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  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion      Home login  
Joined: 3/8/2006
Msg: 1
view profile
feminism...for discussionPage 1 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
From another site.... are feminists realizing it doesnt work? are men better off? are women better off? are children better off? Is society better for it?

by Henry Makow Ph.D.
(Slightly revised from "Feminist at the End of Her Rope," July 11, 2008)
What better example of stupid, self-defeating behavior than this advice from a veteran feminist?
In an article entitled "Marry Him" (Atlantic Monthly, March 2008) Lori Gottlieb advises her sisters to "settle"--marry anything in sight...and fast. This kind of abject surrender, while satisfying in an "I told you so" way, is also sad.

Millions of women who outsourced their common sense and trusted the media, their teachers, their leaders and their society are now high-and-dry. They were told they could have it all but most can't.

There are three times as many single women in their 30's now than there were in the 1970's. By the time these women have established their careers, many are too thread bare and hard bitten to marry, and the good men are all gone.
They are the victims of the most evil, most successful, social engineering program in history. It was designed to give women career instead of family. But until feminists acknowledge that they are victims of a cruel hoax, they won't be able to salvage whatever is left.

I'll elaborate later but first Ill give you a taste of the wisdom of a woman who defines "pathetic." ...

Ms. Gottlieb begins by describing a picnic where she and a friend (both mothers of sperm donor babies) are not feeling "satisfied." Surprise. They miss not having husbands. No doubt the children will miss not having fathers.

"Ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she longs for in life...what she really wants is a husband..." Gottlieb confesses.

While she and her friends "still call ourselves feminists and insist we're independent and self sufficient...every woman I know--no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure, feels panic ..if she hits 30 and find herself unmarried."
Sounding very much like a Jewish hysteric, her advice is to "Settle!" Forget about true love, his annoying habits, his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Marriage, she has discovered, is about having a team-mate, even if he's not the love of your life. She even recommends gays as possible mates.

How did she end up like this? Too much "education" I imagine. Too much feminist empowerment and Hollywood- fueled expectations of romance and men. Earlier in life, she dumped someone because, although they had "strong physical chemistry" and their sensibilities were similar, they proved to be "a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens."
Apparently, she was looking for a clone.

"Now, though, I realize that if I don't want to be alone for the rest of my life, I'm at the age where I'll likely need to settle for someone who is settling for me. .. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. ...Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option."

"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, "I'm fascinated by comas" and "I have a strong interest in terrorists." He'd never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I'll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, maybe I can settle for better. It's like musical chairs--when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you're not left standing alone?

"But then my married friends say things like, "Oh, you're so lucky, you don't have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons" or "You're so lucky, you don't have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want." I'll even hear things like, "You're so lucky, you don't have to have sex with someone you don't want to."

"The lists go on, and each time, I say, "OK, if you're so unhappy, and if I'm so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!"

"Not one person has taken me up on this offer."

Did I say Pathetic?


My advice to single women in their 30's-40's is -Do Not Panic. Do not "Settle." You are far better off alone than with a misfit. Also, whatever you do, do not have a child out-of-wedlock or from a sperm bank. That diminishes your chances of marriage big-time. Gottlieb is desperate to "settle" mainly because she has an infant on her hands.

The key thing to realize is that feminism was not spontaneous grass roots social change as portrayed. It was social engineering designed to phase out gender, marriage and the nuclear family. There are half as many nuclear families now than there were in the 1960's. The destruction of the family is part of a larger agenda to destabilize and depopulate society in advance of a thinly veiled totalitarian world government.

Sexual liberation is part of this agenda. Men see no reason to marry now that unfettered sex is so plentiful. I advise women to consecrate sex for long-term loving relationships and end them in 6-8 mos. if marriage is not imminent. Don't waste time on window shoppers.

Feminists have been neutered by adopting the male role model and eschewing the feminine one. They need to rediscover their natural feminine instincts. This involves finding a man they can believe in, and nurture, and not settling for less. True love stems from the sacrifice that women make for the person they love. Let him lead and keep quiet about all his faults. But don't let him take you for granted and dump him if he doesn't love you back (i.e look after your interests and needs.)

Generally speaking, the people behind elite social engineering are satanists in the sense they want to override God (Truth) AND Nature. They deliberately do evil against humanity.

Women were designed to marry and have children in their late teens and early twenties. That's when they are irresistible to young men. They should marry men who have graduated and are starting their careers.

Raising children is not an afterthought. It is what married people do together, what they have in common. It's natural growth, both biological and in terms of our personal development and fulfillment.

Nature doesn't give rain checks, as millions of women are discovering, the hard way.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 2
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/16/2011 3:00:41 PM
Sorry, dude, feminism is working for me and it is working for thousands of other women--and men--and they might not even realize it.

I saw how my mother lived. I saw how dozens of women in her generation lived and read about many more. The good old days were not so good.

Face it, women are liberated now. Get used to it.
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 3
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/16/2011 3:10:37 PM
Feminism like most things have brought about change, some good, some not so good. People forget that Feminism started out by many women who no longer wanted to be the property of a man. They wanted the right to work alongside men and be paid the same wage for the same work. These women wanted to be able to make purchases on credit in their own name and not need a husband to approve of their request. Women wanted to purchase homes and have mortgages on their own, at a time when it was unheard of. Women wanted to have a say in their body regarding children and a say in sexual activities. It was the feminist who started to take on the judicial system when it came to violent crimes against women. There was a long time when it was pointless for a woman to go to court charging a man with rape. Nothing happened to the man, the woman was told she caused the rape due to what she was wearing, where she was and
who she was with. A woman telling a man no to sex during that time held no consequences and men who committed rape just walked out of the courtroom laughing, while the woman was looked down on.

Its unfortunate that the media focused on women burning their bras, picking out lesbian women who were fighting for womens rights, while many men called women who wanted the change dykes. The media sometimes misses the mark when sensationalism sells papers, not necessarily the good being done in the world.

There is no such thing as a Superwoman, only in the comics. Women just like men cant do it all. In a marriage it takes both people to do all that is required and it should be rather equal. Relationships work as a partnership with love, respect, and needs to be taken care of like a beautiful garden. Its not like a picture you buy to hang on your wall, you dont hang it then forget about it.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/16/2011 5:02:38 PM
Periodically, SOMEONE publishes an article like this, proclaiming the end of SOME big movement or group belief. I don't know how many times I've seen articles "proving" that any day now, one of the big political parties in this country would call it quits. Liberalism is supposed to have dies, conservatism is supposed to have committed suicide, here we have Feminism said to have "failed."
It's all nonsense, because NONE of the groups or movements is a SINGLE ENTITY.
I'll bet if you investigate, you'll find that just as..
--declarations of Liberalism's end are made either by angry ex-pseudo-liberals or self-worshiping anti-liberals...
--declarations of the end of Conservatism are made by anti-conservatives, or resentment-filled ex-extreme conservatives...
...that THIS article was written by a wishful-thinking anti-feminist who sought out every HINT of a disenchanted woman he could find, just so he could write this silly thing.
Movements may taper-off once all of their goals are met (in which case, they WON), and they often learn to calm the excessiveness of their rhetoric, as their promoters learn that they are still a part of the world that they are trying to change, but they almost NEVER die.
Pretty much all of the unsubstantiated assertions made in this post are so old, I had a coughing fit reading through the dust on them. They had no rational support the first time I ran into them (back in about 1969, as I recall), and they have none now.
And yes, I can testify from my own experiences, that I am better off, and all the women I know are better off, my children are better off.
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/17/2011 9:42:34 AM
Anytime you use god or satan as your reasoning to demean a gender you have already lost your argument. Plain and simple, we are people, we all have every right to be humans and go the route we choose as long was we don't harm others. Having a certain genitalia is no mark of what one can or shouldn't accomplice, only ignorance or hate would cause one to think so. Don't blame gods or devils for your own bad behavior.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 6
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/17/2011 11:12:48 AM
You know, it wasn't even the "God's Plan" argument that offended me in the OP.

It was the characterization of others as "social engineers." Standing up for equal rights for yourself is now cast as "social engineering." Those who close doors based on gender, race or ethnicity aren't the social engineers, it's those who seek to open them. Nice bit of twisted logic there.
Joined: 8/5/2009
Msg: 7
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/17/2011 11:41:10 AM
I have taken your advice, Gwendolyn, and hidden my nuts.
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 8
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/17/2011 1:49:45 PM

1. Maybe not the best citations to rely upon, inasmuch as the Court does conclude that Makow was in fact defamed by the newspaper in question. It's a mixed result at best: Makow was considered to have done some of the things he was accused of having done, with some of the other accusations being considered defamatory.

2. Whoa, wait a second. Where is the link betweent this guy and David Icke?

For those of you not familiar with David Icke he puts the *lunatic* back in the lunatic fringe.

You want to know the basis of his political philosophy? Download a couple episodes of that old series "V". That's right: humanity is secretly controlled by a cabal of humanoid lizards wearing human suits. This is the kind of stuff that makes Scientology seem balanced, sensible and well-researched.

The Queen of England is one, for example. So are various other prominent people. Jewish people? Lizards. Or at least mostly. So are left-wing activists, and investment bankers and so on. If Icke doesn't like you, you're probably a lizard, working for the lizards, an unwitting pawn of the lizards, etc.

That's a pure ad hominem, by the way, associating someone with a well-identified crackpot in a bid to attack their credibility. It's hardly necessary: you can just repeat the stuff Makow actually says and he'll undermine his own credibility without your help.

3. Maybe I've seen more chauvinists, I don't know, Makow strikes me as a tactless clod and quite possibly guilty of violent assault on a former partner, but not quite a chauvinist of the *worst* order. Maybe I just have more orders, who knows.

I'm no fan of any orthodoxy, be it academic pseudo-feminism or whatever strange brew Makow is peddling, and I don't buy it that 18 year old students are delicate flowers that need to be protected against having their sensibilities offended, as opposed to adults that need to be exposed to a diversity of opinions, especially opinions they vigorously dislike.

They might learn something useful, like distrust of authority figures or speaking up for themselves, for example.

4. I don't know about women being "designed" for anything in particular, I'm kind of going with the concept of human evolution on that one.

I'm pretty sure that if there is a "design", suburban tract housing, 2.5 children, a dog and a husband that wears a smoking jacket after work are pretty late arrivals in it. Funny how "tradition" always seems to start around 1953 and tail off sometime around the Moon landings, with selected add-on's from Ronald Reagan's first term.

I do think that the current structure of the workplace, by and large, is still pretty hostile to full participation for women who want to have children in their late teens and early twenties, and there's probably some grain of truth to the notion that women might be better off having children at that age because that's when they're most physically resilient.

But IMHO, that's kind of *their* decision, not something they ought to be bullied about by some middle aged male pseudo-intellectual in an English Lit class (of all places), kind of like it's their decision to drink, smoke, drive too quickly, buy lottery tickets and go on dates with dubious bad-boy types who are never going to make enough money to support them in the style to which they want to become accustomed.

In any event, there's a serious question of what can be termed "horizontal" justice on this issue.

If you read some pretty serious commentators, not these lunatic fringe axe grinders, the male/female income disparity is a very complex question, and it's not all attributable to bias.

Every modification to workforce rules is going to come with (often hidden) costs as well as benefits.

One female worker who for her own reasons chooses to prioritize her career and not have or delay having children might legitimately question advantages given to women who choose to have children and prioritize them over her career. Do unmarried men without children have some basis for complaint about positive discrimination in favor of married fathers? And so on.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 9
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/17/2011 9:59:53 PM
Yeah, I think the key paragraph is this one:

The key thing to realize is that feminism was not spontaneous grass roots social change as portrayed. It was social engineering designed to phase out gender, marriage and the nuclear family. There are half as many nuclear families now than there were in the 1960's. The destruction of the family is part of a larger agenda to destabilize and depopulate society in advance of a thinly veiled totalitarian world government.

Feminism is just a tool to bring in a totalitarian world government by this guy's analysis. I really don't think comparisons to David Icke are over the top here.
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 2:40:38 AM
The problem with the feminist movement was there was no corresponding masculinist movement to go along with it.

The old stereotype for men was just as demeaning and restrictive as the old stereotypes were for women.
It was just assumed that men were all the winners over women and didn't need any changes.
Men ended up asking, " where's my liberation " ?
It's not exactly a rose garden on this side of the fence either you know.

If anything the biggest negative to come from the feminist movement is that corporations have taken full advantage of the cheap labor of women entering the work force.
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 11
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 3:29:32 AM
Crappy cut-and-paste posts with screwed up formatting ought to be auto-deleted on general principles.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 12
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 7:14:16 AM
I see that this cliche ridden, misogynistic, worn-out, much discussed topic is not getting a lot of responses. I wonder why?
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 13
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 8:54:11 AM
Oh..idunno...two male religious nuts lamenting womens rights, freedoms, and equality. Makow is right up there among the most paranoid, deluded, and no doubt under-laid of conspiracy theorists. And how does this theory or the support of it work for the OP on a dating site? It would be interesting to see what kind of dates this tactic invites.
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 14
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 9:16:06 AM
@CheshireCatalyst (and anyone still reading):

1. Those Court cases are not about "guilt" or "innocence". They're about civil liability, specifically, the civil liability of the newspaper that lost them-- to Makow. So there's at least one Judge out there that does not see him as a complete nut, right? Think what you want about the judiciary, but that's some kind of endorsement, no?

2. Canada's David Icke? Please. Just "minus the reptiles"?

Er, the absence of the worldwide conspiracy by the alien reptiles to control everything is kind of, well, noticeably **less** crazy.

You can read stuff by Savage (here I mean Michael Savage, not Dan Savage, who is much more amusing), which I have, and think, o.k., I think he probably had a rough childhood featuring a fair amount of playground bullying and probably followed that up with a couple relationships with women that didn't go so well. Angry, but sane. Probably not right about anything important, but entitled to a hearing.

But as soon as someone's telling me lizards in human suits run the world, seriously, you might as well just tell me their boss is named Sauron, glue some wigs to your feet and run around with your shoes off telling me you're invisible.

Basically the disinction I'm looking for here is something like Merely Wrong vs. Completely Delusional.

Kind of like the difference between having voices in your head that say stuff like "compliment that woman on her hair" and "I could really go for a sub sandwich right now" as opposed to "Barack Obama is the agent of Satan" and "the Precious wants to go to Mordor" or whatever.

So Jones and Rense interview each other, what would that establish? Am I right wing if I do an interview with Rush Limbaugh? No, I'm probably masochistic, if anything.

As far as claims of a government plot to spread lesbian love on college campuses, Icke would probably have made it, if he'd thought of it.

Lethal Lesbian Lizard Love-In-- hey, is it really bestiality if it's a lizard you're doing?

Of course, if you think of most frats, that's the closest thing to an ad campaign for becoming a lesbian, isn't it.

3. A question doesn't become ipso facto offensive just because you ask it of female students as opposed to male ones. I kind of suspect one's initial s*xual experience or your psychological experience of it does differ based on whether you're male or female, or AC or DC for that matter. And probably a fair bit depending on whether your partner (or your zucchini, I suppose) was a bad lover.

(Seriously, zucchinis? Wouldn't that be frustrating? You know, as soon as you'd worked a fulfilling relationship with one that was just the right shape AND a considerate listener, he goes bad on you and you have to start over. That and the difficulty of getting them to pay for dinner instead of merely being dinner.)

I just have trouble seeing what it has to do with English Lit. A class in sexology or health or psychology, sure, o.k. English Lit? I don't remember English Lit being that interesting, maybe they've jazzed it up since 1992, who knows.

4. Feminism does not serve to absolve men of anything. So if you're saying Makow doesn't "get" that, I don't "get" it either. (Feel free to accuse me of lizard-mongering if you like, I can take it.)

It's economics that does that, specifically the impossibility of every male earning six figures no matter how many PhD's they all pursue or how many flaming oil derricks they parachute into, in part because the going rate for an English Lit PhD or a roustabout with delusions of invincibility is a function of how many are floating around in the market.

A somewhat tired ideology that's become so "whatever the person speaking wants it to be" that it's nearly devoid of meaningful content without a Baskin-Robbins 37 flavours of sub-labels (I'm an ecolibertarian 'différance' pro-s*x anarcho-feminist. yay.) does not "absolve" me of an obligation to earn six figures and support my chosen lust object in Peg Bundy-like ornate comfort, while she no doubt has the mailman on the side, simply because I happen to have wedding tackle.

There's no dual income "necessity", first of all. That's just nonsense. What there *is* is a perception that a plasma sceen t.v. and living in the "right" neighborhood is somehow "necessary". Feminism didn't do that-- Madison Avenue did.

(Kind of like DeBeers managed to convince half of you that some magical incantations, promising never to sleep with anyone else and shared utility bills just aren't good enough unless they come with a small shiny rock and three months salary is what you should pay for it. Talk about audaciously successful marketing.)

You can be a homemaker today if you feel like it. You just adopt a lifestyle consistent with 1953 and material expectations consistent with 1953 and it's NOOO problem.

(Or you can just wait for the elected things to get finished with economic "stimulus" because then we'll all have lifestyles consistent with 1953, while working 3 jobs each AND hustling on the side to make ends meet).

And besides, if you always made more money than your ex-'s, how come THEY don't get to quit work and stay home with the kids just because XBox is more fun than spreadsheets?

Oh, wait, have we just exposed a hidden double standard?

Or are women just more rational than guys because they understand the concept of getting hooked to a potentially lifelong obligation to "support" someone who does not feel like working (or sleeping with you anymore, for that matter) but wants to keep a chunk of your paycheck "just because", and they don't want any part of it?
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 15
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 11:56:54 AM
I thought I was finished with this thread, but here I am again.

Deerclan wrote:
I have taken your advice, Gwendolyn, and hidden my nuts.

Good for you! I wish we could do away with the nuts who publish books that are misogynistic.

Women were designed to marry and have children in their late teens and early twenties. That's when they are irresistible to young men. They should marry men who have graduated and are starting their careers.

What happens to those women when the kids are grown? Often they are left with husbands who long ago ceases to please them: it is why most divorces are instigated by women.

I am 58. I am a grandmother. I will never bear another child. So, what the hell am I supposed to do? Sit at home and watch soap operas?

I was a stay-at-home mother and wife. When I left my ex, I found it was the wrong lifestyle to have espoused.

Women are more than the receptacles for men's sperm. We are mothers, but we also perform other roles in our lives.

This resonates the Promise Keepers code of conduct

Methinks they are Promise Makers, not keepers.
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 16
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 10:33:56 PM
What a bunch of cr@p.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 17
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/18/2011 11:53:09 PM
Most men are dumb according to their ego and most women play into the dumbness. Can either of the sexes just break away and be wise? I am not hopeful.
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 18
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/19/2011 8:59:15 AM
Oh, so let's keep going, then.

1. If that's the reason why Makow's contract was renewed, the U. Man. people who made that decision should be ashamed of themselves.

The sensibilities of parents or students should not factor into the equation.

The quality of teaching or research should. (Not that, judging by this sample, Makow had any of either. But you can still make the right decision for very wrong reasons.)

(The citations you made were not to transcripts, by the way, but to published Court decisions. There is huge difference between a transcript and a published decision.)

2. Certain elements of certain brands of feminist ideology, and arguably almost all of them, to a certain extent, do have intellectual roots in Marxism.

So do (a) graduated income tax, (b) "socialized" medicine, and (c) workplace health & safety legislation. There is a baby 'n bathwater thing going on here.

Certain elements of certain brands of feminist ideology were started and promulgated by people who self-identified as lesbians. Lesbian separatism wasn't invented by Tiger Beat magazine, to cite one example. (Now, how credible or serious it was by comparison to the content of the average issue of Tiger Beat-- different question.)

3. Jewish people were vastly over-represented in the ranks of the Communist party (or be precise, the Bolshevik wing) responsible for the revolution of 1917. (Until Stalin had them purged, shot, starved to death in Siberia and so forth).

This was hardly suprising, when you look at how great they were treated by the Czarist regime that preceded it, and given the rigorous intellectual traditions of Judaism. (Now, granted, pre-1917 Russia, *literacy* counted as intellectual rigor in many quarters, but anyhow.)

4. If you look at any of the history of the New School and what the Rockefeller Foundation people actually were involved with, some connections to academic (neo-)Marxism is hardly far fetched at all. More like accurate research.

As for the CIA, those spooks inflitrate anything that looks like it might be remotely political. That does not mean they support it, that's ludicrous, it's like claiming COINTELPRO establishes that the American Indian Movement was a front for the FBI.

5. As for the Adam Weishaupt Illuminati running everything, I agree, this is not-so-freshly baked territory.

Yes, sure, a cabal of people you could fit into a smallish university auditorium do in practice run the world, but:

(a) it's hardly doing it in secret, you probably recognize most of their names,
(b) only a few of them speak German,
(c) anyone who thinks any group of people can "control" global traffic in prostitution or pornography needs to take high school biology again and learn about this new Internets thing we've got,
(d) if you want to participate in the global arms trade, GE, Northrup-Grumman, Glock and so forth are all publicly-traded,
(e) it IS behind terrorism, just not THAT kind of terrorism. Except that it facilitated the development of THAT kind of terrorism back in the 1980's. Not that it was *trying* to do that-- it's just blowback.
(f) it IS behind political assassination. Feel free to google "Kidon" or anything ever written about Fidel Castro.
(g) it IS supporting people involved in the drug trade, such as a goodly chunk of the so-called "government" of Afghanistan. Wait, I mean the *illegal* drug trade, not the legal kind, which once more is publicly traded. They support that too, mostly with U.S. tax dollars. But this is all digression.

6. Besides, if there really are any Satanic Lesbian Illuminati Feminist Jewish Banker Global Elitists reading this, any time you feel like being flexible on the "lesbian" part I'd like to take you out, because I'm betting the conversation would be f-ing fantastic. We can go to a great restaurant, I bet, especially as we're going Dutch (naturally).

7. Post-1970's "feminism" is not responsible for any of the things you're giving it credit for.

First off, the impetus for the whole change in s*xual mores starts with Kinsey, moves through a bunch of early 1960's student movements in collaboration with mass-media image pimps like Hefner (and his less savory clones). Most prominent (self-appointed and self-important) "feminist" spokeswomyn (I *love* half-baked etymology, it's hilarious), with some exceptions, were quite hostile to it and many still are, e.g. Ariel Levy.

I'd strongly suggest that five minutes of listening to Doug Stanhope do standup will tell you more about where we *actually* are, in this cultural moment, than anything you're likely to pick up in four years of Gender Studies followed by a menial job dishing coffee at Buckstars.

Men never "had" to be the "sole breadwinner", just as they never "had" to get married at all. Anyone who thinks more women's participation in the workplace is more "liberatory" for "men"-- or for "women", or anyone other than those women's employers-- clearly does not Get It.

8. I know Vancouver. I'm FROM Vancouver. There are several responses to your inquiry. (a) They live in Whalley and he commutes, (b) he runs a grow-op, (c) she sells real estate on the side, (d) he lives in Hong Kong and the kids commute. I can come up with some more if you want.

9. Re diamonds: congratulations on being bright enough to see through an obvious fraud. It's a measure of how far we've fallen that that counts as a compliment.

10. I'm sorry, but blaming collective male self-perception / gender ideology for the invisible rules against being Mr. Mom is a non starter.

You're not getting it, Cheshire. Anything that interferes with *production* will be attacked, using whatever means are most convenient.

If it's a woman prioritizing her children, she's made guilty for "holding back women's progress" (THAT's doublespeak) or insecure and/or stupid for not having a high powered career.

If it's a man doing it, get the women to disdain him for not being 'masculine' (apparently subservience in a career of pushing paper is 'masculinity' and 'ambition').

Either way, medicate them if they have an original personality trait, and make sure to infect women with psycho-babble guilt (Church n' State, Psychiatry n' Madison Avenue, take your pick) for handing out more than the government-rationed portion of lovin', because *otherwise* the guys won't sign on for challenging careers of 60 hour work weeks in alphabetizing insurance forms and answering emails so they can afford spoilers on their Hondas to impress the girls.

It's all about **production**. The drugs that interfere with *production* are illegal. The ones that medicate you into accepting the existing order are manufactured by Merck-Frosst or Coors.

The choices that interfere with *production* are socially condemned.

Feminism is great if it encourages women to join the guys in alphabetizing insurance forms to pay for the Zoloft that makes alphabetizing insurance forms seem like an ok way to spend your life. Feminism isn't great if it encourages women to demand that everyone get time off to be with the kids.

Feminism is great if it encourages divorce so that single mothers can alphabetize insurance forms too, divorce lawyers get work, and divorced guys have to alphabetize insurance forms to pay child support.

S*xuality is ok if it's selling some kind of product. It's not ok if it's two people (or three people, etc.) giving each other entertainment that makes no one else rich.

That's one man's opinion. I'm not certain I've completely adopted it, but it's got to be something close to the truth.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 19
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/19/2011 9:39:02 AM
I didn't read the whole thing, but I did notice one thing that jumped out at me:

2. Certain elements of certain brands of feminist ideology, and arguably almost all of them, to a certain extent, do have intellectual roots in Marxism.

So do (a) graduated income tax, (b) "socialized" medicine, and (c) workplace health & safety legislation. There is a baby 'n bathwater thing going on here.

If that was the first time I'd read that equated graduated income tax with Marxism I'd have ignored it. But it seems to be a meme on the right. For this to be true it would have to mean that Marx was a time traveller who visited the Romans, Florentines and pretty much every other advanced civilization before he was born and convinced them.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 20
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/19/2011 6:10:15 PM
RE Msg: 7 by daynadaze:
Anytime you use god or satan as your reasoning to demean a gender you have already lost your argument. Plain and simple, we are people, we all have every right to be humans and go the route we choose as long was we don't harm others. Having a certain genitalia is no mark of what one can or shouldn't accomplice, only ignorance or hate would cause one to think so. Don't blame gods or devils for your own bad behavior.

Spot on!

I don't want to harbor on this issue about feminism. But I do feel that it needs to be said, that feminism has done a lot of good for women, and for men.

I used to spend a lot of my time with my parents and grandparents' generation, which stretched back to before the 20th Century. From what I saw, most married women were treated pretty good. But single women did find it difficult to get on in work, and other areas, and some married women were treated badly, but had to way to get justice and fair treatment. Feminism has done a lot to change that, to support the human rights of women. So I see a lot of good that it has done.

Besides, now that most families cannot get on without both parents working, and that everyone needs qualifications to get a job, ALL people need women to get treated fairly in the workplace, and in education. Now that for most people in the West, sex is the way to get a relationship, and a relationship is the way to get married, women need to know that they are safe in the sexual arena, and in the relationship arena, to get fair treatment in both. So even if you wanted to get rid of those reforms, it would probably just stop women being able to work, or have sex safely with someone they want, or have good relationships, and that would totally destroy any way that women and men could have relationships. You cannot turn the clock back. Men NEED feminist rights just as much as women do.

Now, on the topic of the article that was referred to, which was about that women should "settle" in marriage, I can see a lot of points in what Lori Gottleib wrote.

I know lots of married men who complained that their wife nags them all the time, and they absolutely hate it, but will continue to put up with it. Lots of married men sigh that they never get to spend that much time with their kids. Plenty of men I know who dated before getting married, have photos of their life, and pointed out that some of their ex-girlfriends were much hotter than their wife. I know a lot of men who are terrified of what their wife would do to them, if they so much as looked at another woman. A lot of married men I know, cannot even use their Wii or Playstation without their wives' permission, and that is very rarely granted. Then there are quite a few men, whose wives go completely batty once a month, either going into massive rages, or trying to commit suicide, and some even stabbed their husbands in these moods. Others get very depressed and weepy once a month, and during these times, anything you say will tick them off. I could go on and on.

After several years of hearing these things from men, it dawned on me that most, if not all, men, settle to some regard or another. In public, they won't admit to it, the same ways as many men refuse to admit to failure in anything while in public. But, in private, when they are with a sympathetic unjudging friend, and there is no-one who is going to criticise them for it, they'll admit to these feelings.

Men settle, in work, in sex, in relationships, and in marriage, and especially when it comes to kids.

Women have generally not been exposed to having to go out and seek work, sex, relationships, marriage or kids. Their fathers and husbands made the effort in seeking these things. So generally, women have not had to face up to the fact that they chose these situations. So they didn't have to face up to any realities that they caused their own miseries. They could have. But perceived necessity is the mother of invention, and there was no necessity for women to accept that life was hard, and that most of what we want requires compromises.

However, now that women are out there, and are seeking their own work, their own sexual desires, their own relationships, their own marriages, and their own kids, and not just leaving it up to men, they are making their own choices. So over the last 20 years, many women have found that their own choices have led them to many of the problems they have. So they are seeing that much of their problems is of their own making.

That is forcing women to make the hard choices that men have traditionally always made, but never talked about, so as to protect women from those hard choices. They are realising that most of the time, everyone has to make compromises in life, and they have to too, the same as everyone else.

I think that's a good thing, because the more we take charge of our lives, and accept the problems that have been caused by our choices, the more realistically we look at life, and the more likely we are to make a choice that is not perfect, but is a lot better for us in the long-run.

So the more women do acknowledge things in this way, the more they are likely to make better choices, that help not just women, but the men they engage in relationships with, and will help everyone have a better, happier and more caring environment within which to raise healthy and happy kids.

Lori Gottleib might have reconsidered feminism. But I honestly think she still agrees with much of it. She just seems to think that some of the things that were said by feminists, might have been a bit over the top, and wishful thinking, that clearly wasn't realistic in hindsight, and that feminism needs to become more realistic if it's to help women even more than it already has.

To that I say, welcome to a bright and happy future!
Joined: 8/30/2010
Msg: 21
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/19/2011 6:27:56 PM
"This involves finding a man they can believe in, and nurture, and not settling for less."

Isn't this what we are looking for even if we do have a job?
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/20/2011 6:35:36 AM
Well...a lot of interesting comments on this thread! The OP was kinda offbeat I thought. From my personal experience, I think that the two main problems with feminism is that while it promised a choice - if you choose to stay home with kids or be in a traditional wife and mother role, you are looked down upon for wasting your mind. I thought the whole concept was choice. But I don't this it ended up that way at all. I have known plenty of women who, after having children, returned to work and were so obviously miserable, I just wanted to shake them. It's a wonderful thing that women who need to work, can, that women who want to work, can...but it's terrible that women who could chose to stay home don't, because of the stigma of that.

There's nothing wrong with a traditional lifestyle, if that's what you want.

I think the OP is overlooking something, and that is women often found themselves shackled to men who's every word and whim they had to obey. You know what, that's FINE if they are WORTHY of that kind of respect - and the ones who ARE, would certainly take into consideration their partners wants and needs. The tyrant type is the one who gave this kind of relationship a bad name...and the man who could be trusted with ultimate power and decision making - wouldn't want it.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 23
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/20/2011 8:02:21 PM

While it is common courtesy to open doors for someone, or not let them slam in someones face, I can't tell you how many times I was told that "I am perfectly capable of opening the door for myself" by a female.

How many times was it?

I don't know where all these men (according to these forums) who keep getting sniped at by women live. I am a feminist; I live in Missouri, and men open doors for me all the time. I smile and say, "Thank you." I teach at a college, and as many young men open doors for me as do old men. I have even had young men rush ahead of me to the door so they could hold it open before I got there.

Sometimes, we get what we expect. Common courtesy is not dead nor is it confined to the geriatric, but maybe big cities are inhabited by people who are rude by nature.

I lived in California for 40 years and have been in Missouri for 12; in neither state have I EVER heard a woman say to a man holding a door open for her, "I am perfectly capable of opening the door for myself."
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 24
view profile
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 1:31:41 AM
I agree Gwendolyn..this story sounds like the stuff of urban legend, or a retort to a person of questionable motives.

Around these parts, everyone, male and female, hold doors open for one another. It's called common courtesy. If one thinks that the mere act of doing so somehow elevates them to gentlemanly status, it's a pretty low bar to attain.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 25
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 12:03:43 PM
With respect, one of my shameful pleasures is Hell's Kitchen. They always set up men v women on that show, and they do it because it's good conflict. You hear the men talking smack about the women just as much as women talking smack about the men. On all "Reality" shows the contestants are encouraged to pump it up and they use judicious editing to maximize the effect.

I've been holding doors for women all my life; I've never received any comment beyond "Thank you."
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion