|
|
|
|
|
| | The paradox of female liberationPage 6 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | Jim:
The view is not that women at home is demeaning. What is demeaning is that women did not have a choice to move outside of the home. That is the point of feminism.
You can prop up the woman's importance in the home (as a means of throwing the finger to feminism) but you're missing the point. Men are just as capable of taking care of children in 'the home' just as women are. Likewise, women are just as capable of doing 9 to 5, just as men are.
That is the point of liberation. I can do it, you can do it. And for centuries the adage was: I am man and only I can do certain things. And that is the problem!
That is what liberation is trying to change! And i'm right on board with it.
J. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 6:56:53 AM |
This is some of the stuff I've been referring to about there is no liberation until all are liberated. This does include the fact that if men are required to register for the draft. This is one area where until women have the same requirements as men, then there is no liberation. Swapping power from one side to the other is not balance & without balance there is no equality.
Yes women should have the opportunities, but as one of my elders put it, "The price of free will is responsibility." For these equal freedoms that women want & deserve, there is the responsibility that goes along with it.
I'm not women bashing here. There are a lot of women who have made great strides in moving women into a more balanced place in society. I'm one of those women. But to expect to have the benefits without taking responsibility for them is not balance. That also brings up the fact that men (in order to remain in balance in this changing society) have to take more responsibility in ways and places they are not accustomed to as well.
I will disagree with the source of the stats saying women make more than men. There are stats that can be quoted for the other end of that argument. Plus I have personal first hand experience to quote from....and to add to that, women often have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good. However, I do not believe that a job should be filled with a (whomever) just because they are a (whomever or whatever). The best person for the job should get it regardless of their gender, race, or whatever.
Your's is the first post that makes sense. I honestly do not wish to be perceived as a woman "basher" that is not my intent. Never has been. But in light of our current social "mindset" it seems all too often that men are constantly bashed, shamed, ignored, insulted and made out to be the source of all evil and discord in the world.... not to mention utter buffoons. And every woman somehow feels justified and is given a free pass to do so.
There was one post I read (while catching up) where the woman complained that men
didn't even let us vote not so long ago. And she has NEVER had the opportunity to vote NOT given to her... As if she, somehow by her gender, is laying claim to the sufferage that others before her had to endure... Please...
There are still aspects to our "enlightened" society that completely BAFFLE the senses... As one poster brought up the "Unisex" experiment phase... WTF??
We've somehow lost sight of what Men and Women are... Who they are... and, from my small corner of the world... Why.
All too many women seem to be caught up in some sort of imaginary struggle to "prove" themselves. They wanted to go directly into competition with men, because they felt they were just as good as a man, and in some instances better. They, seemingly are frustrated at what they are calling a "glass ceiling" "inequality" or what have you... but it seems to me they are really frustrated with the competition itself!
Suddenly they are finding out that its not as easy as they think it is, looking from the outside in... and are now blaming men.
I believe that the best person qualified for the job... should get the job.. as well as the monitary benefit, the prestiege and all the priveleges that go with it. But, by the same token... if two equally qualified people apply for a job... same credentials, same education, same experience... one male, one female... IF that job requires a flexible schedule, where occasionally there may be some long overtime hours put in... if the job is given to the male prospect because he doesnt have children... the woman cant complain that she is being discriminated against... its the requirement of the job!
As for the statistics... The lies and falsified 'facts' that the feminist propaganda machine have thrown out there to stir up the masses, are just that... Lies and False 'facts'... Do I believe that at one time women made less than men... doing the same job? Yes... not going to deny it... but people.. this is 2008. If you really want to argue facts from the '60's era... and get all bent out of shape over it... Go Ahead... What happened in the past, happened in the past.
I started a thread once about the SCUM Manifesto... You want to argue about all the hardships women have endured... great.... I have YET to see a document that a Man has written that has called for the irradication of the gender, such as the Manifesto has. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 6:59:12 AM | The view is not that women at home is demeaning. What is demeaning is that women did not have a choice to move outside of the home. That is the point of feminism.
Got no problems with that but since the women are out of the homes, look at the results. Just the rise in teen pregnancy is one indication of female "liberation". So much so that it's the norm now. Don't you just feel liberated?
You can prop up the woman's importance in the home (as a means of throwing the finger to feminism) but you're missing the point. Men are just as capable of taking care of children in 'the home' just as women are. Likewise, women are just as capable of doing 9 to 5, just as men are.
Sure they are but when both parents on gone for most of the day working, the family unit suffers. And in it's place we have TV, internet and video games left to raise the kids. And when they act up, Ritalin is the cure.
That is the point of liberation. I can do it, you can do it. And for centuries the adage was: I am man and only I can do certain things. And that is the problem!
That is what liberation is trying to change! And i'm right on board with it.
Again, got no problems with equality. But for all the change that has occured, have we really progressed as a society? No, we've gotten a lot worse. A whole hell of a lot worse. | |
|
IQF
| | Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 129 | |
| |
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:06:48 AM |
I think the olds ways worked best for those who enjoyed it..Dad went to a job...Moms job was taking care of Dad, home, children..I was a full time Mother at home..It was a full and important job..It was nice to focus on building and nurturing my family while my husband took care of the money stuff..
There...fixed.
I agree. But women now think that those roles are demeaning which is completely false.
I don't get that impression, nor do I think it's demeaning - but it SHOULD be something a woman wants to do, not HAS to do.
Women are the cornerstone of a strong family unit and as such, hold more importance than what the feminist want you to believe.
Women CAN BE a very strong cornerstone of a family unit should she want to be there, and have that family. Don't you think she should have a say in whether or not she wants to actually be there? If I were one of her children, you bet I'd want her to actually enjoy where she is in life.
In fact I dare say that women have more of a role in keeping it together than a man ever could. But that's also assuming the man is holding his end up as well. It takes two. Remember that word, TWO.
Yes, when a family is created it does take two. That's not always the case, or the objective.
Women's lib is about choice. Some wives/mothers loved doing what they did and that's where they were most happy, others left their kids in the living room, locked themselves in a closet and took valiums or other drugs/alcohol to cope, because having a husband and cranking out children wasn't what they wanted to do - but at that time, there wasn't much of a choice unless of course she wanted to live at home forever and have the bulk of society shame her for being selfish.
Now, women who want to be wives and mothers can be, and those who don't want that life don't have to be. That's what it's all about. After all, men can identify - they never had to marry if they didn't want to, and as far as I know, none of them ever had to carry children (tho that'd be entertaining to watch). | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:11:50 AM | If I were one of her children, you bet I'd want her to actually enjoy where she is in life.
You mean when she actually spends TIME with you when she's not out pursuing her dream job? That's the whole point. When you have kids, YOUR life takes a back seat to making absolutely sure those kids come FIRST. That's where liberation fails. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:21:50 AM | You mean when she actually spends TIME with you when she's not out pursuing her dream job? That's the whole point. When you have kids, YOUR life takes a back seat to making absolutely sure those kids come FIRST. That's where liberation fails.
You lost me there. If I was a child of a woman who wanted to be home with a husband and kids, I'd have a stable upbringing; and there'd be no dream job, cause she chose the housewife thing, so she'd be content. She'd spend time with her husband and kids cause it'd be where she planned on being in her life. No clue what your point is there.
If she didn't want to be there cause she'd RATHER be out working, then instead of being married with kids she should be out working. Years ago those who didn't want marriage and kids had to do one or both anyway, cause they had no other acceptable options. THOSE are the mothers that lived tortured lives cause they weren't doing what they wanted to do. I wouldn't want to be the kid of a mother that didn't REALLY want to be a mother....and I should know, I was.
That's what I mean about choice - no one's forced to do anything anymore...and that's the way it should be. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:23:04 AM |
But it seems to me that nowadays the society expects that a woman should be successful at her work place as well as as a mother and a wife.
I don't think that's quite so true anymore. I personally still get quite a bit of shocked faces staring back at me when I'm asked if I got a hubby and a pack of kids.. and the answer is no. It's not as bad as it was 10 years ago, though. And generally speaking... when the askers of said question are female... it seems like they're the most shocked.. on average.
Do you realize that this will drastically change the demographic makeup of the planet
and consenquently its political situiation as well?
No because I think there will always be women who prefer the more traditional route. They are the ones who will keep this planet populated. the rest of us who don't want to be a mommy will just be glad to be doing what we're doing. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:24:19 AM | A woman's life doesn't have to take a back seat to anything just because she chooses to raise a family! Being a parent is a big responsibility, but raising a child is a gift with many rewards. Gone are the days when Dad was the sole bread winner, and Mom stayed home to look after the home and children, we all know that the cost of living has gone way up and many women went to work to help out the family finances. It just took men a while to realize that they have to pitch in with doing more of the household chores and the younger generation has stepped up a lot earlier. That may be why many younger people wait until their 30's to get married and start families, but by then most of them have already bought their own home and can afford to have one parent at home. But in most cases, women go back to work when their maternity benefits expire, and that's when their workload can become overwhelming. Moms don't get a day off at home! 
Pink | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:33:18 AM |
The view is not that women at home is demeaning. What is demeaning is that women did not have a choice to move outside of the home. That is the point of feminism.
You can prop up the woman's importance in the home (as a means of throwing the finger to feminism) but you're missing the point. Men are just as capable of taking care of children in 'the home' just as women are. Likewise, women are just as capable of doing 9 to 5, just as men are.
That is the point of liberation. I can do it, you can do it. And for centuries the adage was: I am man and only I can do certain things. And that is the problem!
That is what liberation is trying to change! And i'm right on board with it.
That is a very limited view on what the "feminists" have brought to bear. Once again, dealing with the year 2008... Women have the choice to do just about anything they want... yet they seem to pick and choose what they wish to be "liberated" about.
You're statement flies like a banner for some Shining Knight, looking to seperate yourself from the "herd" of unworthy men... Hope that works for you...
Personally, I'd rather keep my spine. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:34:06 AM | Jim, did you want to think this one through a bit?
1.) You're actually saying teen pregnancy is caused by women's liberation. Really?
First, you have to offer me facts to prove this. Second, again, really?
2.) Children in Canada (and yeah i'm just being a prick now) are put in school at age 3. At what age are children put in school in the States? Children come home at 4ish. My work day ends at 4ish. I would thus go home at 4ish and take care of the kids. 2 year olds do not watch bad tv. they don't play video games and use the internet. Children, teens, etc. are supposed to be in school from 8 to 4. Just as we are meant to be at work.
3.) Jim, 50 years ago, we had segregated schools. 60 years ago, Hitler killed 12 million people. etc. etc. I'm not sure why you think society has gotten worse, but even if you were right, blaming society's turn on women's liberation seems to be a faulty argument at best.
If women's liberation was soooo flawed, why haven't men picked up the slack? Why blame women? Hmmmmm? | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:39:09 AM | Smuggler:
I'm not trying to separate myself from the male herd. I'm trying to be intelligent about this and objective. Screw the shinning knight shit.
I understand what you're saying, but back it up with facts, yeah? Offer examples when you say something like, "yet they seem to pick and choose what they wish to be "liberated" about." Okay, what? Give examples!
Also, you are a male, yeah? What if you're simply seeing the situation from a male point of view? I'm not saying this is wrong, i'm just saying your view of the situation maybe tainted by the fact that you're a male. Just like a woman would see what you're saying as Bullshite and macho. You're coming at the problem tainted. Not objective.
J.
P.s. I'm not sure what "keeping your spine" means...but good for you! | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:42:33 AM |
Msg: 113 -- Could it be that in spite of all the innovations that we have, the "classical " gender roles still persist deep in our psyche, not when we are making a career choice, but when we are making a mate choice.
Speaking solely for myself, this is exactly what I want when "making a mate choice". Gender roles mean nothing in the professional world unless I begin to consider a specific woman for a "mate choice". Then and only then does her chosen career come into play. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 7:51:40 AM | 1.) You're actually saying teen pregnancy is caused by women's liberation. Really?
First, you have to offer me facts to prove this. Second, again, really?
I'm blaming that on the lack of at least one stay at home parent. Either gender would do. When both are gone, other influences are left to take care of children. The results though are usually not good.
2.) Children in Canada (and yeah i'm just being a prick now) are put in school at age 3. At what age are children put in school in the States? Children come home at 4ish. My work day ends at 4ish. I would thus go home at 4ish and take care of the kids. 2 year olds do not watch bad tv. they don't play video games and use the internet. Children, teens, etc. are supposed to be in school from 8 to 4. Just as we are meant to be at work.
And that's good for you. When children reach a certain age, then it's fine to go back out in the workforce. Just make sure your job takes a back seat to the raising of those kids.
(That's what I meant DJ)
.) Jim, 50 years ago, we had segregated schools. 60 years ago, Hitler killed 12 million people. etc. etc. I'm not sure why you think society has gotten worse, but even if you were right, blaming society's turn on women's liberation seems to be a faulty argument at best.
50 years ago, teen pregnancies, drug use, gangs, ADD, Ritalin, were not the norm. Wanna tell me where we went wrong? Maybe we were too concerned with satisfying our own shelfishness that we let others take over our responsibilities.
If women's liberation was soooo flawed, why haven't men picked up the slack? Why blame women? Hmmmmm?
You go work and I'll gladly stay at home raising the kids, cooking and cleaning. The point is, someone actually should be there. Or at least be there enough to ensure that those kids are being properly raised. And honestly, I could care less if the woman is the breadwinner or makes more. My satisfaction comes when I look at those kids 30 years from now and know I did my JOB properly. And that's not demeaning at all.
My problem is not female liberation. It's when the liberated female puts that before all else. Ya see? | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:08:36 AM | Jim:
Right on, now you sound more objective.
And i've got nothing to argue. Except that whole Ritalin, ADD, gangs and stuff. I still think you're not seeing the bigger picture on that one. I'm not so sure that society has gone "WRONG" I think soceities have always (always, always) had problems and will continue to have problems. Today it's gang violence, 200 years ago it was coy-boy violence. Today we have Ritalin, 60 years ago teachers slapped kids with rulers. 50 years ago we had gangs, it's just that they used knifes, not guns. etc. etc.
All of this though, it beyond the scope of this thread. Yeah?
Indeed. | |
|
IQF
| | Joined: 6/7/2008
Msg: 141 | |
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:10:24 AM |
hmmm... now this is thought-provoking. I think it is, I don't know, obscure perhaps... to tie in ones work occupation with identity. I am not the work that I do . . . however, my ego might have just had a big life lesson if I have confused who I am with what I do.
For the record, I agree with your philosophy, but disagree that this philosophy reflects society. I think we've sidestepped the question though which follows from:
Since it fails the test of being applicable to identity I fail to see how we can use it effectively to identify masculinity or femininity.
Indeed! So how do you define these two words?
The OP returns with
Most women ( at least my high paid friends) have this silent and deeply set dream of a "strong" macho men, who would take care of her in any sense possible. And it's funny because these women are quite macho-like themselves, since you do need a certain character to succedd in the male-dominant careers.
implying of that masculinity is "strong", but that in the liberated world, women are co-opting these characteristics themselves. Do these women need men who are even more masculine? It doesn't sound like they want feminine ("weak"?) men. I suspect equating "weak" with "feminine" wouldn't be a very popular position anyway.
It would actually work out better I think, if masculine men and feminine women got together, and feminine men and masculine women got together, whatever the definitions of the m&f words are. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:46:10 AM | Op, speaking of "real mature"......... funny........you didn't have a problem slinging that "mud pie" back, did ya?
The topic was not what the rest of the world has done...........or is doing.
And frankly, no I'm not interested in hearing how other countries, particularly, one that pays because a woman has/had a child.
I think you are getting riled due to the fact that you immigrated here.
I also do not need you to speak down to me about what is wise or unwise....in your global world.
Excuse me, how does a person who made the comment about kinder guild, equate to a history teacher?
So wonder no more.....say revolution in Mexico.
Bad comparison...............Germany and Mexico.
My point, try to stay with me, is if it's complains about how the government of the USA, does not help by, supporting.......doling out money...........and another country does...........
and they are not happy about it, bye bye.
Your comment to that was mature?
I have also noticed the way you answer the men...........no matter how negative their response and you defend their responses with "every one's opinion is valid"........
Not the case with here, huh?
Now about you paradox..........
women have babies....that can't be changed...........don't want to give birth, don't.
It being a "man's" world is no longer the case and has not been for years.
I learned long time age that men maybe the head of things......a good woman is the neck and that turns the head.
I'm a fourth generation of necks.
Bullying, whining and constant complaining does not change anything other than driving people away...........and most would run not walk.
You started this thread........this seems to be a problem to you.
Mainly your screaming uterus reminding you that your clock is ticking.......So,
What, in your opinion, is the solution to the problems you've stated?
Is this a problem that is currently bothering you, or a future one, that might happen?
A "what if".
You also commented on how men of another country are more willing to help........if that's the case, then why not try and choose one of those men as a future mate.
Then you would have someone who.........might, cause people do change.........be more help to you.
I agree with the comment that a family works together, it's a joint effort.
I witness the fruits of my labor........
I raised my children, 2 boys and 2 girls, the same way.
The training started when they were toddlers......."put this in the garbage for mommy, can you help mommy do this or that".
"OK, let's pick up the toys".........then........."if you get them out, you have to put them back".
They all learned how to cook and again it started at the toddler age.
When I made biscuits.......they had a small table and they made their own biscuits......and got so excited in the fact they got to eat their own cooking.
They learned to pick up their clothing and how to do laundry.
I contributed two males who knew how to live on their own.
We had art projects............a calendar with birthdays, holidays and other special occasions.
At the end of a month, we looked to see how many things where happening in the next month.
We made cards and presents.
The key to thoughtful, caring, helping and loving men is in the raising of the man.
My daughters both have husbands who share in the responsibilities........and they don't mind doing it.
Changing the world starts at home....hands on parenting.
To the lady who lost her husband, my heart goes out to you.
I don't see anything wrong with getting some assistance/help.......so you can get your footing and relieve some stress.
It's hard to think with so many things piled on you.
I can't say I know how it is to lose a spouse through death but I do know the grief of losing a child.
It's overwhelming and crippling.....God bless you and hold you closer.
I would see if there are other support/help groups to assist you.
Good luck, op, and keep looking.
I'm sure there's one man who will fit your bill.
One that will be up to your standards, not ask you your profession, make equal or more money than you and will help you with the raising of the children and do half the household chores.
ceeceekitty | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 8:58:29 AM | Yes female liberation is evil and the work of the devil. It has complicated the lives of men enormously to the point that not enough children are being born to re-populate the earth. I see the end coming very soon.
To save our race, things must change in our culture drastically. I have a plan of action. All young girls, starting as soon as they can walk, must be taught to serve men. This would begin with requiring all females to take courses in home economics to teach them how to cook, sew, clean, and properly make love to their men. Of course, they would be taught how to raise children. Every year of their schooling would have several hours each day devoted to the pursuit of making men happy.
Of course, they need to also be trained to make money so they can supplement their man's income. This is especially important, because the man may wish to stop working for a year or so to contemplate more important issues than supporting a family. It is very important that he have time to look at the stars (TV and the heavens) and to sample various brand of beer to find one that is just right.
The Eagle | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:30:16 AM | Understanding female liberation and it's ramifications also means understanding the 60's and all it entails. Gone then was the society of "happy days", Ozzie and harriet, father knows best and all of those 50's feel good mantra's about suzy homemaker. In came change, the war in Viet Nam, Woodstock, free love, the feminist movement and civil rights.
A sea change in society, from accepted norms to questioning anything we didn't like or wish to accept, as other generations had for decades before. This was tried in the 20's, along with a more aggressive, permissive and freer role for women. It ended with the great depression, and was not heard from till the 60's. One outgrowth of this was the "me" generation, and since feminism was center stage in this and a liberal government was in power in Congress many laws passed. Included were family law changes in the 1973, laws against discrimination both of race and sex.
Many people then set out on the "I" trail, I want this, I want that, I'm entitled to this or that. Of course I meant, if it's not working, change it, don't try to fix it. After all if it didn't benefit "I", what good was it. Divorce sky rocketed, up almost 10-15% per decade after that. Now I don't advocate that a woman stay married to a man who beat her, was a drunk or drug addict, or any of the major things that would put her life or her childrens in jepordy. Though "irreconcilable differences" meant you could cast off the old and on with the new, as easily as changing shirts. Try counciling for 2 months, then divorce. Women have been filing way more than 60% of divorce actions since the movement began.
While schools and education standards taught the same old ciriculum, women learned other lessons from Steinam, magazines and tv shows. "Maude" was a popular one who showed Maude in control and her husband as a bumbling fool. Men labored along under the guise of the old guard, "suck it up" "be a man" and the rest of that macho sh*t. While equality in all things is not achieved, it is alot closer. Women do for the most part recieve equal pay, they do have control of their bodies. They can say no to sex or to date anyone they wish. They can choose the lifestyle they want.
Men were asked and for the most part accepted, mandated hiring practices to equal the workforce. Changes in marital roles, sharing power and responsibilities. Many other changes as well. The government for it's part changed rules, implimented new departments designed to aid women in these efforts. Unfortunately with no balancing efforts for the man.
So now men will have CS seize 60% or more of their wages if they fall behind. Eliminate their drivers licenses if they don't comply, seize bank accounts. Yet men pay as a whole 70% of court ordered child support, while women pay as a group only 25% of court ordered child support. If domestic violence is alledged, the man must leave the home, even if the violence was against him by the woman. There are many other exmples of inequality that have grown out of feminism.
Like all things though, when one group has been made to suffer at the hands of another. That group feels justified in leaving things unbalanced, for their period of suffering. So gender roles that favor women, such as the US draft, or dating roles(who asks, who pays, who contacts first) or when they promote women into management roles to meet some quota. Women believe this is OK, while men chafe under the implied inequality that is current.
All this adds up to confusion about men's roles, their actions, their very own identity. Some are bitter, some angry, many accepting and alot confused. Men want to be men, they enjoy who they are just as women enjoy their being women. The acrimony tossed at each other helps no one. Balance and communication make relationships work, but entitlement builds resentment. No one trying to build a life together is entitled to do something for themselves at the cost of the other. Discussion of goals and needs is critical to success. All the talk on here won't change a damn thing, if you can't hear the other side. Comments like "he's only good for a paycheck if he has a job" won't foster cooperation. I ashamed to see not one woman commented on that. Bob | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 9:33:53 AM |
Smuggler:
I'm not trying to separate myself from the male herd. I'm trying to be intelligent about this and objective. Screw the shinning knight shit.
I understand what you're saying, but back it up with facts, yeah? Offer examples when you say something like, "yet they seem to pick and choose what they wish to be "liberated" about." Okay, what? Give examples!
Also, you are a male, yeah? What if you're simply seeing the situation from a male point of view? I'm not saying this is wrong, i'm just saying your view of the situation maybe tainted by the fact that you're a male. Just like a woman would see what you're saying as Bullshite and macho. You're coming at the problem tainted. Not objective.
Yeah there big guy... You are sounding very much like a Shining Knight.
You speak of Womens Liberation... From what?? I mean really... The right to Vote? The right to Work? The right to do what?
"yet they seem to pick and choose what they wish to be "liberated" about."Okay, what? Give examples
Oh so many "enlightened" women of today, who had to "fight" for the right to vote, really havent fought for much of anything. The right to Vote was given to them, but they bear no responsibility... they just want the "right"
For a male in the states to gain the "right to vote" he must, under penalty of law.. [$25000 fines and/or up to 5 years in prison] register for the draft.
In some states, failure to register means you also dont get a Drivers License.... Nor are you given student financial aid.
Now, what woman has to register for the selective service, to obtain the right to vote, to get a drivers license, or to get studen aid??? They Dont! Simple FACT that you wanted...
But every feminist in the country will say they're "fighting" for something.... I don't see them "fighting" for the opportunity to sign up for the draft, or to bear that responsibility.... but they are getting the "rights" and "priveleges"....
And no... to answer your question, it has nothing to do with being "macho"... It has everything to do with having the cojones to stand up, and say that the "equality" that women seem to think we have, really isnt so equal.
Hey Bob... Nice to see you again. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 10:44:41 AM | Smuggler:
I see what you're saying....but....Are you fighting to sign up for the draft? Is ANYONE?
Your complaint shouldn't be with women or the fact they were handed something for 'free,' it should be with the system that forces MEN to sign up for the draft. That's the flaw, bro. No one should have to sign up for the draft to get to vote. NO ONE! So change that. Don't get mad at women because they fought for something and got it. Even if it does mean they get 'special' privileges (like not having to sign up for the draft). Get mad at the system for making YOU sign up for the draft.
I understand what you're saying and you're right: feminism does not (SEEM to) extend to the issues men face within this world. But that's because feminism has been fighting a different fight until now. As a doctrine it will progress. We're only getting to the point now where the playing field is less one-sided. That's the first fight. The second, will be to fix total inequality and this will come about when people like you who see the obvious flaws in the system (not feminism) make your voice heard.
With that, you don't really need to have 'balls' to say a system is flawed, Smuggler. I mean, women i've been saying it for generations...and they're ball-less...
Ahem. | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 11:13:30 AM | whereto, interesting point, if women were that disenfranchised and helpless in the corporate and government world, how did all those changes happen? Was it women who passed those laws? How many women sat on the Supreme Court to hear Roe v. Wade?
Those laws and changes took place because men in power recognized the inequalities and took action on it. We're they pressed by the women, yes. Did the media embrace it, yes. These men still could have passed half measures, enacted watered down laws to keep the "club" intact. They didn't, they stood up and did what was right.
Now that the proverbial pendulum has swung to far out of balance, instead of sitting back groups like NOW and others continue to lobby to keep the staus quo. I'm sure change will come and it will swing more into balance. But for women to sit smugly by and maintain "we fought for ours, now go get yours" seems a little self serving don't you think? After all we carried half the load to get things equal for them. Bob | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 11:25:38 AM | | bob - with all due respect, I don't think the pendulum has swung too far yet. After all, there is not a disproportionate number of women in charge, is there? | |
|
| The paradox of female liberation
Posted: 8/22/2008 11:34:00 AM |
I don't think the pendulum has swung too far yet. After all, there is not a disproportionate number of women in charge, is there?
There are also not a proportionate number of women who are willing to step up and be in charge, let alone be forced into that type of position.
Just like "inequality" in the work place, say on an oil rig... NOT too many women want to do that type of job... I dont see them clamoring to line up and be garbagemen.. but "statistically" speaking... its a male dominated field... | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Page
6
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
