Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores

The "Original" feminists, of whom I am one, simply wanted credit in our own name, a place at the starting line without an anchor tied to our ankles, and an end to the demeaning, sneering, condescending and downright dangerous attitude of the men in our workplaces who were both frightened and threatened by our presence. I can tell that forty years later there are a lot of those men and perhaps their sons who continue to hold the opinion that there are two kinds of wimmin -- the kind that belong to a man and the kind that ought to be burned as witches.

Sad. Very sad.

By nature, we have opinions about everything that happens in life. That is a normal and necessary function. Generally, our opinions are influenced by our backgrounds and the circumstances and our mood when events happen.

With that as an elementary background, what you express is your opinion but it is not necessarily objective truth.

My opinion of the feminist movement has been buttressed by women similar to you, a part of the original movement. They believed what they were told and were enthusiastic about being part of it. However, after awhile, some of them saw that the leaders were insincere in that they really were not after what the said but, instead, something entirely different. Their standing by Slick Willie and ignoring his abuse of women was just one glaring example.

The relationship between men and women is one that is greatly influenced by nature. Each has a natural role in life. Ignoring that leads to many problems and those are expressed in the feminist movement. Acting in harmony with that leads to gain for each.

Some blacks think that all bad or unfortunate things that happen to them, happen to them because they are black. Some women are the same. All struggles, or most of them, are because they are women and as such are disadvantaged.

Many times that is true, most times it is not. Regardless, whatever happens, happens and we must deal with it. In my opinion, rich white males have an advantage in our society. Despite their advantage, many do not succeed nor are they happy. Conversely, many not in that group become very successful, even wealthy, and many are happy. To me, that means that life in this world is what we make it regardless of who we are.

The Constitution says we are all equal before the law and that is the only advantage we should expect in this country. The rest is up to us.

I agree with your last two sentences, and that is all I wanted when I became a feminist. And eventually I got what I wanted. I would like to see a more measured response by men of my age (or indeed, 40 plus men including the ones in the disco bling slobbering over teenaged waitresses) to my success in achieving equality before the law, but like Harriet Meirs, I am more likely to hear men in that age group implying that "all" women "want" to return to the good old days when men were men and women were girls, and any woman who not only wants the authority to sign contracts and have credit in her own name, but who obtains a position as (for example) a civil engineer and does it very well, is a ball-busting, emasculating, lesbian bitch. Frankly, after 36 years of that kind of rhetoric I've heard enough. Maybe y'all don't want girls in the clubhouse except to sweep and mop and cook, and to bear your children when you tell them to, but couldn't you retreat to your club house and talk about it only to each other?

I was not brought up to hate blacks for their skin colour or men for their government-aided 'superiority', but in both cases the behaviour of the loudmouthed members of both classes of humanity is making it seriously difficult.

Yours is a perfectly reasonable position. I almost said attitude but attitude and position, though associated, are different.

Boors, louts, and loudmouths will always exist in all strata of society. We must always be aware of, and deal with if we choose, that those people are there. When they are in a position of power which can affect our own lives, it can be much more irritating.

However, on this issue I am often reminded of the Japanese martial art, jujitsu. Its basic tenet is to use your opponents power and instincts against him. If he swings at you, use his momentum and force to continue in the direction it is going but under your control so that he ends up on floor with you standing over him, in control. That can be applied, as can all martial arts disciplines, to all aspects of life.

There is a certain, natural, genetic dynamic between men and women. It is there for a purpose and it involves romance, sex, safety, security, and above all, mutual respect by each of the others function in that relationship. The fact that many don't understand it or may abuse it doesn't change it. It is there. The rest is social skill.

That is where the jujitsu comes in. Each gender should recognize the other for what they are, what they are intrinsically, and relate to each other accordingly. In addition to the oafs, of either sex, who are bullies or social misfits, there are those try to gain "equality" outside of those bounds. In doing so many deny the natural dynamic and try to force things into being what they want them to be. In the feminist movement that often meant women becoming more masculine and wanting men to become more pliable and feminine. (That allusion to "more pliable" relates to the fact that most men are physically larger and stronger than most women. In the past that was much more significant than it is today but the naturalness of it lingers.) Because that is unnatural, conflicts arise.

Those women who understand their position in nature, and use the skills that accompany that, can easily control their own lives and that of the men they influence. Being in control is much different than seeming in control. Wanting to appear in control is ego and allowing ego to control usually leads to dispair.

I am not talking about equality before the law or in the workplace. That has been addressed. I am talking about angst and conflict and it is my opinion that is under our personal control. Being poor doesn't dictate unhappiness and crime and being rich doesn't ensure happiness and goodness. Each individual controls their attitude.

That is very well said! Back in the 1950s girls were taught that we ought to boss the man and let the man boss the job. I know plenty of women who prefer this way, and now and then I use it myself (on moving men, for example, or other men way down the food chain from me whose help can be valuable in getting my work done every day). However, there are plenty of times when I would rather do the job myself than wait for his gracious majesty to acede to my request. I have had men say, "You shouldn't have to do that yourself!" and I generally reply, "You are right, I shouldn't have to." But there are plenty of those men who stand and smirk and say, "Well YOU wanted to be liberated!" There are plenty of louts who believe that if a woman wants equality before the law, that absolves all men of treating her like a lady.

If you listen to the old people in rural Alabama talk about the Blacks, it will remind you rather uncomfortably (I hope) to the way a lot of men around here talk about wimmen. I believe the reason is the same; they liked the old world where they got to be in charge and the lower orders didn't dare talk back, and they don't see why that genie won't go back in the bottle. But like the race warlords and the hangers-on, there are a very small, very few core of louts and loudmouths (e.g. Calypso Louie) and it really isn't fair to paint all Blacks with that brush. It's also unfair to paint every successful woman who has chosen not to marry or have children as wanting to be a man. It may be that she wants to be the person God made her to be -- and that ought to be left between her and God, without kibitzers on the sidelines. You don't know everything that's going on in someone's life. Remember the spinster lady in Florida who won a large prize in the lotto and went on living quietly and being treated like nothing and nobody ... and when she died, her memorial service was attended by hundreds of people whom she had helped in secret and commanded not to tell a soul, because the Bible says to do your charity in secret. It must have been tempting to her to hit back at the louts with a list of her good works, but it never came out til after she died. I have always hoped there were plenty of red faces in the club house on that day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.