Posted on 01/24/2006 5:02:49 PM PST by wagglebee
When you say that feminism hasn't affected real men and women, you're right if you mean that it hasn't changed our minds or our actions. But it has crept into our legal system, our schools, our speech and writing; it has affected the fact that millions of children are now being raised without fathers in part because of feminism, and that men are devalued. That means that there is a higher crime rate, which certainly affects even those of us real men and women who have backbones and gonads.
"Like I said ...real men with gonads don't suck up to women. If men used the backbone they were given those women wouldn't have gotten so far with their demands."
Not so. Sometimes when you don't cave in and suck up, they up and leave so they can be happy, since you don't validate their ridiculous point of view and value their misguided opinions. And the feminazis are cheering them on as loudly as they can.
All have had a horrible effect on this nation! I mean, America is now a pile of rubble compared to what it used to be thanks to feminism and feminists. /sarcasm
SouthernFreebird is right. One or two posts in response to an article pertaining to women, and we're right into blaming feminists for all of it. It's a lame excuse. (Call a waahhhhhhhhmbulance, boys.) Women must really, really be much more powerful than we realize if we can turn an entire gender (males) into a pile of quivering, emasculated mush. Give me a break. Men still run most corporations. We have a Conservative-run government. We have yet to lose a war because women are in the military. Male college sports are as popular and profitable as ever. The population has increased in spite of abortions. Somehow the American economy is still strong in spite of sending millions of neglected, poorly educated males into the workforce...need I go on?
It's easy to blame feminists for all the ills in American society. I mean, sure, they're annoying and ridiculous, and do not reflect the feelings and moral beliefs of most American females, but like most complex issues, one generic scapegoat doesn't fit all.
More than a little. She is very direct since last year. Before that she was somewhat polite, but now she gets right down to it.
Dr. Laura ping
Ooops Dr. Laura bump
Tell it like it is Dr. Laura, someone needs too.
I'm not saying feminism is the locus of all evil. Feminism, socialism or marxism, homosexualism, it's all the same coin. Look, by some fortunate circumstances I was a "fly on the wall" at some early feminist meetings in Berkeley CA in the 60s. I know whereof I speak. The leaders of the feminists have always been ranting man hating marxists, and a great many have been lesbians.
I don't regard this (Dr. Laura, nor her statements, this interview) as "blaming feminism for...the ills in the world," but that there's being pointed out that feminism no longer exists. What's in it's place is a militantism, so to speak, based upon genders, a real nastiness that is gender based and gender targeting, and it's a degradation of human society.
I agree with, as Dr. Laura pointed out (I did, too, an earlier thread a day or two ago, in that feminism originally began based upon the Woman's Suffrage movement in seeking the vote for adult women) that the foundations were literally that women wanted jobs and pay for those jobs on an adult level. Good and reasonable things.
But, it's not about those things today (the vote, employment), but became something entirely beyond that, that's harmful...even among women. She's right that today's feminism finds us with women who hate women so it's not even "just" men, not that that was or is alright or acceptable.
I like how she's worded here that statement about some women being told that leaving their children to the care and management of other people, including care centers, nannies, etc., is a huge lie. It's such a huge lie, such a disservice to children AND the women involved, not to mention the fathers.
Never made sense to me. Before I had my kids I noticed that the moms I worked with were a step above "walking dead". We did everything in our power to make sure at least one of us was there during our girls' younger years whether that meant crazy work hours, my staying home for part of the time, working from home, etc. I've done them all (and the T-shirts are in the wash). This is the first year since my oldest was born that I actually work 1st shift outside the home 5 days a week (she's 15).
It's not been easy financially - we've dug a pretty big hole for ourselves, but I do not regret a moment of it.
The fish/bicycle axiom was tossed at me and my little sister from the earliest time I can remember.
Funny thing is, my oldest niece Abbie (she's four, and her twin sisters will be two this weekend) is my mother's best friend. Mom wouldn't trade Abbie for my sister's career for love or money.
(Do I want my own? Yes. Do I have any? No. At 37, it's getting close to too late.)
I heard the other day that 40% of women in America are single. They do not need to be villified or disadvantaged in their attempts to make a living. In my youth they were derided as spinsters and now they are villified as feminazis. This is not biblical and it is not right. Indian custom required widows to commit suicide on their husband's funeral pyre, but Judeo Christian law requires a man to care for the widow of his brother. Protecting widows and orphans is part of the manliness code of chivalry, yet current Social Security law leaves 25% of our old women poor even though the program of FDR is perfect and needs no change according to some.
Amen. Too few do.
My mum had me at 37 - you can do it!
Did I say any of that? I didn't try to if I did. I don't think women, today, are as villafied for having a career. it's pretty much the norm. They probably don't get treated as equally as they should, but plenty of my friends, as well as my Mother, are already into good jobs.
I was just trying to vaguely illuminate the psychological and physical connection a woman has, over and above a man, to the child.
Did the study say what portion of that 40% of single women were mothers?
The Indian ritual is called 'sati', and was still practiced, I believe, into the 20th century, even though it was outlawed in India in 1829...but Ghandi, and Rhabindranath Tagor spoke out against it, which puts the practice into the 20th century.
What is so interesting about Sati is how the woman, after sacrifing herself upon her husband's pyre, was, sometimes, worshipped as a goddess and in some instances had temples built in her honor.
I don't know who are in the 40%. It seemed like a high number to me. I imagine the greates disparities are in elderly women who outlive men.
I never thought of that; that's a good point.
bookmark. Why does it take 2 paychecks to make the same living that one paycheck provided 50 years ago?
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.