Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 409
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?Page 21 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
I'm curious, and would really like some further discourse on this.
You said:
And are women/men really better off today...is society better because of what the radicals helped to create-teen-age pregnancies are rampant...jails are over-crowded...divorce is extremely high...drug/alcohol use is out of control...crime is now part of our permanent culture...we have new problems such as Lesbian gangs attacking their own gender in big cities...incidence rates of STD's haven't improved...parents jockeying for power in court rooms with lawyers at the expense of innocent kids who will become a new generation of dysfunctional individuals...no understanding of what LOVE really is anymore or respect for one another...and all this in one way or another can all be related to the break-up of traditional families where people are running back to religion scared in hope of finding salvation to the point couples can't even inter-act with each other and it's difficult to find a happy one...so tell me...why is it better...because of higher percentages for women in certain fields in the work force that would have come anyway through the natural progression of time at the expense of destroying all unity and our future as a nation?"


How did the feminist movement break up the traditional family? Somehow I thought (on a personal level) my "traditional family's" demise (and the demise of my OWN family) had more to do with my father's desire/ my desire to be married to someone else...

And being that I was born in 1970, I have only been part of the modern struggle for equality - which has more to do with being able to live my life as I choose regardless of my gender, not in spite or because of gender.

And then you said:

We'll see how safe you feel on the street when you remove all the male police officers that risk their lives everyday to at least give you some level of comfort...bottom line...I wonder how it would be with radical feminists running the show who are basically cowards for what they preach...


The police officers in my town are about 60/40 men to women, so on any given call, its the girls club protecting my interests as a citizen, as much as the boys, so I'm not sure what the point is here? She should be thankful there are male police officers? I'm thankful for ANY police officer, being as we have a major need for more of them.

Which "radical feminists" would be running the show, and what, exactly, are "they" preaching?

Everyone in this country is entitled to an opinion. It's the principle I served for. And we elect our officials, they are not appointed, so its unlikely that a "radical" anything will be elected, unless that's what the people of a certain populace desire... so if there exist certain "radical" elements, so be it. That's the great thing about this country. I am grateful that I live in a time where I can (for the most part) choose my path - and I will argue for, and defend, any person's right to their own path. At this point however, I'll take any viable alternative to "show running" than what we have now. Cuz at the moment, the way the show's being currently run, isn't to my liking. (and yes, I'm actively doing something about it) Is the devil you know REALLY better than the devil you don't?

Still not understanding how women's rights (or anyone else's rights) are a direct cause to the crap we are facing in society.

Criminals are criminals
STD spread is caused by a lack of responsibility
its tough to find a good relationship because we have become more selective as a society (ie. its not a requirement for survival, and the definition of "good" and "happy" have changed over time)
parental gridlock is a direct result of our generally litigious society (can we blame that on too many lawyers needing work?)

As our society evolves, we face new challenges, we can't take rights away in the hopes that going back to where we were will fix it. If where we were was the right place to be, there never would have been a fight/movement/interest in changing things to begin with.
Otherwise, we'd still all be British.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 411
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:27:10 AM
Women tend to see the world from a very ego-centric view , they don't know who does what and how much they completely need men in very real and practical terms .


Please take a daily note of how many women you cross paths with that do something for you, or made something you use.

We don't want to be completely independent from men, we just want to do what you do, because we want to. Just like you can do what we do, because you want to.
A difference in physiology does not NECESSARILY a difference in ABILITY make.

I wanna be able to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules, because I am a citizen of this country - because I have the inalienable right to do so.

That's like saying you can't be a nurse (a traditionally female job) because you weren't born a girl!

A PERSON made the things I use, created the systems I live in... that PERSON happened to be a man. I want to be able to be that PERSON because of my skills, abilities, passions and desires... not because of a chromosome that designates my sexual reproductive system.


Women are inherently the nurturer of our species. In that they need the support system that men offer.
Men are inherently the hunter gatherers of our species. To succeed at that they need the support of the women of the tribe.


The only problem with this generalization is that it is based on the supposition of fact that every woman, and every man, WANTS those roles.

I hire based on the skills and personality of the person, not the DNA. (I won't use gender, because of my above statement - gender is a ROLE, and can change, its not an indicator of DNA)

We, globally, need the support system of the society. As a society. No matter who does what job.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 413
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 11:46:52 AM
It didn't "just happen" to be a man . There is a reason it was man.


The matriarchal societies of the world and world history might beg to differ.
As might also the creators of the x-ray, the disposable cell phone, the windshield wiper, non-reflective glass, White-out....

BUT - Men also created war.
So, bully for you. (but thanks for the job... I needed it)

When PEOPLE change their mindsets from "DNA specific" abilities to "Person" specific abilities, we might get somewhere. This mindset does disservice to every man, or woman, who undertakes a non-traditional role in society.

Until then, I'll stick to my philosophies, and enjoy the freedoms my part in undertaking "non-traditional" roles have given us. (ALL of us)


That's a good thing because it would be mayhem if men treated women like they treat other men .Women would very quickly be conquered.


Welcome to mayhem... that's exactly what we've been trying to STOP. (or maybe, just maybe, if women, globally, were able to pursue their lives as they chose, with the same limitations as men, well... we might conquer THEM.) ~giggle~

It isn't about taking over, sir. It's about living your life as you see fit.
I'd like for you to have that right as well. Be a (fill in traditionally female role).
I don't care, and it doesn't threaten me.
But apparently it threatens you.
Some evolve faster than others, I guess.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 418
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:12:32 PM

Feminist garbage . Matriarchal societies are a "women's studies" fantasy. The other examples are the same.
Do some research .


I have, thanks.
maybe I should be more specific - matrifocal is the term most commonly used in the field - but then, our written history is dominated by PEOPLE who think along the same lines as you do, so they wouldn't even think to consider that anything other than a Y chromosome might have been "running the show".

For many Y chromosome dominant folks, (and the X chromosome people who agree with them) its about the power over others.

For those of us who believe otherwise, its about ability and desire - to live a free life of your own choosing.

I don't necessarily need power, I need freedom of choice.
I simply do not wanted to be limited in my choices (or limit anyone else) because your chromosome, and history says it should be (that negates free will)

It isn't men vs. women, unless you make it so.
And it's only "feminist garbage" because you don't agree, and do not want to lose the power you think you have.

Just because it is a certain way, doesn't mean its RIGHT.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 421
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:27:57 PM

did either of them actually see combat??


I have.
Thanks.
dude, you can disagree with me, but there is NO reason to insult me, or any other service member for doing their job.

and whether Grizzelda did or didn't is most likely a matter of chance, or the time she was in service, like my service was. (I didn't JOIN in a time of war, but I was AD when the BS started)

My ex-H DIDN'T see combat, I did.
Fluke of the rotation and the particular unit served in, and a very (thankfully) short war.

Every serviceman/woman who didn't serve in a combat zone, still served. It doesn't make their job/level of service/dedication/ability to make it happen any less. Plenty of us have given our lives in NON combat zone related situations - are their deaths LESS of a sacrifice?

I was just the unlucky one.
(and thankful to have survived relatively unscathed, when several of my friends did not)

You don't know who I am, or what I handled.
Just as I don't know anything about you.

To get back on point....
the freedom of choice of all women, globally, has improved in the last 50 years.
But this conversation has shown me we STILL have a long way to go.
We should not have to fight THIS hard, or be ridiculed for our choices, simply because of a societal believe that its "not our place".

I'd defend your a$$ in a firefight DD, (and your right to believe I don't belong there) because you are a fellow HUMAN BEING, not because you possess certain characteristics of one.

You are welcome for my service, defending your right to your opinion on a public forum.


Then step up to the plate, you seem hell bent on saying you're as good as a man, can do everything a man can do.... but to a different set of standards???


I didn't set the standards. I complied with them.
And I regularly completed the PFT to the standards set for my male Marines, because I was the only female in the shop.

I (and every other female on this planet) am/are as "good" as any man, as a baseline. It totally depends on skills, abilities, desire, education, and OPPORTUNITY.
I want to compete on a level playing field in my chosen expertise, which starts with the OPPORTUNITY to compete. I want you to have the choice to be a "stay at home dad" without someone looking at you funny or calling you a "pu$$y" or a "wimp". A man chooses to be an interior designer, of course he MUST be gay. A woman chooses to be a Marine/CEO/bricklayer she MUST be a Feminazi lesbian.

Those characteristics/personality traits are simply completely irrelevant to their ability to DO THE JOB. And most likely not TRUE.

I have stepped up, I prove myself every day in my actions. I treat PEOPLE as people, irrespective of their chomosomes. I hire gender neutral, and I promote based on ability. I teach my daughter and son they can be WHATEVER they want, based on their ability, drive, and desire. One shouldn't have opportunity the other does not because one is female and the other male.
 grizzelda
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 422
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 12:31:28 PM
While Grizz and Syd buddy up on the battle field... oh wait... did either of them actually see combat??


No of course not, there wasnt any wars going on at the time that needed fighting, and even if I wanted to, I wasnt allowed. There are also plenty of men that were in the forces who never saw combat in both countries, does that lessen their commitment or make what they did or were prepared to do any less? There are plenty of men today that are in the service and plenty of them will never see combat either, does that mean they are less committed or that their contribution is cheapened? Or are they bullshitting too, like you are implying here? But I will be sure to pass that along to my ex who is currently a serving member in the forces, in a combat trade, and who has been over in the Middle East more times than I can remember, who has lost friends and co-workers in non combat deaths or have had career and life altering injuries, that you think their sacrifice and dedication is less because they died while trying to support the combat troops and give them the best chance to stay safe. I am sure he will be glad to hear your thoughts on their deaths and whether or not they are as important as the troops on the ground.

Or perhaps you can call Capt Nicola Goddard's family and tell her that what she contributed and died for was less than her fellow male soldiers. HMMMM?
 cedar77
Joined: 7/17/2006
Msg: 431
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 7:37:05 PM


The point you made about expressing disagreement in this topic, Feminism, is a case in point. Here, if you are a man and express disagreement, apparently this topic is one in which there are no bound to civility. That it is perfectly fine to leap to conclusions about the disagreers motives, his relationship with women, with his mother. In this venue women who have so much invested in an ideology give each other licence to go directly to war. Listening in this venue is not necessary; that anyone who is disagrees with Feminism or who question some of its claims is an enemy.

Yup , that is very true .
Many guys know that well , and most don't want to deal with the b.s.
They are probably the smarter guys. lol
 zangie
Joined: 5/30/2007
Msg: 432
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/2/2008 8:03:11 PM
^^^in all fairness guys...men bash women too..I prefer to think it is a personality more than a gender..with the exception that women more often ( not always..I qualify..I can't even begin to express how much I hate having to state an implied obviousness on here..lol) get emotional in their debating, which may lead to insults or name calling..and more men are capable of being more rational and logical about it..these are one of those inherent differences in communicating between genders...and some people when they feel attacked ...fight back...I really don't think it has anything to do with feminism..as general debating styles, or gender perspectives...

I can't stand it either...I hate when anyone resorts to being nasty...and I have been on the bad end of that many times...

But, I do find it interesting that most men who are anti "feminism" are saying...acknowledge the differences...but, then when a woman does something that may be a reflection of being female, not a feminist..that they don't like...suddenly those differences aren't allowed? Suddenly we are now berated for being "typically" female? You guys can't have it both ways either...If I react emotionally to a topic that means something to me...I get chastised for not being logical and rational...but, guys...women more often are? Is it ok all the time? Or only when its' comfortable?

The general tone of these kinds of threads from a lot of the men...is pretty insulting..as a woman it is hard not to react in kind...it is also hard, for me at least...to respond in any way that isn't "natural" for me...and isn't that what some are saying? I can't pick and choose which more typically female traits to exhibit..it is what it is.

I don't consider myself a "feminist" in the classical sense..or the way it is being presented by the anti people..I am. however all in favor of people being treated as equal human beings..I guess I can't relate to the extremist point that is touted as the evil here...and I know few women who do..

I , personally, don't want to compete with men, or do anything that is particularly more male oriented in a career...but, I defend the right of a woman who wants to..

We have more choices now...that is cool...we can be/do whatever we want...we can vote..we can have opinions...we don't have to put up with abuse or repression...we are treated as people, not possessions for the most part...


But.....some days I wonder if the side effect of men hating women, calling me names, and refusing to be nice...because now I am equal..is worse....

Grizz: I can't go back and find the post number...but..that one post was particularly excellent...about assumptions?
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 445
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/3/2008 8:15:41 AM

I spent my time in, as well as 6 months in the sand box JTF Bravo, Dahook Northern Iraq. I earned my right to vocalize my opinion.


and I thank you, for your service to your country.

However, you were given that right by virtue of the constitution of the country you live in - at its founding. As an inalienable right.

The point of the women's movement was to give all citizens the same rights - and the fact that we even had to DO that, is a sad fact indeed.

Men and women are biologically different - but that does not negate the fact that we are all created equal, and should have equal opportunity.

Women invent, fight in wars, hold down nasty jobs. Many times without acknowledgment for those deeds, throughout history, because if discovered, they would lose their livlihood, or worse, their lives.

The accomplishments/sacrifices of men are not lessened by these acts, they are bolstered. When an entire populace is free to choose the path of their own lives, the society is strengthened.

No person is lesser than any other person by virtue of a physical characteristic (x/y chromosome, skin color or sexual orientation)

There are always radicals in any social movement (think Black Panthers during the Civil Rights Movement) but just because the radicals exist, does not mean that the cause they are fighting for is inherently wrong.

What, exactly, is the problem with all citizens of a country having equal opportunity?
Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean its right. Or should remain so.


~sydneyleigh
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 447
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago? [CLOSED Thread]
Posted: 10/3/2008 8:31:06 AM
There's only one problem: According to the experts, she's a fiction. "This romantically appealing image," writes one scholar, "is without foundation."


The article is saying that the "romantically appealing image" is a fiction. Not the woman herself, nor her accomplishments.

It's the personality some historians have injected into her life history. THAT is the part that is fiction.

This is not a person of history from the 16th century upon whom we are speculating. This is a person from 19th century England. She is no more fiction than her father, Lord Byron, is.
Certainly she was a blip on the screen (pardon the pun) in history until someone started digging. She was a female in aristocratic society in England. It would have been a scandal in society for a woman to be involved in mathematics - but that doesn't make it IMPOSSIBLE. (amazing that she did this, and married and had babies... )

Equality is about having the opportunity to do these things - its not about women replacing men. I just don't understand the bile that is being spilt here, towards women as a gender - simply because they want to be able to live the lives of their choosing.

Are men that afraid that we might take over? - - which I just don't see happening... because really, men are stinky, and have cooties... I don't WANT to be in your boys club. I just want to be able to be a Marine, or a welder, or the CEO, or the President, or stay home and raise my babies... without it being such a BIG DAMNED DEAL.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 450
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/3/2008 9:16:38 AM
With this now established , the problem lies with the fact that feminism demands not equal opportunity , but , equal outcome . Or more often the best outcome for the promotion of the narrow worldview of feminism at the expense of men , women and children.
Feminism has been a movement for the interests of the masculinization of women , it was definately not for the interests of men or non-feminist women or children .


I am truly sorry if this has been your experience with feminism. But where in this thread have any of the women expressed this man bashing view you cite? One would surmise that if this truly was modern feminism, at least one of us would have been expressing this viewpoint. All I have seen is women saying we want equal opportunity. Again, what's the problem with that?


Trust me , this Ada thing is such a feminist fiction that it's laughable .
Better not go there.
Here is the significant quote :
A Victorian countess is widely credited today as the first
....programmer -- but historians say that doesn't compute


The letters from Byron-King to Babbage exist. The person who began the research was the great-great-great grandson of Charles Babbage. I'm curious, if she didn't make the contributions, what motivation would this ancestor of Babbage have to bring it to light? So he could SHARE the credit instead of keeping the glory for his ggg-granddaddy? The historical evidence is there. Having read the entire Salon article, the parts you excerpt were in reference to the MOVIE - and the creative license taken on by the producer. The article goes on to say that while she did not accomplish EVERYTHING some say she did - she was extremely accomplished in her own right as a mathematician, and preceded Turing in theorizing the "Garbage in, garbage out" concept.

And FTR, Mattis is not a historian. He's a social media manager and vinaculturalist... (blogs.bnet.com/bio.php?id=mattis) He quotes "experts" - but historians argue over points on a regular basis. There are historians that posit that the earth is 6000 years old, and ones who believe that Hitler did not die in that bunker in WWII. I'll go with the evidence. The documentation. Until someone can prove otherwise. And your "significant quote" is the title of his article man, not exactly an earth shattering, well documented, revelation. You took your excerpts out of context to make your point...

Also from the same article...

Toole says Ada's immediate and substantive contributions lay in differentiating the Analytical Engine from its predecessor, using easy-to-read tabular format, and adding indices much like those in a modern computer program.


Toole is one of the biographers of Byron-King, and she states emphatically in that article that while some may say she is the "first programmer", Toole does not agree. The article is primarily about the MOVIE blowing the true accomplishments out of proportion.

(sort of like the myth of King Henry VIII. He was an a$$, but he wasn't (historical documentation backing it up) THAT big of an a$$ as some portray him. Nor was Elizabeth truly the "Virgin Queen".)

You are free to believe as you like... but if you are going all "historian" on us, back it up IN CONTEXT.

Often , men in the media / academia just play along with it , since they feel like : " ahh what can it hurt , let them have their little stories." or " yikes !, I better play along or I will have some angry lesbo feminist media columnist calling me a misogynist ! "

So, either the "men in the media/academia" are too stupid to do the research themselves to refute, or are molly-coddling their colleagues instead of treating them with the same professional standards? That has not been my experience in academia... I have had to document as any other historian does, and in some cases fight harder to have my views respected... (and no, my expertise is not women's studies - far from it) Wow, seems like the academics and media types you have been exposed to need to grow a pair. If they are so "right" and can document it, why would they care what the "bad feminists" call them?
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 452
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/3/2008 9:59:07 AM

Included a woman ? That could include an affirmative action hiree to the engineering department , that had practically nothing to do with the actual development , as just one example .


or it could have been they threw a man on the team to get the patent through the "old boys club"... and your point would be?

why IS it that you insist women make no significant contributions? Why is that point SO important to you?

We are not insisting that women did EVERYTHING (unlike your posts)- we are merely requesting that the accomplishments we HAVE made be acknowledged.

What is the deal with this? Is your ego so fragile that to give anyone other than a white male credit for something (ANYTHING it seems) would destroy your psyche?

I really don't think your self-esteem/identity is based solely on "the history of great white men". I think you are smarter than that.
 sydneyleigh
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 453
view profile
History
Were women better off 50 years ago?
Posted: 10/3/2008 10:06:13 AM

I know something of the type of primitive computer that Babbage pioneered . It is a mechanical device that uses gear ratios to compute simple mathematical equations by mechanical means . If a person can build/invent the computer , he is the programmer . So , it is just silly to think that Babbage was anything other than the first programmer or that he somehow needed Ada to program it for him .


As do I sir, and in fact, he never finished the machine... he was too much of a stubborn perfectionist. So he doesn't really earn the moniker either! It was a collaborative effort. The article does include the point that what we refer to as a "programmer" in modern times is not exactly what either Babbage or Byron-King were doing.

And ftr - the term "PC" has been twisted to refer to anything that might refute the idea that people should be treated equally, and with respect. A concept I find abhorrent. When you discount an idea based solely on a physical or physiological characteristic, its flat WRONG. Politically Incorrect is another term for "I'm going to be rude".
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >