Are you a feminist?

[Gloria25]

Actually, the ability to get an abortion is getting much more difficult in some states(ie Texas). Not to mention some companies opting out if birth control coverage for their employees. For low income women it will become that much more difficult to obtain birth control. Not to mention that certain republican has stated that if they take the senate their #1 mission would be to ban abortion. They have done a pretty good job so far closing down clinics for ridiculous no health related issues.

 

Also, even if we lives in a world where feminism did not exist and women were forced to be a family caretaker, poverty would still exist. Poor two parent homes exist. Please done forget there is still such a thing as racism in this country, unless you believe racism doesn't exist here either.

 

I'm curious, do you believe feminists are responsible for the economic downturn in 2008?

 

Birth control is not a "right" and/or some sort of medical condition requiring medication (just in case the Viagra argument comes up). If you want to go out there and have sex w/o marriage, then you take responsibility for your actions. Buy your birth control. No employer should have to foot the bill for your decision to sleep around.

 

I'm glad that Hobby Lobby took this to court, cuz no employer should allow government to force them to compromise their religious beliefs. Same way people go to work in certain professions and/or with certain employers for the benefits - if you don't like what Hobby Lobby offers, go work somewhere else.

 

Last thing low income women need is birth control. I'm tired of seeing them on Jerry Springer and Maury. Those women get more sexual activity in one day than what I get in a year.

 

About banning abortions in certain states? Then move to another state. That's why we're in America - cuz of the choices. The sad thing about making abortion and free BC so common place is that it is turning some women and even teenaged girls into irresponsible people. There's actually a YouTube out there of some chick who equates an abortion with giving birth.

 

I mean, people are leaving their kids to bake in cars cuz they don't see any value in their kids as living, breathing creatures. They see them as a burden that should have probably been aborted. I mean, I have dogs and "I" can remember to roll down the windows and/or leave the AC on in the car. AND THESE ARE DOGS!!!

 

Ok, without Feminism, women would be forced into being a caretaker? Last time I looked, in divorce women get alimony and/or support for the kids - which some often use to their advantage.

 

Ok, well WITH Feminism, we still have women out there, in the US, going around getting knocked up out of marriage and having to chase down baby-daddies for child support. We also have women who shack-up with guys and have kids, without the protection that marriage provides. So, who is forcing these liberated women to make such terrible choices that put them and their children into poverty?

[camillalev]

Feminism "does" have a role in this because a woman who "choses" to stay home is ridiculed by the Feminist movement. Shoot, even some of the responses to this tread confirm that's the beliefs of Feminists. Some responders to this thread said 'Feminism gave me more options than marrying and having kids, I could get a job'.

 

Please show me where in this thread people have ridiculed you for being a mother. Many mothers themselves have replied to this post, and many people who are feminists and support mothers. Yet you ignore the posts that don't align with your vision of angry mother hater.

 

People may disagree with your opinion, but that is not the same as being ridiculed.

 

Show me here where you've been ridiculed for wanting to be a SAHM and I will gladly do my best to explain to them why that's wrong.

[OwMyEyeball]

All I hope is that those people who started off reading and posting in this thread talking about how feminists are trying to limit choices are seeing how wrong they were.

 

Get it now, folks? These are the people trying to tell women how they "ought" to be. And they are NOT feminists.

These types of threads usually serve only to further entrench people in their existing beliefs.

 

It's typically more productive to ask "Do you believe all women deserve the same rights and opportunities as men?" Once you throw a hot-button, broadly defined and generally misconceived label like "feminism" into the mix you're going to find the reasoned debaters sighing as they exit the room while the demagogues hurl rhetoric at each other.

[OwMyEyeball]

The result of feminism, not the intention. I keep repeating myself. Hey seial muse, you think maybe, just maybe you're wrong? Has that ever that ever crossed your mind?

How have equal rights and opportunities for women increased housing and living costs?

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Because now the price of living is so high that we almost always need 2 working parents. Housing and cost of living was raised because landlords simply because people can pay.

 

I'm sorry, are you arguing that feminism somehow caused our current economic crisis and that in fact the absurd cost of living is because women can work too and therefore people are now charging more?

 

So what I said isn't true?

 

No, not entirely. Hell, not even largely. The reason most women were nurses and cooks was because those were the only fields they were allowed into as they were deemed "acceptable" or "women's work" anyway. Women were purposely undereducated, shunned, shamed or literally frozen out of areas like science and medicine and virtually banned from more labor intensive (blue collar) fields like farming and industry. Either their families (fathers) wouldn't allow it or the field would neither accept nor take them seriously.

 

And if, if they did somehow make it into a male dominate dfield they were paid dramatically less than their male counterparts.

 

During the Industrial Revoloution (c. 19th century) more women entered the workforce yet still faced gross inequalities. The insinuation that women have historically only chosen certain fields because they were "easier" is offensive and ridiculous. There were times when even international superpowers like America and the U.K. dealt with extreme poverty and womenwanted desperately to work and work HARD at whatever jobs were available but were simply disallowed to do so.

 

And as far as the women's suffrage. Yeah, there was a time when only wealthy landowners could vote but men of all classes were allowed to vote well before women ever were. Please, let's not play the fool and act as if only landed gentry were allowed to vote and then suddenly, men and women from all classes were given the vote simultaneously.

 

Bear in mind that you're talking to an anti-feminist who spends a large part of her time researching and discussing these issues and battling with third wave feminists so I'm well versed on the topic.

[serial muse]

The result of feminism, not the intention. I keep repeating myself. Hey seial muse, you think maybe, just maybe you're wrong? Has that ever that ever crossed your mind?

 

I wonder if it has ever crossed yours that you might be? I suspect not. Certainly not when you're talking to a woman.

 

I simply do not agree that it makes any sense of any kind that feminism is directly or indirectly responsible for two parents needing to work, or for poverty, or for any of that bullshxt. I challenge you to show me SOME evidence proving that, from a reputable source!

 

Enough. I am done discussing this topic with you. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[jay1983]

I wonder if it has ever crossed yours that you might be? I suspect not. Certainly not when you're talking to a woman.

 

Enough. I am done discussing this topic with you. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

I will only add that it would probably really help if you read up on things before jumping into the fray just 'cause.

 

Wrong, I spent most of my life never questioning anything women say. I use to be very liberal. Why did I change, because people debated me and showed me otherwise. All you do is grab the same tool and put a little more grease on it to do the same job it hasn't been able to do.

 

I'm one for a sensible debate so please give what you think I should read and I'll gladly read it with an open mind, same as everything.

 

But you won't cause you couldn't even answer any questions I asked you.

[SummerDreams]

Funny, you maintain that all feminists hate mothers and all things motherhood, yet you have selectively ignored my many posts about the many amazing women I know who have chosen a path of motherhood. Some are friends, some are dear friends. I personally love going to their homes and playing with their little ones.

 

Also, many of the women are also feminists.

 

So? I'm a feminist as well, or I want to be. I want all people (men and women) in the world to be able to choose what they want to do in their lives. What I am saying though is that after feminism women can choose to work but if they choose to stay at home and raise their kids they are stigmatized by the society and being called names by the feminists themselves. Where are the equal rights and free choice for these women? Why am I being called a lazy gold - digger when I choose with my partner to stay at home, have kids and raise them? Why doesn't society aknowledge my right to do this and help me, at least ethically?

[Lernaean_Hydra]

.I simply do not agree that it makes any sense of any kind that feminism is directly or indirectly responsible for two parents needing to work, or for poverty, or for any of that bullshxt. I challenge you to show me SOME evidence proving that, from a reputable source!

 

I've read all nine pages and I'm still having a really hard time grasping this concept. Honestly, even those in my anti-fem circle have never once so much a suggested feminism has anything to do with poverty.

 

The old scientific and statistical adage, correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation springs to mind... It's one many people would do well to apparently remember.

 

Nevertheless, I'm starting to realize there are two types of anti-feminists. The kind who don't like this new brand of feminism but support equal rights and the kind who are in favor of female subjugation.

[jay1983]

I've read all nine pages and I'm still having a really hard time grasping this concept. Honestly, even those in my anti-fem circle have never once so much a suggested feminism has anything to do with poverty.

 

The old scientific and statistical adage, correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation springs to mind... It's one many people would do well to apparently remember.

 

Nevertheless, I'm starting to realize there are two types of anti-feminists. The kind who don't like this new brand of feminism but support equal rights and the kind who are in favor of female subjugation.

 

Alright I'll try one more time. When started entering the workforce and making money, many of them still got married and to working men. So then they have 2 people bring home the beard. Well the then landlords said, hey we can raise the rent because they can afford it and they did.

 

Whether that was the intent, IDK, all I know is they can't raise the rent if enough people couldn't afford to pay.

[camillalev]

So? I'm a feminist as well, or I want to be. I want all people (men and women) in the world to be able to choose what they want to do in their lives. What I am saying though is that after feminism women can choose to work but if they choose to stay at home and raise their kids they are stigmatized by the society and being called names by the feminists themselves. Where are the equal rights and free choice for these women? Why am I being called a lazy gold - digger when I choose with my partner to stay at home, have kids and raise them? Why doesn't society aknowledge my right to do this and help me, at least ethically?

 

I'm sorry summer if you have been called a lazy gold digger obviously that is unacceptable.

 

Hopefully at least no one is this thread has done so.

 

My sister is a mother and wife. She is anything BUT lazy! I think it's an amazing thing to raise kids and raise them right. Not only do you have to make sure they stay alive but also make sure they grow to be good people. Personally, I admire them and the great job they're doing.

[OwMyEyeball]

Alright I'll try one more time. When started entering the workforce and making money, many of them still got married and to working men. So then they have 2 people bring home the beard. Well the then landlords said, hey we can raise the rent because they can afford it and they did.

 

Whether that was the intent, IDK, all I know is they can't raise the rent if enough people couldn't afford to pay.

The economics behind that line of reasoning aside:

 

Wouldn't you then take issue with landlords who have the power to arbitrarily raise rent for no purpose other than to line their own pockets?

[jay1983]

The economics behind that line of reasoning aside:

 

Wouldn't you then take issue with landlords who have the power to arbitrarily raise rent for no purpose other than to line their own pockets?

 

There was no law saying they couldn't. At this point it's already done, we can't go back. We need to working parents, unless one makes really big bucks.

[Woggle]

I get that, but you asked why women have a problem with the MRA movement - and those numbskulls would be the reason.

 

Every ideology has it. Extremists who are driven more by hate, and personal issues they haven't developed good coping mechanisms to deal with, than they are by any genuine interest in fair play. So those who genuinely are interested in rights and fairness, and select a particular cause to champion (because, for instance, they believe they're well placed to help in that specific cause) find themselves lumped alongside hateful, irrational extremists just because they support similar causes.

 

I view the MRA movement and the mainstream father's rights movement as two very different things.

[SummerDreams]

Rather than go around in circles with the two of you I'll just say this and leave off.

 

Don't go. Please tell us one more time how much of an anti-feminist you are.

 

I know a damn good bit of so-called 'stay at home moms' who throw their kids in daycare, Pre-K, summer camp, karate, swim class, soccer, fencing, etc you name it just to get them out of their hair and out of that home they're supposedly staying at home for with the best of them. They do it just as much, if not more so than any working mother I have ever known.

 

There are certainly exceptions to every rule. There are of course lazy women who just have kids without wanting them just to have an excuse not to work. We are not talking about these women.

 

Childrearing, while difficult and often thankless is not the absolute full time job many make it out to be. As your kids grow older and enter into prepubescence and adolescence they will not only spend more time away from home due to school but numerous other activities - and rightfully so, it's healthy.

 

I'm sorry but I'm just struggling to see the necessity for a woman to spend her days at home from ages 0-18. Saying nothing of the fact that few women are having 4, 5 and 6+ kids anymore which means women are supposedly spending all this time at home in order to "raise" their what, one or two children? Who spend half their time either out of the house or on social media?

 

Of course a woman can get a part time job if she wishes after the kid goes to school. She could also do other things she enjoys, other than taking care of the house and her husband. In my opinion the kid should feel secure that mom is there.

 

I would never knock a woman for her choice to stay at home but I feel thoroughly insulted when those who make that choice act as if their way is the best possible choice

 

I support every choice a woman make when it has to do with herself only. When there is a child involved, please allow me to have my own opinion.

 

I also feel like my intelligence is being insulted when I hear women say they stay home because they "need" to "be there" for their children. "I don't want to work", while perhaps not the most flattering phase is at least a lot more honest.

 

Your intelligence is insulted? Lol. You just insulted millions of women all over the world who actually enjoy (or would enjoy if they didn't have to work) to stay at home and watch their kids grow up and take care of them rather than give them to a stranger to raise them.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Alright I'll try one more time. When started entering the workforce and making money, many of them still got married and to working men. So then they have 2 people bring home the beard. Well the then landlords said, hey we can raise the rent because they can afford it and they did.

 

Oh sweetie (and I mean that at least semi-affectionately), you really don't have even the most basic understanding of economics. That's...that's just not how things happened.

 

 

Whether that was the intent, IDK, all I know is they can't raise the rent if enough people couldn't afford to pay.

 

Today, where I live, despite the rising level of poverty rents continue to skyrocket and the price of food and gas stay high despite the increasing number of those unable to afford it because that's the way capitalism works. My father and in fact a few good friends of mine work in property management and development and I have watched landlords and owners endure 40-60% occupancy (which means nearly half or more vacancies) rather than lower the rent. People can't afford to pay what they're charging so they evict them and deal with no tenant rather than one paying less than they feel they deserve. That's capitalism.

 

During the Great Depression - a largely pre-feminist era mind you - millions of people were either out of work entirely or woefully underemployed. Landlords didn't go down on the rent because people couldn't afford it. Banks didn't forgive or lessen outstanding debts because they weren't being paid. If people couldn't afford it, they couldn't have it. Which is why people lived in tin shacks lined with tarpaulin or in tents or on the streets.

 

People were being evicted, foreclosed on or simply tossed out onto the streets for non-payment and rents were at a certain rate despite people's obvious inability to stay afloat in that economic climate because people want and need to be paid, to earn their own living.

 

The price of food went up (and stayed there) due to outside circumstances like drought (a thing we're currently experiencing in present day California) and the market simply would not allow for a price reduction. The market wouldn't allow it. That is to say, the economy.

 

You've conflated capitalism, economics, feminism and so many other ideologies and systems I don't even know where to begin.

[camillalev]

Oh sweetie (and I mean that at least semi-affectionately), you really don't have even the most basic understanding of economics. That's...that's just not how things happened.

 

 

 

 

Today, where I live, despite the rising level of poverty rents continue to skyrocket and the price of food and gas stay high despite the increasing number of those unable to afford it because that's the way capitalism works. My father and in fact a few good friends of mine work in property management and development and I have watched landlords and owners endure 40-60% occupancy (which means nearly half or more vacancies) rather than lower the rent. People can't afford to pay what they're charging so they evict them and deal with no tenant rather than one paying less than they feel they deserve. That's capitalism.

 

During the Great Depression - a largely pre-feminist era mind you - millions of people were either out of work entirely or woefully underemployed. Landlords didn't go down on the rent because people couldn't afford it. Banks didn't forgive or lessen outstanding debts because they weren't being paid. If people couldn't afford it, they couldn't have it. Which is why people lived in tin shacks lined with tarpaulin or in tents or on the streets.

 

People were being evicted, foreclosed on or simply tossed out onto the streets for non-payment and rents were at a certain rate despite people's obvious inability to stay afloat in that economic climate because people want and need to be paid, to earn their own living.

 

The price of food went up (and stayed there) due to outside circumstances like drought (a thing we're currently experiencing in present day California) and the market simply would not allow for a price reduction. The market wouldn't allow it. That is to say, the economy.

 

You've conflated capitalism, economics, feminism and so many other ideologies and systems I don't even know where to begin.

 

Have you watched the "they took our jobs" episode of South Park? Some of the arguments going on remind me if that

[lollipopspot]

It wasn't feminism that pushed women into the workforce in large numbers - feminists never had the kind of power that anti feminists think they do. In the 20th century, among other things, it was a combination of the war and economic policies that made it necessary for many families to have two incomes to survive.

 

Before the war young women typically worked for a few years, then left their jobs when they married and had children. But when the war broke out and millions of men left factory jobs to fight overseas, the government encouraged women to enter the workforce, often to do jobs they had never done before.

 

By 1943, six million women had entered the work force, and nearly half of them were working in defense plants. LIFE magazine paid tribute to the mythical “Rosie the Riveter” as “neither drudge nor slave but the heroine of a new order.” Rosie’s image was used in government advertising campaigns encouraging women to enter the workforce with the slogan “We Can Do It”.

THE WAR . At Home . Family | PBS

 

(even though women were still denied access to a lot of higher education, professional jobs, etc.). It wasn't feminism driving "Rosie the Riveter."

 

Then, Reagan's union busting and other policies that lowered the income of lower and middle class workers hurt them in such that families needed to have two workers to make ends meet. Again, not feminism driving mothers to the workforce, many of whom would have preferred to stay home.

[OwMyEyeball]

There was no law saying they couldn't. At this point it's already done, we can't go back. We need to working parents, unless one makes really big bucks.

Let's say, inflation aside, real wages for men had doubled. No feminism, women are at home.

 

Landlords, seeing that they could charge more, did.

 

Wouldn't this bother you? That a class of society sees it fit to take more of your money, despite having no increase in costs, while giving you nothing in return?

[gaius]

So? I'm a feminist as well, or I want to be. I want all people (men and women) in the world to be able to choose what they want to do in their lives. What I am saying though is that after feminism women can choose to work but if they choose to stay at home and raise their kids they are stigmatized by the society and being called names by the feminists themselves. Where are the equal rights and free choice for these women? Why am I being called a lazy gold - digger when I choose with my partner to stay at home, have kids and raise them? Why doesn't society aknowledge my right to do this and help me, at least ethically?

I see stuff like that happening to a lot of women who don't fit the totally equal with men ideal. Like a guy to pay for you, like a guy taking control in the bedroom, like to stay home with the kids. The women that are more apt to identify as feminist seem a lot less eager to admit to those things openly. Like it's a shameful secret almost.

 

And Jay is probably very correct about 2 working parent households driving up property values and rents. Women being able to support themselves and live alone obviously drives up demand on a massive scale. You can't really make a serious argument that didn't have something to do with it. But that doesn't make women being able to work and live alone a bad thing overall.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Don't go. Please tell us one more time how much of an anti-feminist you are.

 

Excuse me? Sure, yeah I'll do that but only if you pinky swear to remind us once again how your desire to sit and "raise the children" has nothing to do with the fact that work sounds unpleasant to you and you'd rather your husband deal with all that while you enjoy hobbies at home.

 

There are certainly exceptions to every rule. There are of course lazy women who just have kids without wanting them just to have an excuse not to work. We are not talking about these women.

 

According to whom, exactly? Forgive me, I thought we were talking about all kinds of women. My mistake .

 

Of course a woman can get a part time job if she wishes after the kid goes to school. She could also do other things she enjoys, other than taking care of the house and her husband. In my opinion the kid should feel secure that mom is there.

 

So, in your view it's best a woman either get herself a fun little part time job or send her days simply idly enjoying herself. Yes, a lot of "mothering" there I see.

 

Your intelligence is insulted? Lol. You just insulted millions of women all over the world who actually enjoy (or would enjoy if they didn't have to work) to stay at home and watch their kids grow up and take care of them rather than give them to a stranger to raise them.

 

How did I insult millions of women? All I asked was that more of them be honest about their reasons. Because I have some news for you, "watching your kids grow up" is hardly labor intensive nor an active engagement. A million women "watch their kids grow up" from the comfort of their living rooms while they're also watching Real Housewives of whatever.

[jay1983]

Oh sweetie (and I mean that at least semi-affectionately), you really don't have even the most basic understanding of economics. That's...that's just not how things happened.

 

 

 

 

Today, where I live, despite the rising level of poverty rents continue to skyrocket and the price of food and gas stay high despite the increasing number of those unable to afford it because that's the way capitalism works. My father and in fact a few good friends of mine work in property management and development and I have watched landlords and owners endure 40-60% occupancy (which means nearly half or more vacancies) rather than lower the rent. People can't afford to pay what they're charging so they evict them and deal with no tenant rather than one paying less than they feel they deserve. That's capitalism.

 

During the Great Depression - a largely pre-feminist era mind you - millions of people were either out of work entirely or woefully underemployed. Landlords didn't go down on the rent because people couldn't afford it. Banks didn't forgive or lessen outstanding debts because they weren't being paid. If people couldn't afford it, they couldn't have it. Which is why people lived in tin shacks lined with tarpaulin or in tents or on the streets.

 

People were being evicted, foreclosed on or simply tossed out onto the streets for non-payment and rents were at a certain rate despite people's obvious inability to stay afloat in that economic climate because people want and need to be paid, to earn their own living.

 

The price of food went up (and stayed there) due to outside circumstances like drought (a thing we're currently experiencing in present day California) and the market simply would not allow for a price reduction. The market wouldn't allow it. That is to say, the economy.

 

You've conflated capitalism, economics, feminism and so many other ideologies and systems I don't even know where to begin.

 

Okay see this is a good argument aside from the snarky comment up top.

 

Good job. (no sarcasm intended)

[lollipopspot]

What I am saying though is that after feminism women can choose to work but if they choose to stay at home and raise their kids they are stigmatized by the society and being called names by the feminists themselves. Where are the equal rights and free choice for these women? Why am I being called a lazy gold - digger when I choose with my partner to stay at home, have kids and raise them? Why doesn't society aknowledge my right to do this and help me, at least ethically?

 

So you think it's feminists who are calling you a "lazy gold-digger" for staying home with your kids?

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Feminists don't tend to label other women "gold diggers" - that's a pretty sexist term. And it's actually feminists who tried to give credit to moms by saying that they work too, and coming up with those tables to show how much they would earn if they were doing similar work outside the home, etc.

 

You have your arrow pointed at the wrong target. I think a lot of conservative women find a way to blame other women for the results of large economic and other forces. It's more comfortable to fight horizontally than vertically, where the real power is.

[Lernaean_Hydra]

Okay see this is a good argument aside from the snarky comment up top.

 

Good job. (no sarcasm intended)

 

 

Well I said I meant it semi-affectionately...

[ufo8mycat]

The result of feminism, not the intention. I keep repeating myself. Hey seial muse, you think maybe, just maybe you're wrong? Has that ever that ever crossed your mind?

 

I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world for housing prices - both renting and buying and have lived here since it went totally gangbusters price wise in the late 1990's.

 

As a general rule you need two incomes to buy or even rent within 10k of the city. This has nothing to do with feminism and EVERYTHING to do with global economic circumstances. We had a large ex-pat population who bought property in AUD but were earning pound or Euro. Then returning to Australia with lots and lots of money. This pushed prices up as people were able to pay more.

 

Then there was the GFC, which didn't really impact Australia as we were in a mining boom. It was this book that saw housing prices in Western Australia absolutley skyrocket for a fibro shack. Those clever feminists and their iron-ore mines pushing housing prices up.

 

Now we have plenty of investment of Asia, particularly the growing wealth in China investing in the property market and renting. Again, maintaining prices high. We also have tax incentives to buy property - negative gearing. Those on two incomes are able to make better use of this.

 

Maybe the US is different though where feminists have more power than the economy.

 

I am a feminist and I know plenty of other feminists. Men, women, mums who stay at home and mums who work.

 

We talk about about choice and for many women choice was very limited until the late 60's. Particularly in terms of education, work and family. I don't think many feminists take issue with mums who choose to stay at home but it needs to be acknowledged that this is a choice that must be enabled by a partner with the support and means to allow this.

 

Not everyone has this.

 

As a feminist, I would also like to see men have the opportunity to exercise a choice to spend more time with their families; and for women to support this. I believe parents are good for kids and women are not the gatekeepers to parenting beyond the first few months.

 

I also don't believe it is reasonable to expect feminists to represent every group in terms of achieving equality. For example, not all feminists support transgender women. Men need to have their own voice and arguments rather than stamping an obnoxious foot going "what are the feminists doing about <insert my issue here>.

 

The thing about any shift in power dynamic is where one gets more (the ability to work, control over fertility, the ability to leave a relationship etc) then it follows that the other must acceed some power, but that doesn't happen easily.

 

In the workplace I still observe men not wanting to share power with women. The tactics are very subtle and subversive but they are there. Of course, it is not recognised as a power shift. It is called women not wanting to work long hours or having meetings at times when anyone with child care responsibilities cannot attend (but mostly women). When in reality a cultural change can be more accommodating. If men took on more responsibilities for house and family then this change would happen really, really quickly.