Are you a feminist?

[camillalev]

I am over the moon to be a woman......i dont believe in feminism i do believe in being feminine...i also believe i can shoot an slr rifle wear combat boots and be feminine because i love being a woman......doesnt mean i have to be helpless.....

 

i feel there are some jobs that women are not suitable for....one is having to slice a guys throat open in war time.....i dont mind following a chain of command where a man is leading............i believe in the sisterhood...i also believe in peoplehood brotherhood and any other type of hood that unites people as one peoples...in unity there is strength, unity exists and can be had somewhere between a fond hello and a sad goodbye....still doesnt mean i want the job of slicing a guys throat open in war time...feminism in my mind has done damage to a delicate equilibrium and gone in the opposite direction....too much is as bad as too little......deb

 

You may not believe in feminism, but what you wrote is part of what feminism is. Being able to be what you want do what you want, whether it's wearing heels or combat boots. I'm a feminist and I'm quite feminine, on any given day you will find me wearing heels and red lipstick. Feminism does not equal "masculine".

 

As for having a job shooting someone in the head or cutting someone's throat;

I don't believe that is a job suited for anyone, man or woman. Why do so many men develop PTSD, night terrors and flashbacks if they were built to be killers. I think it's a disservice to men to say that's a job suited for them. I don't think anyone man or woman is psychologically built to endure a job like that(unless they're sociopaths)

Edited October 28, 2014 by camillalev

[camillalev]

My feelings towards feminism are perfectly described by Roxane Gay in her essay "Bad Feminist"... I strongly recommend all of you to google for the pdf and read it.

 

Imo, I believe feminism should be about equal rights for both sexes, and the ability of women and all other genders (if you know what I mean) to do what they want, whether that be traditional, ambitious, both of these things etc. I think it's supposed to create some freedom for ANYBODY who felt under pressure by a (come on we cannot deny this is the truth:) male-dominated world.

 

I responded to this already but I will give and example to illustrate true equality for both men and women:

 

Believing women are born with maternal instincts and are naturally better caregivers. How this hurts men: in custody, courts will strongly favor the mother over the father because she is a woman. This, in my opinion, is wrong. It should be about the individual. Just because she is a woman does not mean she is the better, healthier choice for a child. There an instances where the male is the better caregiver. Men can be quite caring, loving, strong and capable of raising a child. Yes, some women are amazing mothers! It's a matter if the individual.

 

On the flip side, believing all women are born destined to be a great caregiver and child-rearer is detrimental to women who aspire to a working career.. This believe can express itself negatively during the course of a woman's career in many ways, esp when aspiring toward senior positions. Some people do not think business is a woman's place, unless you're a secretary. Some people do not think women are competent in leadership roles, etc

 

 

That is one problematic belief, expressing itself in different ways, but it stems from the same place.

 

There are two sides to everything, equality needs to be balanced.

Edited October 28, 2014 by camillalev

[darkmoon]

short hair, hairy unshaven armpits and shins, this was how you had to be in the 1970s, butch, all parts of equality, since overtaken by sexiness

 

i never liked looking like that, felt awkward dressing prettily when my friends dresssed butch

 

we still do not have financial equality, though seeing happy dads pushing prams for the first time really looked sweet

[Emilia]

I think my views closest align with Camillalev's. I would also add that equal rights also mean equal responsibility. My problem with some women's (and occasionally men's) interpretation of equal rights is that when it comes to responsibilities, men need to share the burden more. I think this is the sure way to be ridiculed and not to be taken seriously. 'Wanting your cake and eat it'.

 

An example: we had a discussion in the office about giving up your seat on public transport. My view is that if you see anyone that needs the seat more than you, you should give it up. Some of the women in the office will say that a man should give up his seat first before a woman does. We are talking on average up to 20 minutes of journey time, not hours of standing where physical strength might come into it.

 

I completely disagree with it. Equal responsibility when it's within physical and other means.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

No, because I don't agree with third wave feminism and think the movement has moved beyond that of one seeking "equality" to that of one seeking "superiority". In fact I run an entire blog on the subject.

 

I am, however an egalitarian.

[gaius]

I don't really pay much attention to the modern debate over the term, I understand it in it's historical context though. I have noticed pretty much every woman I've run into that self-identifies as one is seriously repressed in at least one way. Which strikes me as odd for a movement that's supposed to be liberating.

[Taramere]

Well, I take interest in a lot of issues that are commonly defined as "feminist" issues - so in that respect, yes, but I can't say I've ever been involved in feminist activism. To me, it's more just about being sufficiently aware of certain issues that can make life difficult or unpleasant for women that I can give helpful advice to younger women (so for example, when I used to work with adolescents a strong awareness of eating disorders, the frequency with which young women let themselves be pressured into sex that they don't really feel ready for, encouraging them to see themselves as something beyond just a sexual object etc etc).

 

I have a good friend who's very into the Men's Rights thing, and he and I argue a lot about this stuff. Not in a hostile way though. I find his perspective interesting, and it reminds me not to get so bogged down in problems that tend to be specific to women that I overlook the difficulties men are more likely to encounter. One thing he told me that I wasn't aware of was this...

 

In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British Army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.[2][3]

 

This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary draft of men, including those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property

 

White feather - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

That goes against everything I thought feminism stood for, and is a sharp lesson that this was not always a noble movement by any means. Like any other movement it has contained its cynical opportunists who won't hesitate to stoop to hypocrisy when it suits them.

 

The first I learned of the white feather campaign was in the last of the Anne of Green Gables series (Rilla of Ingleside) when Anne's most sensitive son died after being shamed, by a white feather from a stranger, into joining the war. Anne (of Green Gables) was more my sort of feminist, not that she'd was defined by one as her writer. Here's a little article looking at the ways in which she was a feminist

 

Bustle

 

(I can imagine the MRA response to the picture of her holding her hand over Gilbert's mouth, and the time she broke a slate over his head - and yes, violence by women against men has historically been portrayed as a joke. A state of affairs that merits callings out).

 

But really, she was just a girl who wasn't impervious to the judgements of others, but who refused to have her self esteem crushed by them because she was neither a boy nor a conventionally beautiful girl. She got married and she devoted herself to being a wife and mother...but she had been a teacher and a writer, and you could say she carried on being both those things even if not as part of a formal "job".

 

And she was happy, which is the most important thing. When feminism supports people being permitted to pursue the lifestyle that will bring a lot of happiness and positive learning experiences/opportunities to them and to people close to them, then that's surely a good thing. Where feminism seeks to create divisions between men and women, and to pressurise women into lifestyle decisions that don't suit them but that are associated with "being a good feminist" then it's not.

 

Ultimately we encounter all sorts of philosophies in life of which feminism is one. Like any other philosophy, once put into practice it's only as noble or useful as its leading practitioners.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Taramere

[SummerDreams]

I think feminism was the creation of smart men who wanted to drag women in the working field as well cause they were sick of men being the only working force and women staying at home and having the "easy job" of the housewife and the raiser of kids. These smart men sugared this rebellion with the illusion of freedom and equal rights for women so women fell in the trap; now they have the right to vote, to choose a career, to study, to sleep with whomever they want, to do whatever they want in the lives, but most of the times they have no time to do so cause they have so many roles they have taken over and they must prove they are good at. I find this creation a really smart move from men's part and I totally admire whomever thought about it. I believe feminism in western countries has destroyed the balance between the two sexes resulting in an emotional chaos in the relationship between men and women. In my opinion only couples who want to keep the traditional roles of the two genders will have the chance of a long lasting and happy relationship.

[camillalev]

now they have the right to vote, to choose a career, to study, to sleep with whomever they want, to do whatever they want in the lives/QUOTE]

 

Sounds like a dream life to me.

 

Career - check

Sex life - check

Study, learn and expand my knowledge of the world - check

 

Wow they really tricked me.

[Taramere]

I believe feminism in western countries has destroyed the balance between the two sexes resulting in an emotional chaos in the relationship between men and women. In my opinion only couples who want to keep the traditional roles of the two genders will have the chance of a long lasting and happy relationship.

 

My parents have been married for 50 years. It's not a dysfunction-free marriage, and now that my father has developed Alzheimer's it would be true to say there's a lot of sadness in it. However, there's no doubt that it's a successful marriage in terms of them being a long lasting, firmly loyal partnership.

 

My mother worked in a profession. She supported my father through university after he left the armed services. She juggled work with the task of caring for two small children and supporting a husband through a demanding degree (and often making sure his fellow students had a proper Sunday lunch).

 

So I think you're wrong. I see evidence of you being wrong provided not just by my parents but by many of their friends.

[Emilia]

Sounds like a dream life to me.

 

Career - check

Sex life - check

Study, learn and expand my knowledge of the world - check

 

Wow they really tricked me.

Quite. All these options + NOT having to have children. Fully in charge of my own destiny, not having to rely on anyone for anything unless I choose to. Do you know ladies how many women in more patriarchal societies would kill for this?

[Taramere]

Quite. All these options + NOT having to have children. Fully in charge of my own destiny, not having to rely on anyone for anything unless I choose to. Do you know ladies how many women in more patriarchal societies would kill for this?

 

Here are some

 

Self-immolation among Afghan women rises as UN pushes country to take action against violent crimes  - NY Daily News

 

Who can really say what the future will bring to the West? How things will be in 50 years time?

 

Misogyny is a reality. A lot of anti-feminism is misogyny passing itself off as a paternalistic, patronising but well intentioned thing. "Women are like children, but we love them like children - and like children they sometimes need to be told what's best for them."

 

No doubt there are, and have always been, men who genuinely do think that way. Who have a patronising but not unkind or hateful attitude towards women. Who would try to do what they genuinely believed was right by women in a patriarchal society.

 

But we also know that there are men who utterly loathe women. Who would have loathed them in the societies we had 300 years ago, loathe them today and would loathe them in 300 years time. Their loathing is not of feminism. It's of femininity - and life is too short for any woman trying to twist herself into something that would please such unpleasables.

[Els]

Quite. All these options + NOT having to have children. Fully in charge of my own destiny, not having to rely on anyone for anything unless I choose to. Do you know ladies how many women in more patriarchal societies would kill for this?

 

Right. Plus really the option for a woman (or man) to be a SAHP still exists, with a compatible mate. If any woman desires to be a mother and wife and is blaming their inability to do so on gender equality of all things, they likely are just looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame their problems on.

[SummerDreams]

Right. Plus really the option for a woman (or man) to be a SAHP still exists, with a compatible mate. If any woman desires to be a mother and wife and is blaming their inability to do so on gender equality of all things, they likely are just looking for a convenient scapegoat to blame their problems on.

 

It's not inability exactly (though in my country single moms or stay at home moms are not supported properly but anyway), it's the social perception of this desire. Women who want to stay at home and raise their kids are called lazy, gold diggers and insensitive. A woman nowadays is worthless unless she has a job, just like more or less a man is worthless if he has no job, with the only difference being that nobody expects from a man to abandon their career to stay at home and raise kids or not rest when he comes home from work in the evening in order to do laundry, clean the house, help the kid study or cook (etc....), while for the woman it's her obligation to do these things cause she's... well, the woman.

 

If a woman had the right to choose to be a stay at home mother and the state and society were treating her with respect and help her financially, then I would say that feminism has helped. But sadly this is not the case, yet at least.

[Els]

It's not inability exactly (though in my country single moms or stay at home moms are not supported properly but anyway), it's the social perception of this desire. Women who want to stay at home and raise their kids are called lazy, gold diggers and insensitive. A woman nowadays is worthless unless she has a job, just like more or less a man is worthless if he has no job, with the only difference being that nobody expects from a man to abandon their career to stay at home and raise kids or not rest when he comes home from work in the evening in order to do laundry, clean the house, help the kid study or cook (etc....), while for the woman it's her obligation to do these things cause she's... well, the woman.

 

If a woman had the right to choose to be a stay at home mother and the state and society were treating her with respect and help her financially, then I would say that feminism has helped. But sadly this is not the case, yet at least.

 

Uh, 'the state and society' absolutely did not offer financial assistance to help women raise children in the past, before women's rights existed. In the past you had one decent option to support your children: rely on your husband. Currently you have three options: you be the breadwinner, your husband be the breadwinner, or you both share childcare and income contribution.

 

As for your other point, people who call stay at home parents (who do so by joint decision between them and their partner) 'lazy' or 'gold diggers' are not truly interested in genuine gender equality and freedom, IMO.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Elswyth

[Lernaean_Hydra]

I think feminism was the creation of smart men who wanted to drag women in the working field as well cause they were sick of men being the only working force and women staying at home and having the "easy job" of the housewife and the raiser of kids. These smart men sugared this rebellion with the illusion of freedom and equal rights for women so women fell in the trap; now they have the right to vote, to choose a career, to study, to sleep with whomever they want, to do whatever they want in the lives, but most of the times they have no time to do so cause they have so many roles they have taken over and they must prove they are good at. I find this creation a really smart move from men's part and I totally admire whomever thought about it.

 

Frankly I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. Feminism (first wave) did not happen suddenly over night nor was it an entity that was "created" by any one person or group (men). It really had very little to do with women just being allowed to work for a very long time.

 

It was an evolution of rights and freedoms women acquired over centuries; sometimes through hard work and having to fight tooth and nail (suffrage), other times out of necessity (World Wars I & II thrust millions of women into the workforce first because many men were overseas and then because many men never made it back home and the male population was severely depleted in some areas). And lastly because society (women and men) slowly came to the conclusion that certain rights being denied to women made no sense whatsoever (the right to earn an income and inherit or own property independently being a major one of them).

 

I believe feminism in western countries has destroyed the balance between the two sexes resulting in an emotional chaos in the relationship between men and women. In my opinion only couples who want to keep the traditional roles of the two genders will have the chance of a long lasting and happy relationship.

 

I really don't see how women having the right to vote, work or go to college has destroyed anything except for the *patriarchy. I'm struggling to see how keeping traditional gender roles is supposed to be some sort of fail-safe against divorce. And I'm really struggling to understand how a woman being trapped at home (in the event she doesn't want to) rearing children and a man forced to be the sole breadwinner in any way ensures a "long lasting and happy relationship."

 

I knew women who were traditional wives for a lot of years (especially in the 50s-70s) and not all of them were happy or had great marriages.

 

 

*a thing that, while I do not believe currently exists I can admit it once did.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Lernaean_Hydra

[Taramere]

Frankly I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. Feminism (first wave) did not happen suddenly over night nor was it an entity that was "created" by any one person or group (men). It really had very little to do with women just being allowed to work for a very long time.

 

It was an evolution of rights and freedoms women acquired over centuries; sometimes through hard work and having to fight tooth and nail (suffrage), other times out of necessity (World Wars I & II thrust millions of women into the workforce first because many men were overseas and then because many men never made it back home and the male population was severely depleted in some areas). And lastly because society (women and men) slowly came to the conclusion that certain rights being denied to women made no sense whatsoever (the right to earn an income and inherit or own property independently being a major one of them).

 

Right. But the common view presented by some who are cobbling together an anti-feminist philosophy is that feminism didn't exist until Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in the 1960s. The notion that there was no such thing as feminism until that point is incredibly insular - as though the white picket fence 1950s American Dream was some sort of universal norm. As though middle class, relatively privileged women feeling bored and unfulfilled with that lifestyle was the only problem affecting womenkind. It's often used as part of this common refrain that feminism is a middle class concept invented in the 1960s for the purposes of middle class women.

 

As though scenarios like the women in Afghanistan setting themselves on fire are not a desperate act of feminism whereby an oppressed person is giving out the message of "I'd rather die or permanently deface myself than carry on being oppressed like this."

 

In the UK, one of the landmark moments defining female emancipation occurred with the passing of the Contagious Diseases Acts in the late Nineteenth Century. This Act allowed for prostitutes to be seized and subjected to intimate examination in order to reduce the passing on of diseases to servicemen using prostitutes. Women found to have an STD disease could be confined in hospital against their will for up to three months.

 

The servicemen themselves were not subject to such invasive or oppressive requirements. The Act imposed these measures on women only. The clear double standard of this provoked outrage and is commonly seen as one of the main triggers for organised activism in respect of women's rights in the UK. Long, long before the Feminine Mystique was a glimmer in Betty Friedan's eyes.

[Dontfindme]

Agree. From what she is writing it does t seem as though she understands what feminism is about. Everything seems colored by anger and misinformation.

Also, She says she is feminist but all of her beliefs seem very traditional (men "need to be men", women need to stay home to tends to kids, etc).

 

Honestly, most of the people who dislike feminism seem to have traditional values and resent the fact that the world is changing. So many of the factors around changing social dynamics are complicated, but they just chalk it up to "angry feminists who hate men". When in fact many feminists would like a balanced, positive change for men as well, like maternal leave for men, because *gasp* some men want to spend time with their children! Or equal opportunity custody for kids(just because someone is biologically a woman does not mean she is a better caretaker or born with a "maternal instinct").

 

It's sad that this idea that all feminists are angry and hate me has somehow become popular. In real life, I don't know a single feminist who hates guys. Many of them have boyfriends, finances, or husbands and they are lovely couples. Even if I did know one, that would be one in maybe 50 or more.

 

I don't even know where to start in her post. I mean, she cites SVU as a point of reference.

 

The problem with feminism (although not intrinsically feminism itself), like most ideologies, is that everyone interprets it to suit their needs, and agendas; and in doing so, they disregard what it's really about. It's really sad.

[Keenly]

I've noticed that feminism breeds a lot of female on female hate. Most notably with child raising.

[Dontfindme]

The problem with feminism (although not intrinsically feminism itself), like most ideologies, is that everyone interprets it to suit their needs, and agendas; and in doing so, they disregard what it's really about. It's really sad.

 

My apologies, I meant to write many in place of everyone. I can't speak for everyone.

[serial muse]

I've noticed that feminism breeds a lot of female on female hate. Most notably with child raising.

 

As a feminist and a mom, I don't think that's so common. But there's a lot of judgment of moms from ALL directions, no matter what they choose to do. I've seen some truly insulting stuff on here about working moms, daycare, etc, from men and women both. So the real problem is that people in general of both genders feel justified in telling mothers they're doing it wrong.

[Gloria25]

I think feminism was the creation of smart men who wanted to drag women in the working field as well cause they were sick of men being the only working force and women staying at home and having the "easy job" of the housewife and the raiser of kids. These smart men sugared this rebellion with the illusion of freedom and equal rights for women so women fell in the trap; now they have the right to vote, to choose a career, to study, to sleep with whomever they want, to do whatever they want in the lives, but most of the times they have no time to do so cause they have so many roles they have taken over and they must prove they are good at. I find this creation a really smart move from men's part and I totally admire whomever thought about it. I believe feminism in western countries has destroyed the balance between the two sexes resulting in an emotional chaos in the relationship between men and women. In my opinion only couples who want to keep the traditional roles of the two genders will have the chance of a long lasting and happy relationship.

 

You know, I was gonna bring up this point (sorta), but am/was worried about the responses.

 

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

 

Think about it, while we are a product of our environment and society - we learn our basics from the home. Our children grow up to be the future members of our communities/societies.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Some women, like Celine Dione, argue that it's "quality vs quantity" of the time she spends with her children. Yeah, right. By the time your average woman comes home from driving in traffic and working a 9 to 5 "what" energy is left to properly bond with her kids? And, while Feminists are all about "equality" and men pitchiing in with chores, if the guy is also working a 9 to 5, then still, where is he gonna get the energy/time to do stuff in the home?

 

I mean, that's why I still love Angelina Jolie. Yeah, she did the shack up thing (I'm still not sure if this marriage with Brad will last), but a while back on 60 Minutes she was honest about not being a good mother. She said her mother was a better mother and was actually home with her.

 

But back to parents not being at home....

 

So, what do we have? Kids running the streets and getting into trouble. In the African American communities, young males don't have a male influence so, they grow up going into a life of crime. Remember, males are needed to keep in check the aggression of other males. A father smacks a boy upside the head and the boy learns that he doesn't 'rule the world'. But, when there's no daddies around, hyper-masculinity takes place. That's another reason why Feminist want to mess with the military - cuz, there was one time where the military could be used as a venue where 'boys become men' - cuz they have Alpha males yelling a them and straightening them out.

 

So, that's what we have now a days - dysfunctional "families" cuz parents are so self-absorbed and give it a generation or so and we will have a collapse of society.

 

I wanna go on some more, but still cautious about how what I'm saying will be received.

[Dontfindme]

You know, I was gonna bring up this point (sorta), but am/was worried about the responses.

 

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

 

Think about it, while we are a product of our environment and society - we learn our basics from the home. Our children grow up to be the future members of our communities/societies.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Some women, like Celine Dione, argue that it's "quality vs quantity" of the time she spends with her children. Yeah, right. By the time your average woman comes home from driving in traffic and working a 9 to 5 "what" energy is left to properly bond with her kids? And, while Feminists are all about "equality" and men pitchiing in with chores, if the guy is also working a 9 to 5, then still, where is he gonna get the energy/time to do stuff in the home?

 

I mean, that's why I still love Angelina Jolie. Yeah, she did the shack up thing (I'm still not sure if this marriage with Brad will last), but a while back on 60 Minutes she was honest about not being a good mother. She said her mother was a better mother and was actually home with her.

 

But back to parents not being at home....

 

So, what do we have? Kids running the streets and getting into trouble. In the African American communities, young males don't have a male influence so, they grow up going into a life of crime. Remember, males are needed to keep in check the aggression of other males. A father smacks a boy upside the head and the boy learns that he doesn't 'rule the world'. But, when there's no daddies around, hyper-masculinity takes place. That's another reason why Feminist want to mess with the military - cuz, there was one time where the military could be used as a venue where 'boys become men' - cuz they have Alpha males yelling a them and straightening them out.

 

So, that's what we have now a days - dysfunctional "families" cuz parents are so self-absorbed and give it a generation or so and we will have a collapse of society.

 

I wanna go on some more, but still cautious about how what I'm saying will be received.

 

You are attributing feminism to all the wrong things.

 

I would respond to all of what you wrote, but if you read some of the posts made on this thread by those who identified with feminism, you would have seen that what you wrote above is not what feminism is about.

 

I am certainly curious to see what else you believe. I welcome your views - but respectfully disagree with them.

[serial muse]

Sigh.

 

You know, I was gonna bring up this point (sorta), but am/was worried about the responses.

 

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

 

Think about it, while we are a product of our environment and society - we learn our basics from the home. Our children grow up to be the future members of our communities/societies.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Some women, like Celine Dione, argue that it's "quality vs quantity" of the time she spends with her children. Yeah, right. By the time your average woman comes home from driving in traffic and working a 9 to 5 "what" energy is left to properly bond with her kids? And, while Feminists are all about "equality" and men pitchiing in with chores, if the guy is also working a 9 to 5, then still, where is he gonna get the energy/time to do stuff in the home?

 

I mean, that's why I still love Angelina Jolie. Yeah, she did the shack up thing (I'm still not sure if this marriage with Brad will last), but a while back on 60 Minutes she was honest about not being a good mother. She said her mother was a better mother and was actually home with her.

 

But back to parents not being at home....

 

So, what do we have? Kids running the streets and getting into trouble. In the African American communities, young males don't have a male influence so, they grow up going into a life of crime. Remember, males are needed to keep in check the aggression of other males. A father smacks a boy upside the head and the boy learns that he doesn't 'rule the world'. But, when there's no daddies around, hyper-masculinity takes place. That's another reason why Feminist want to mess with the military - cuz, there was one time where the military could be used as a venue where 'boys become men' - cuz they have Alpha males yelling a them and straightening them out.

 

So, that's what we have now a days - dysfunctional "families" cuz parents are so self-absorbed and give it a generation or so and we will have a collapse of society.

 

I wanna go on some more, but still cautious about how what I'm saying will be received.

 

The above quote is exactly what I was referring to in my post. How delightful that it should show up just in time to prove my point. It is full of misinformation and judgment based on nothing much, certainly not historical fact or societal research, just one person's opinions presented as some sort of social commentary. In DIRECT contrast to what Keenly and others on this thread have said, in my experience, it is decidedly the women who do NOT identify as feminists -- in fact, those who are most rabidly anti-feminist -- who are also the most judgmental and nosy about what women should be doing, particularly if they also happen to be mothers.

 

So in my opinion, this is exactly why feminism still has a lot of work to do as a movement. It's time to stop judging women for making choices.

 

And no, the goal of feminism is NOT to destroy the family unit. My family unit is just fine, thank you.

Edited October 28, 2014 by serial muse

[Woggle]

Like I always say I support the dictionary definition of feminism but I don't support what in many cases it has turned into. If people are sincere about feminism and I believe they are why would you not be mad about these extremists hijacking your movement? They haved done to feminism what the religious right has done to Christianity and what Isis and Al Queda have done to Islam but according to many it is just something some MRAs dream up because they are scared of equality. If you think they are just a bunch of straw feminists I saw this brand of extremism make my mother think it was okay to horribly abuse me and my father because she was rebelling against the patriarchy.

 

The days of me thinking I deserved that are over and I will fight back against those kind of misandrists. If you call me sexist because of that so be it but I have no desire to make women second class citizens but I will be damned if I become the whipping boy for other men's wrongs.