General Relationship DiscussionAlthough anyone can post anywhere on Talk About Marriage, this section is for people interested in general relationship and marriage advice.
Agreed. I shouldn't have brought it into this thread. The post I was responding to wasn't really about that, and in fact was an attempt at humor. It just reminded me of this discussion with a friend. Sorry to bring that subject into this thread.
I think it's great to find these subjects you can really get a discussion going with different opinions ... remember that one for a new thread next week!
You're right JB. I'm just tired of (some) women thinking they have to insert themselves in any and all male roles. Just because they can.
Then he goes and blames bad parenting for lazy a$$ed men! Who was doing all the 'parenting' 50-60 years ago? "Ooooh, just wait til your father gets home!!", you got it, traditionally, the female. Men were out working while women stayed home taking care of kids/home. Feminism changed all that, IMO.
Men and women are in fact mentally and emotionally and physically different. That's just reality. Do those distinguishing characteristics make a material difference? Not usually, no they don't. Sometimes they do.
Curious ... Why shouldn't a woman be a police officer, firefighter, religious leader, etc., assuming she is fully capable of doing the job (as many women have proven they are)?
Call me crazy, but denying someone a career on the basis of their sex and nothing else seems no better than doing it on the basis of one's race, ethnicity or faith.
Well said. I don't understand denying anyone what they happen to be good at. The fact I'd make a lousy firefighter - too small and too weak - doesn't mean another woman wouldn't be fantastic at it. I know plenty of weedy men who'd be poor firefighters, but make good computer geeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankKissel
And feminism doesn't create lazy men. Bad parenting and enabling women do. Posted via Mobile Device
Don't get me started with the mothers who've so indulged their sons, they have created self-indulgent permanent children. Add to that absentee fathers...
Feminism absolves nobody from personal responsibility, not men and not women. Those who say otherwise are just using it as an excuse, whether they support it or oppose it.
Personally, I feel we need a female presence in areas like clergy, police etc. because women do have different perspectives in those areas. Women commit crimes, women need to be cavity searched in prison. It's much harder to cry your way out of a ticket with a woman cop. Women have faith, and only having men be able to interpret that faith diminishes women's say in a dual sided world. Posted via Mobile Device
Although my previous comment was stupid. A channel on my satellite tv had a program on it a few years ago. It was kind of a free speech channel. Most of the time it was a lot of stuff for the gay and lesbian community. Anybody that had some money could put up whatever they wanted. But one time I was flipping through the channels and they were doing a show about a bunch of girls that wanted to walk around the city topless. They thought it was unfair that guys can do this and not them. To prove the point one of the girls went out topless with a guy who also did not have a shirt on. The police showed up to give her a ticket for indecent exposure. In the end they let her off the hook if she put her shirt back on. Just saying that there are people out there that this actually is a concern.
Curious ... Why shouldn't a woman be a police officer, firefighter, religious leader, etc., assuming she is fully capable of doing the job (as many women have proven they are)?
Call me crazy, but denying someone a career on the basis of their sex and nothing else seems no better than doing it on the basis of one's race, ethnicity or faith.
And feminism doesn't create lazy men. Bad parenting and enabling women do. Posted via Mobile Device
the standared for women to be a police officer/fireman are different the the standards for a man.
they don't have to carry as much weight during their test and so forth. so in reality they are not as good at thoese particular vocations.
example: your on the secound floor of a burning building do you want to jump into a womans arms or a mans.
you are passed out in the same building do you want a woman TRYING to carry you out or a much physically supiorier male.
At it's base is the thought of improvement in a society. Holding each other to higher standards and treating everyone with respect.
Then, a few opportunistic people hijack those ideals when they find an avenue for power, money or fame. The way to achieve those ends is to become more and more radical. They must always keep their individual names at the top of a once noble movement. They become self-appointed, media fed, "spokespersons".
In the end, the higher standards are lost among the radical, vitriolic rhetoric of the few.
__________________ The first question should always be, "If it's that bad, why are you still there?
OK, you screwed up, it happens. Now apologize. But apologize just once. Make it loud, clear, short, to the point, and directly to those you trespassed against. Then move on.
the standared for women to be a police officer/fireman are different the the standards for a man.
they don't have to carry as much weight during their test and so forth. so in reality they are not as good at thoese particular vocations.
example: your on the secound floor of a burning building do you want to jump into a womans arms or a mans.
you are passed out in the same building do you want a woman TRYING to carry you out or a much physically supiorier male.
Great. Now re-read my post, paying special attention to the part where I say so long as the woman is capable.
Oh, and I would venture to guess that if you are trapped or passed out in a burning building, you won't care a bit about the sex of your rescuer. You'll just be happy that someone is there to rescue you. Posted via Mobile Device
example: your on the secound floor of a burning building do you want to jump into a womans arms or a mans.
Depends on the man and the woman...better a big woman than a weedy man, for that kind of work.
Basically, anyone who can do a job and likes doing it should be admissible, regardless of gender. After all, we have some amazing male nurses, don't we?
I think there have been some much needed changes for women's rights as with all groups at some point in history.
Many have been a step forward for both men and women and some have been a step back for men. In some instances, a step back was needed.
Do I think it went too far? Yes I do. I look around and see so many men that in lack of a better term need to "man-up".
I do believe that a woman should be able to whatever profession that she wants unless her being there is somehow dangerous to others. The woman should be able to perform as well as any man on the team and not be a burden to the job or mission.
I will admit that female football commentators do annoy the hell out of me.
Feminism in terms of allowing women in the workplace, equal rights under the law, and so forth has not gone too far. However, the result has been that elements of society want to make men and women perfectly equal beings in every way. Obviously they are inherently unequal and this notion has done detrement to a number of things, mainly marriage, I think.
Before there were defined gender roles. While there are plenty of people now who can handle modified roles and/or easily fall into the old gender roles (disclaimer before people get angry I didn't acknowledge any exceptions- I am speaking in generalities and trends), there are also plenty that can't work this out and without society's assumption that the man is the man and the woman is the woman, it creates marital strife.
Women's increasing presence in the workplace, while good in many respects (increased pool of ideas, different approaches to problems, making women less reliant on a man's income), I think has also undermined marriage in some ways (I am not saying marriage is the end-all, be-all component of society- there are reasons why having women in the workforce as much as men is good for society. Whether these outweigh the positive aspects of an easier pre-set and readily-followed structure for marriage is another debate). I think women's inherent biological instinct is to seek out a man of the best possible value/stock, or at least greater value/stock than herself- a man who will provide good offspring. While I realize it is much more complicated than that in the present day, I think the biological underpinning holds true.
So, if women are of equal or greater stature in terms of career development, they are less likely to respect or seek out men who are only equal to them or below them in terms of career prospects. This not only narrows the pool of men that women would be content with and seek out as mates but can also result in marital difficulties for those already married if the woman does not respect the man's value. Why would the woman listen to her husband or his ideas at all at home if she's supervising men at work? I think some of the traits that women (and men) take on in the workplace that are positive in the workplace are bad traits in what the woman's role at home might be.
While there are other ways that a man can show his value to the woman than just his career (or lack thereof), this just happens to be one of the easiest, most common, and most relevant variables in everyday life on which someone can be judged. And again, I am mainly speaking about what feminism's role in the workforce has been and how it has affected the institution of marriage, not the overall merits of feminism's role in the workforce and society.
165Likes
Re: Feminism: Has it gone too far? 
Women have faith, and only having men be able to interpret that faith diminishes women's say in a dual sided world.
