Originally Posted by Therealbrighteyes View Post
What I cannot figure out is those that are so opposed to it. Doesn't feminism benefit men financially? Dual income = more security. Educated women = higher earning power. Divorce = less spousal support if at all. Both parents working = more men get dual custody of the children. I don't get it. I just don't.
Generality alert: I'm going to make some general statement below that have obvious exceptions. Please be aware that I am aware of the exceptions, but they don't invalidate the overall argument when it comes to society as a whole.
Where does happiness figure into your equation? The natural (whether through long-ingrained social pressures or genetics) state of affairs is for the woman, who has the scarce reproductive resource, to choose the best man she can get, until she stops at a man who is clearly superior to her. But as women get more and more "equal", their chances of finding such a man diminish. And the chances of remaining attracted to their husband if the wife goes back to school and/or furthers her career beyond that of the man also diminishes.
Hence upwardly mobile women = more divorce and/or unhappiness. Also, with women expected to have careers, children are left to be cared for by minimum wage third-world immigrants, because men in general do not forgo their careers, and in general those who do are looked at as inferior over time by their wives.
I'm not saying women should not be allowed to work, I'm not saying men shouldn't be allowed to stay at home. What I'm saying is that women should not be expected/required to work just to make ends not meet. Society would be much better off if instead of turning women into men, feminism had tried to validate the roles that women already played as equally important.