you are a D.O and yet you subscribe to this line of thinking?
As for your assumption that this website leans left, get off it. This is a marriage forum, not a political one. Nobody talks politics here but you.
Feminism is very misunderstood. I, trough my studies came to see feminism as a movement that was much needed.
Women used to have very few rights and so did children, they couldn't vote, own property, were often poorly treated and basically had no real choices in life.
Of course women deserve these rights, and many more like equal pay.
There is still sex discrimination and sexual harassment issues that go on, women still are not in a position of great power, and are still reliant on men in many ways.
Feminism was supposed to give women choice and support women, to teach men to value women and really value what women bring to the table.
Instead I believe that it has been skewed and women are pit against men, and people put women in competition with men. This doesn't help men or women, it certainly doesnt value women for their unique qualities and IMO goes against what feminism should be.
Men and women are not equal because they are not the same as and never will be, however feminism should have brought a new perspective in which we view the world, and not one that is patriarchal. Patriarchy values males and manly traits, instead of feminine female traits ideals and qualities which should be equally valued.
Instead of hinting at things like women are dependant on the government (when they divorce), and a shaming of women for needing welfare or help at some point, a feminist perspective might say that, women and mothers should be valued, we should be thankful for the women who stick around to raise children and its societies responsibility to ensure that everyone is valued and taken care of.
If women were truly valued for being mothers and homemakers, and carers, more women would embrace it, not because they have to but because they see it as a viable, important and valued role.
You cant put down women on the one hand and then expect that they will be happy within a very confined predefined role that isn't even valued.
"However, the word "feminism" when it is merely subsituted for "promiscuity", it is a devasting social destroyer of long term relationships, and as such is in direct opposition to sexual and successful marriages."
BBW is it just promiscuity among women and not men that is the source of all societies ills? One could argue that promiscuity by men and women is damaging to society. It fosters a lack of control of sexuality, and the transmission and the spread of STDs. Additionally, who is having sex with these promiscuous women. Are these men not as responsible for societies ills as women or it it just an evil perpetrated by women?
I think the blame and shamming of women with these argument makes them easy to dismiss. If men presented an even handed argument, it might be more difficult to dismiss with derision. Why are men excused for promiscuity? Women are becoming more like men in cheating and attitude toward premarital sex. One could argue that the moral lacks by men who have had every opportunity to lead the way is responsible for the current dire situation. Men should model decent behavior and frown on promiscuity and cheating among men as vigorously as they do for women.
The argument that men have a right to sexual variety as their birthright due to some biologic directive and not women is self serving. One could argue that women have the same directive for genetic variety since they cheat and have as many sexual partners as men. Perhaps lack of access to new men in the past was responsible for the disparity and not biology . Women are now out and about in the world like men and are tempted like men.
I am certain that an even handed and honest argument that admonishes men to exert as much control over their sexual urges as women would indicate a genuine concern for the adverse effects of unfettered sex on society. As it is now, blaming women seems a transparent and disingenuous attempt to set a standard for women that men can not meet. This hardly encourages respect for the men who present this argument. In fact it is kind of funny.
. If indeed sex is the root of all ills, a genuine approach would call men to lead the way and show strength of conviction and character. That is as likely to happen as men are likely to get rid of porn as the scourge of society for promoting male promiscuity, addiction and unrealistic expectations of sex with real women. As this will never happen then neither will women give up power over their sexuality. That's how I see it. Posted via Mobile Device
Feminism has gone wayward and is no longer a viable movement due to extremists. The issues Syrum brought up (voting, owning property, etc) were resolved in early 20th century, decades before what we call "feminist movement" got traction in the late 60's, early 70s.
Women have "infiltrated" almost every possible aspect of american life even contributing in battle during war. There are way too many variables to generalize that women are not equally paid in the workforce. The fact remains there are MANY women in management positions, executive positions, government positions, and legal positions. There is little need for a "women's movement" in today's AMERICAN society and such organizations would be better suited to locations in the Middle East where women are in many cases considered possessions and discriminated against.
Feminists hate the fact, and will never accept, that the vast majority of women WANT to rely on a man in some traditional ways. They want a man to make them feel secure, to have the freedom to work or not, to raise a family instead of working or at least have the flexibility to work part-time.
Think of all the women you know; mother, sister, co-workers, friends, friends of friends, etc. Now ask how many of them would call themselves a feminist.
I think there's value to this thread if it doesn't stray too political however I should point out the tendency of some posters (nothing personal BigToe, you're just the one I spotted) to highlight the US when in fact the forum is global and so is the issue of feminism, women's work/home freedoms, etc etc. I mention this because to assume that a nation has no problems associated with other cultures might just be a bit shortsighted. The US, as quite a number of other nations, is hugely diverse in terms of the source of its population, and individual cultures have individual issues - some, and sometimes quite large ones,pertaining to women's roles/the treatment of women.
As to the majority of women wanting to rely on a man in some traditional ways? Really? Does this mean US WASP women? Multi-cultural? Include others in other nations? I'm prone to generalisations from time to time but hey that was a good one!
Fwiw, I subscribe to Syrum's observation: If women were truly valued for being mothers and homemakers, and carers, more women would embrace it, not because they have to but because they see it as a viable, important and valued role. though as we must accept not all women are able to remain in the home because of the need short and sweet to earn an income.
Feminism 
Great post Catherine.
