Posted on 10/08/2003 11:14:12 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Been to Northampton, Massachusetts lately? Home of Smith College?
So Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, & Germaine Greer represent an inconsequential fringe of feminism??? Are you really saying that their arguments & philosophical framework did not drive feminism to what it is today?
I guess then, that "real" feminism developed into the society-changing movement it became because of different people driving it? Who are these people who were the real (yet secret) driving forces of feminism, if not Friedan, Steinem, & Greer, et. al.?
Like it or not, that is what the feminist movement has been for thirty years. Run by the radicals, and based on the leftist ideals of continual Revolution, powered by various causes du jour. I can't even watch sitcoms anymore because the male bashing gets on my nerves.
Artificial empowerment of ANY group via legislation is not freedom. It's totalitarianism.
The biggest feminist mistake was to set themselves up as the hizbah - morality police - and enter our homes and places of work, forcing us to no longer act like human beings and causing all of the social problems so prevalant between men and women today.
I don't need and have never needed their help. I can defend myself and make it on my own, without special legislation forcing me to behave one way and men to behave another, neither of which ways are in our nature. I LIKE having doors opened for me, and I EXPECT it. I understand and respect that a man my height (5' 10") is stronger and faster than me. I accept that I cannot change genetics. It doesn't mean I'm not capable of defending myself, just that the only REASON I am capable is the understanding that men are physically stronger and faster than women, and when fighting a stronger opponent, etc.
Women have been taught that men are the enemy and men that women are. The problem is the COMBATIVENESS. Fighting the ENEMY. Who's idea was battle of the sexes? The feminists. Who set up the field then? Feminists. What have they really accomplished except for a generation of therapy dependant, lonely people in bitter divorce situations AND fat paychecks for themselves via their lobbying groups? Exactly, precisely, nothing.
Are you calling NOW radicals?? /sarcasm
;)
The majority of feminimsts, like the majority of Americans are moderates politically. They take a look at all sides of issues and always come back to the middle ground. Have we not learned this by now? The largest political party in America are Independents, people who listen to the ideas proposed by the poles of both ends of the political spectrum ... and take ideas from both sides to form the vast middle ground of politics. Feminism is the same.
The author of the piece posted even admits that feminism in name does not appeal to the majority of women, however, it is inarguable that women have political clout and use it, just as any other large constituency does, to their perceived advantage. This is what has propelled feminism forward. The theorists pro and con on all sides of all issues form the poles of opinion from which people decide for themselves. Basically the vote is what has propelled forward everyone who is allowed to vote and who excercise that right.
You see the same thing happening on the world stage right now and historically. The extremist positions on both sides are being repudiated for the middle ground. Yes, the Sadaam Hussein's of the world ARE influential ... just not in the exact way they had hoped.
I agree with you. I have the same resentments. What are you going to do about it?
The only way to take the mic back is to find a different name. Feminism has sold itself and voluntarily entrenched itself as The Enemy.
Are you the only one who really understands?
Legislative representation is how our system works. If you're going to be consistent, you'd have to have the same opinion of all PAC's in Washington and in state government ... like Farmers and Big Oil and Small Business Association ... etc.
I do agree that special interst legislation has gotten out of hand. But don't single out feminism for that. Let's look at the big picture. PAC's are a reality in our political system. If we want to overhaul that system, let's get busy and do it. Campaign finance reform anyone?
The reality also is that even without PAC's, numbers matter in politics. Since women are 50% of the population, and since there are 9 million more women registered voters than men ... women have tremendous political clout. Now there is no gaurantee that any group with political clout will use it wisely. That is why we have a two-party system and, in general, the middle outweighs the extremes politically.
If we want to eliminate equal representation in government, one individual one vote, that's a different matter entirely. Until then we have to live with the reality that numbers matter in politics. (We just got a good lesson on that in California). Even without a PAC, when enough people feel the same or similar way about something ... they will hold sway in elections and legislation, particularly in places with more direct referendum style democracy such as California.
Unfortunately, by agreeing to live in the USA, you do have to put up with legislation you don't agree with some of the time. The alternatives are to get out there and make your opinion heard LOUDER ... or move to a different country. Just sitting around whining about what other people have been able to influence politically is not a sound strategy for change. :)
By the way, did you know that women were the decisive factor in the so-called Republican sweep in the 2002 elections? And they are poised to be the deciding force in the 2004 presidential elections as well. And there is ample evidence that women are moving more to the conservative side politically.
Ain't our system great? I love it !!! even though I have to put up with the "tryanny of the majority" sometimes doing things I don't agree with. If you step back and look at the big picture, overall it balances out to the middle ground and we are still the best country in the world. I wouldn't live anywhere else. It's not perfect but it is the best.
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The pendulum swings both ways and is weighted toward the middle. I personally don't want extremists on either side getting ultimate control of my life. :)
Same thing I HAVE been doing for thirty years: argue against the socialist/totalitarianist message of so-called "feminists".
I'm the ultimate "feminist" and possibly so are you: I am comfortable with my gender, my physical limitations and with men. I both deserve and expect respect. This isn't a result of a feminist "movement". It's the result of my personalty and accomplishments. I simply work very hard to make sure my predictions are right.
All of my life I have argued against what some women were saying, against the message of feminism, and predicted that everything which has come to pass in our screwed-up society WOULD happen. In fact, it's way worse now than EVER I predicted.
"Feminists" are not me, and probably are not you. That is THEIR term. The name of the Enemy and it is a name I don't want.
I do. And unions. Don't forget the unions.
Well, personally, I'd like to see where that statist comes from. But, assuming for a moment it is true, women still overwhelmingly believe in core feminist values , which coincidently are the same as the values in our Declaration of Independce and in our USA Constitution. I don't see 3/4 of US women rushing out saying "Please, take away my equal opportunity in America".
Are you the only one who really understands?
It's highly doubtful I am. There are entire organizations in this country and all over the world who are not marching in lockstep with NOW and who nevertheless use the terms feminist and feminism to describe their beliefs.
Oh, was that a rhetorical question? :)
Been to Northampton, Massachusetts lately? Home of Smith College?
Or Wellesley ?
The hatred for men is the saddest part. It's based on feelings of inferiority, and an inability to acknowledge the differences between men and women, let alone appreciate them.
Exactly. The point is and has always been that men alone and women alone will not survive as a species. Not even with cloning. All we do is get more and more screwed up as long as we fight one another.
Men and women are the two essential parts of the SAME team. Men are offense, women are defense. If an enemy gets past the male offense, it's left to the women, who will kill or die as the last line of defense of our families, of our people. While encouraged in Western culture and discouraged in Eastern, it still happens. It's the way we are made. We are necessary to one another's survival, both physical and emotional.
Two halves of a whole.
I agree completely.
"Feminist" women - the macho bitchy kind - have poisoned the relationship between the sexes, done their best to emasculate men, and used every conceivable trick to gain unfair advantage. "Feminist" men - the castrato kind - thrive on abusive behavior from women, also poison the relationship between the sexes, and act as the cheerleading section for female supremacy.
Constantly demanding dominance destroys the possibility of real intimacy, or real partnership.
Only an idiot male wants inequality of opportunity for women. It doesn't make any sense for me to want my wife treated unfairly in the workplace, or my daughter to be shuffled off into some constrained role she doesn't enjoy.
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.