Are you a feminist?

[jay1983]

Are you honestly trying to assert that feminism is the reason for broken families in a ghetto or working class area? How does that even compute? Poverty might have something to do with it. Is that due to feminism? Does that make any kind of sense?

 

It played a big part by forcing both parents into the workforce just to make ends meat. Now just like Gloria said, "who's raising the kids?"

I'm arguing the rational viewpoint, informed by history and social research. To me, this rabid anti-feminism is what smacks of religious fanaticism.

 

And as for your first comment - ha. If you choose to cherry-pick an extremist to support your views, I find it super-ironic that you would then accuse me of cherry-picking by pointing that out. Talk about convenient.

 

I've read many of your comments that women have been oppressed for centuries. There was never any law preventing women from working whatever job they wanted. The reason most were nurses and cooks is because most jobs men had were blue color. Or women couldn't vote. Men couldn't vote either, only wealthy land owners could vote.

And the good feminists who aren't radicals? Those everyday people I just mentioned. Not the wildly controversial bloggers beloved of MRAs. Just people. Who are also feminists. And normal and don't hate men. Look around you.

 

I'm sorry I most have missed that, who are they again?

[OwMyEyeball]

"Are you a feminist?" is a fair question, but given the amount of emotional baggage and countless personal definitions for such a broad term I'll keep mine very simple:

 

Equal rights and opportunity for all humans.

 

I was born into feminism, in both the structure of the society and in my family. My mother is a published feminist whose focus in political philosophy put her in line with some of the leading figures in the feminist movement of her time. My older sister is a very strong woman herself who has done remarkably well in her pursuits.

 

Not once, in any conversation I've had with them or overheard, have either of them made any comment or reference in regard to men or women as a "whole". Feminism was never a subject up for discussion, not because it was taboo, but because it just wasn't ever really of any relevance to family life.

 

Asking me if I'm a feminist is sort of like asking (almost) anyone if they're an abolitionist. For me, the idea of equal rights and opportunity for women (and all humans) is beyond question. It's a statement of fact. It's in the Charter of Rights. It's in the social and political framework of the society I take part in.

[jay1983]

Well, I am one … there are a few of us right here on this thread who are feminists and not radical.

 

 

 

Feminism is not responsible for what you're seeing with the decay of families, truly, it isn't. Keeping women in the home making babies and standing in the way of different goals and dreams is not good for anybody. Keeping people down is not good.

 

You maybe a good one, but I'm talking about the people at the top of these movements.

 

I agree it's not complete responsible for destroying families and I understand what you're saying, but what about the kids?

[M30USA]

If a woman is a true feminist, then she won't demand special privelages or have an attitude of entitlement. Most feminists, it seems, are defined by these things. Ironic.

[Gloria25]

Wrong,,,,

 

Allowing yourself to be publicly humiliated to the highest degree is NOT strong....or pragmatic...

 

He has the pimp hand here.....she is the dope, the doormat and is allowing exactly that which pains women more than anything else..infidelity

 

 

She could have held all of the positions you mentioned if she tossed him out...Or are you saying all of what she is rides on his coattails./??

 

TFY

 

Yup, she talks a lot about empowerment - but look at her. She used her husband's name and the "image" of a family to further her political agenda and career. You think her having only "one" child was a not intentional? I think that's the only time she and Bill ever had relations.

 

If she had anything to offer without his name, why not dump him after that horrible public humiliation?

 

But, that is/was part of her plan. From what I understand, since they married he had a wondering eye. Well, probably she wasn't giving him any cuz both of them were just out there trying to paint the image of a "family" so people would vote for them.

[Gloria25]

It played a big part by forcing both parents into the workforce just to make ends meat. Now just like Gloria said, "who's raising the kids?"

I've read many of your comments that women have been oppressed for centuries. There was never any law preventing women from working whatever job they wanted. The reason most were nurses and cooks is because most jobs men had were blue color. Or women couldn't vote. Men couldn't vote either, only wealthy land owners could vote.

 

 

I'm sorry I most have missed that, who are they again?

 

Also, children being born out of wedlock has also driven people into poverty. Now, the women have to chase the baby-daddy for support and he's got several kids out there.

 

Then, she has to get up and go get a job and the kids also get neglected. Oh, and what kind of job will she get? Probably at McD's making minimum wage cuz she wasted her time getting knocked up instead of finishing school. Also, a job like McD's at minimum wage might be the only way she can get a flexible schedule to deal with the demands of having a child and no man around to help her out.

[Gloria25]

In my mind feminism is all about women being free to CHOOSE how they will live their lives, but I don't see that in every day life - and I am talking purely about western countries, please do not compare feminism in western countries with feminism in eastern countries. In every day life I see women feeling obligated to do EVERYTHING (old and new obligations) while men can keep only their old obligations. (I know there are some men who want to help in the house or with the kids, but this is really in primary stages, at least in my country, so it's the exception and not the rule.) That's why I talked about feminism being the invention of a really smart man.

 

Yup, women are having to help men with bills, work full time, still come home to kids and chores.

[jay1983]

Also, children being born out of wedlock has also driven people into poverty. Now, the women have to chase the baby-daddy for support and he's got several kids out there.

 

Then, she has to get up and go get a job and the kids also get neglected. Oh, and what kind of job will she get? Probably at McD's making minimum wage cuz she wasted her time getting knocked up instead of finishing school. Also, a job like McD's at minimum wage might be the only way she can get a flexible schedule to deal with the demands of having a child and no man around to help her out.

 

But they're good though. Big daddy government's got their back.

[Gloria25]

??? I don't understand your point. I said that women and girls in the USA are not repressed by society in general. Nobody here is talking about "evil patriarchy."

 

 

 

Maybe she thinks that it's going to take a little more Women's Movement to get the first woman into the Presidency. Sounds sensible. That's an uphill battle.

 

Ok, then why is there a need to take the "Women's Movement" to the Presidency.

 

I thought women and girls in the US were no longer "repressed"?

 

Women can get jobs, have abortions, vote, own things...what more "rights" are missing here?

 

BTW, the topics she raised (i.e. the economy, minimum wage) are not "women's issues" they are issues for this country in general.

 

Then, she talks about women who need help internationally. Well, besides using this as a ploy to get votes, what has she actually done for women over the world?

 

Mother Teresa, Angelina Jolie and others have done more for women internationally than Hillary Clinton. And, they didn't need a office or job in politics to make it happen.

[Gloria25]

But they're good though. Big daddy government's got their back.

 

And that's the intent....not to "liberate" women or people - but to create a dependence on government.

[jay1983]

And that's the intent....not to "liberate" women or people - but to create a dependence on government.

 

That's scary, l try not to think like that even if it might true.

[OwMyEyeball]

Wrong,,,,

 

Allowing yourself to be publicly humiliated to the highest degree is NOT strong....or pragmatic...

 

He has the pimp hand here.....she is the dope, the doormat and is allowing exactly that which pains women more than anything else..infidelity

 

 

She could have held all of the positions you mentioned if she tossed him out...Or are you saying all of what she is rides on his coattails./??

 

TFY

Ignoring humiliation to further one's ambitions is a sign of strength. It's those very people, who holding so strongly to their beliefs and ideas despite the insults and degrading remarks of others, that effect change.

 

Many social and economic privileges we enjoy and take for granted today were at one point brought into the public conscious by people who were, at first, largely ridiculed (and in many cases tortured, persecuted, imprisoned or killed) for their beliefs.

 

"Tossing him out" could have threatened her political ambitions, in large part because her power resides on the petty concerns of the electorate; people who regard social and political interplay on the level that you do.

[jay1983]

Rosebud, may I ask who you follow?

[Gloria25]

I also wonder how in the world Feminism is about "rights for everyone"?

 

Are referring to the male gender? Are we referring to sexual orientation? Are we referring to race?

 

If that is so, then how is Feminism making changes in those areas?

 

Again, nothing but buzzwords to get people riled up to support a cause and get people in power.

 

Lemme give you an example of how buzzwords can get people riled up...

 

On Mad Men, Don Draper's ex-wife threw a party with her current husband - a politician. At the party, the friends/neighbors raised a topic that the husband told his wife (in confidence) his REAL views on.

 

Well, she confronted him in front of the guests about his contradiction and he called her on it. She got mad cuz instead of her realizing that HE IS A POLITICIAN and politicians often make promises to get votes, she turned it into him 'violating her right to free speech as a woman'. In other words she should have not embarrassed him in front of others; spoken to him in private about his flip/flopping on issues; and, have enough sense to know that as a politician, that's what they do. If she doesn't like it, then divorce him.

 

Next day, she's smoking and reading the kitchen and he told her to do that in the living room cuz the kitchen is for the "help". OMG, she got mad and said she's 'exercising her right to smoke/relax where she wants'.

 

So, you see how people can misconstrue something into a "violation of their rights"?

[Woggle]

Somebody in this thread said that feminist support men having rights as fathers then how come the father's rights movement is so maligned by many feminists? How come when we talk about how boys are falling behind in school and being drugged we get accused of being against girls succeeding?

[Gloria25]

Ignoring humiliation to further one's ambitions is a sign of strength. It's those very people, who holding so strongly to their beliefs and ideas despite the insults and degrading remarks of others, that effect change.

 

Many social and economic privileges we enjoy and take for granted today were at one point brought into the public conscious by people who were, at first, largely ridiculed (and in many cases tortured, persecuted, imprisoned or killed) for their beliefs.

 

"Tossing him out" could have threatened her political ambitions, in large part because her power resides on the petty concerns of the electorate; people who regard social and political interplay on the level that you do.

 

And talk like this ^^ is the blind worship to certain ideals/figures.

 

Monica Lewinsky came out recently about her experience with Bill. She probably came out cuz people started making noise about the hypocrisy of women saying they should not be objectified by men, yet are lifting up their skirts and sleeping around.

 

Well, Lewinsky claims that 'she was in control' the whole time when it came to getting on her knees and giving oral sex to Bill.

 

Yeah, right? She was in power? How so? Last time I looked, she was on her knees and used as a "receptacle" Did he even do anything to please her sexually?

 

Oh yeah, and he stayed with his wife, Hilary Clinton. So again, who's in power here?

[Gloria25]

Somebody in this thread said that feminist support men having rights as fathers then how come the father's rights movement is so maligned by many feminists? How come when we talk about how boys are falling behind in school and being drugged we get accused of being against girls succeeding?

 

Also, how about the courts - who more likely than not gonna give the woman custody of the kids over a father - even in instances where the woman was the one with affair(s)?

 

How about husbands who's wives cut off sex to them?

 

How about women who falsely accuse men of rape - especially date rape. I mean that Victoria Rickman story is a good case of the manipulative women out there who pull those stunts all the time.

 

How about those states with laws that tell husbands that if the woman gets pregnant for another man during the marriage, that the current husband is still responsible for that baby that he did not father?

[thefooloftheyear]

Ignoring humiliation to further one's ambitions is a sign of strength. It's those very people, who holding so strongly to their beliefs and ideas despite the insults and degrading remarks of others, that effect change.

 

Many social and economic privileges we enjoy and take for granted today were at one point brought into the public conscious by people who were, at first, largely ridiculed (and in many cases tortured, persecuted, imprisoned or killed) for their beliefs.

 

"Tossing him out" could have threatened her political ambitions, in large part because her power resides on the petty concerns of the electorate; people who regard social and political interplay on the level that you do.

 

 

The same dumbells that elected her are comprised heavily by the divorced and angry women...How would her taking charge of her life by retaining what little dignity she had hurt her political aspirations??

 

If anything, she would have been the annointed Patron Saint of Womanhood..

 

I can only imagine the laugh leaders of other countries have at her expense...especially the misogynists...

 

TFY

[jay1983]

Also, how about the courts - who more likely than not gonna give the woman custody of the kids over a father - even in instances where the woman was the one with affair(s)?

 

How about husbands who's wives cut off sex to them?

 

How about women who falsely accuse men of rape - especially date rape. I mean that Victoria Rickman story is a good case of the manipulative women out there who pull those stunts all the time.

 

How about those states with laws that tell husbands that if the woman gets pregnant for another man during the marriage, that the current husband is still responsible for that baby that he did not father?

 

That's an issue where men are at fault for doing whatever the wife wants in order get sex. They need to learn not to cave and that sex isn't worth bending backward for.

 

Everything else, I agree with with. Don't forget the no fault divorce laws, taking men to cleaners when they're done with them.

[OwMyEyeball]

And talk like this ^^ is the blind worship to certain ideals/figures.

 

Monica Lewinsky came out recently about her experience with Bill. She probably came out cuz people started making noise about the hypocrisy of women saying they should not be objectified by men, yet are lifting up their skirts and sleeping around.

 

Well, Lewinsky claims that 'she was in control' the whole time when it came to getting on her knees and giving oral sex to Bill.

 

Yeah, right? She was in power? How so? Last time I looked, she was on her knees and used as a "receptacle" Did he even do anything to please her sexually?

 

Oh yeah, and he stayed with his wife, Hilary Clinton. So again, who's in power here?

Blind worship? I'm speaking towards strength of character of an individual, not their politics. It's possible to disagree with a person yet still respect them.

[OwMyEyeball]

The same dumbells that elected her are comprised heavily by the divorced and angry women...How would her taking charge of her life by retaining what little dignity she had hurt her political aspirations??

She was never elected into office. Or are you referring to the 2008 primaries? Could you show me some polling data that supports your claim? While marital status is often tracked, I'm not sure if the pollsters ever survey for scorn.

 

How does caving to popular opinion (if that was even the case, not sure how people felt about her choices back then) equate to "taking charge" of one's life?

 

If anything, she would have been the annointed Patron Saint of Womanhood..

 

I can only imagine the laugh leaders of other countries have at her expense...especially the misogynists...

 

TFY

You can only imagine.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

I think that the ultimate goal of Feminism is to destroy the family unit.

Oh good god, I'm an anti-feminist and even I can see this is utter BS. Feminism, including modern feminism - no matter how much I disagree with it - is not out to destroy the family unit. Feminists are not some evil overlords rubbing their hands together in wicked anticipation of the collapse of society. What purpose would that even serve?

 

When you no longer have a husband and wife creating a proper "nest" for their children. There is chaos. All this shacking up and having kids with some guy is not the same. Those RLs usually involve abuse (physical and/or sexual) and they don't last cuz the whole point of a shack up is to have one foot outside the door.

 

That has diddly to do with feminism.

 

When both parents are out "working". Who's raising the kids? Daycare? The public schools? A nanny? If the schools and strangers are left to raise our kids, that's where government can instill the "values" (if you wanna call it that) that "it" wants our children to learn.

 

Raising a child does not require them to be under your thumb 24 hours a day. Once your child is of school age, what exactly are you raising between the hours of 7AM and 3PM? The furniture? Your pets? This kind of reactionary scare mongering sounds an awful lot like the vivid imaginations of naive women gone wild. It smacks of a desire to sit at home while your husband does the heavy lifting.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a homemaker, but when you (general) start to act as if a household with two working parents is somehow detrimental or means children will be neglected you begin to sound like a lunatic.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

It doesn't matter whether or not it was set out to destroy the family unit. That is the result. You have be able to look around you, not just yourself and say "hey I'm a feminist, my family's fine"

 

I absolutely could not disagree more. Again, despite my anti-feminist stance this is utter and complete BS. Unless of course you're arguing that women having basic rights and freedoms, being able to vote, enter the workforce and therefore not forced to depend solely on their husbands or male relatives is somehow some sort of societal ill?

[Taramere]

Somebody in this thread said that feminist support men having rights as fathers then how come the father's rights movement is so maligned by many feminists? How come when we talk about how boys are falling behind in school and being drugged we get accused of being against girls succeeding?

 

Woggle, I think you probably already know the answer to that if you think back. For instance to some of the discussion in the following thread:

 

https://www.loveshack.org/forums/off-topic/current-events/479977-men-s-rights-group-raises-25-000-protect-them-feminists

 

There are a lot of men's rights groups that, when you scratch below the surface, are less concerned with making life better for men and more concerned with making things tougher for women. It's what I always look for in any discussion with a man purporting to argue for men's rights. What is the right that he believes has been violated? How do you go about promoting and protecting that right? Is he really concerned with a right he has, that is being violated - or is his main priority to try to erode somebody else's right?

 

So for instance, a father's right to have contact with his children following divorce or separation. As we know, generally the woman's home will still be the main place of residence - but as is often less discussed in men's rights circles, this is very frequently because the man and woman have agreed between themselves that this should be the case. I deal with a lot of family law cases, and generally when I do a separation agreement where a child is involved, this is the pre-agreed situation that's brought to me. That the separating couple have agreed that the child will live with the mother.

 

However, in a lot of cases - and especially where the parents haven't been married (though here, in the case of children born after 2007, dad still has automatic parental rights even if he's never been married to mum) problems with contact can arise. Dad (and sometimes mum too - I've had a few cases involving women) has a right to contact, but the other parent is ignoring their right - so the right has to be asserted in court and a contact order made that the other parent has to comply with.

 

Since more often men are the ones who seek contact, evidently this is an issue that's paramount amongst men's rights advocates - and correctly so. Not only have I absolutely no problem with that, but I have often advocated for men in that situation. And occasionally I've done so pro bono (ie for free). I could show you texts and Christmas cards, and family photos sent as a "thank you for what you did" to prove that I, who would no doubt be slammed by plenty of men's rights advocates who just hate any woman on principle, have probably accomplished more (in terms of promoting individual men's rights), than most of those internet ranters ever will. So fathers' rights...undoubtedly one of those areas where there is a very clear right that is often being trampled over, and absolutely I would support a man who was finding that right violated - and have done in a practical way many times.

 

Leaving aside the issue of fathers' rights, we've talked about some of these MRA websites before. I'm not going to give them the oxygen of publicity by naming them yet again - but here are some of the popular topics they'll focus on.

 

Females who sexually abuse children - which seems like a valid topic for discussion, but the stench of hypocrisy becomes apparent when you realise that despite the fact that statistically sexual abusers of children are still significantly more likely to be male, these same guys who want to talk a lot about female sexual abusers will howl from the rooftops with anger whenever the topic of men abusing children or women is raised. In that scenario, how much benefit of the doubt should be extended to their professed desire to protect children from predatory women? To my mind, probably not much. It smacks less of a genuine desire to protect children and more of a desire to get one over on women.

 

Women who make rape allegations These are public enemies number one to Men's Rights Activist. There is probably no group more likely to invite their ire....and the reason for this is that they act on the assumption that when a woman makes a rape allegation, she is making a false rape allegation. That's how they read the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Let me remind you of this...and okay, I'm giving it the oxygen of publicity but this guy is generally considered to be one of the leading lights of the men's rights movement:

 

Jury duty at a rape trial? Acquit!

 

One of its main advocates states in a very public way that if he is ever sitting on the jury in a rape case, he will acquit the accused no matter how overwhelming the evidence against the accused. And you're really asking why women (not just feminists, but women generally) would have a problem with a movement headed by people like that?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Taramere

[Gloria25]

Raising a child does not require them to be under your thumb 24 hours a day. Once your child is of school age, what exactly are you raising between the hours of 7AM and 3PM? The furniture? Your pets? This kind of reactionary scare mongering sounds an awful lot like the vivid imaginations of naive women gone wild. It smacks of a desire to sit at home while your husband does the heavy lifting.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a homemaker, but when you (general) start to act as if a household with two working parents is somehow detrimental or means children will be neglected you begin to sound like a lunatic.

 

I'm not gonna go over again how having two working parents takes away from needed time with the kids. I believe was clear in making my point. So, I agree to disagree.

 

Now, yes, once the kids are school aged - of course pursuing other interests or working part-time is and has been cool with me.

 

But, working a 9 to 5, juggling kids and a husband is impossible. Something usually falls to the side, and it is not the job. The kids get fast food and/or Mac & Cheese, the husbands get no or little sex. Also, the kids get raised by nannies, day care, and/or the schools. No nanny, teacher or person getting paid minimum wage (both who have a room full of other kids to tend to besides yours) can replace a mother.