I've always believed that the feminist movement was the worst thing to ever happen to women. In the good old days, all a women had to do was take care of the home; making sure all her husband's and children's needs were met. The rest of the day was free time when a woman could yap on the phone with friends or watch her favorite soap opera or take an afternoon nap. Nowadays? A woman has to get up early in the morning to get her husband and kids out of the house, go to work, come home and start cooking dinner right away. Evening hours, previously a time to relax, is now spent cleaning, doing the laundry, helping the kids with their homework, ect... By the time all her chores are done, she's usually too tired to enjoy her 'wifely duties' with her husband.
This is liberation? Ladies, the men haters at NOW have screwed you over. Men were the biggest winners of the feminist movement; they no longer need two jobs or have to work overtime; they have your paycheck.
Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent US Feminist Asks
By Hilary White
October 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an Op Ed in the New York Times, leading US feminist Maureen Dowd has expressed her surprise that recent research continues to find that women, who may have been economically "emancipated" by the feminist revolution, are more unhappy now, forty years later, than men.
Calling it a "paradox" that women may have thrown off the aprons, Dowd wrote, "But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved. Did the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?"
> I've always believed that the feminist movement was the worst thing to > ever happen to women. In the good old days, all a women had to do was take > care of the home; making sure all her husband's and children's needs were > met. The rest of the day was free time when a woman could yap on the phone > with friends or watch her favorite soap opera or take an afternoon nap. > Nowadays? A woman has to get up early in the morning to get her husband > and kids out of the house, go to work, come home and start cooking dinner > right away. Evening hours, previously a time to relax, is now spent > cleaning, doing the laundry, helping the kids with their homework, ect... > By the time all her chores are done, she's usually too tired to enjoy her > 'wifely duties' with her husband. > > This is liberation? Ladies, the men haters at NOW have screwed you over. > > Men > were the biggest winners of the feminist movement; they no longer need two > jobs or have to work overtime; they have your paycheck. > http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102911.html
"lifesitenews, We tell lies, and nothing but lies, you can depend on it!" First, without two paychecks, it's poverty and nothing but poverty. Second, go out and try to find a job these days, it's not as easy as it looks thanks to the Republican/Conservative driven economic meltdown. Often there's no first job, as well as no second job. Not many males are fool enough to work themselves into an early grave with two jobs. If she doesn't like working a job and raising filthy kids at the same time, she should get sterilized and/or abort the filthy bastards, it's the proper thing to do. Women have an obligation to work hard and bring money into the home, the male has no obligation to support her at all. Abortion, good. Baby, bad! -- http://folding.stanford.edu Save lives, visit today!
J wrote: > I've always believed that the feminist movement was the worst thing to > ever happen to women. In the good old days, all a women had to do was take > care of the home; making sure all her husband's and children's needs were > met.
As opposed to, you know, using whatever talents she might have. I suppose there were exceptions amongst the upper class women, assuming that their talents surpassed their male counterparts so significantly that they could not be denied (for example, Ada Lovelace), but for the most part, women were just shoehorned into meaningless and less than fulfilling lives.
> The rest of the day was free time when a woman could yap on the phone > with friends or watch her favorite soap opera or take an afternoon nap.
What a great thing for a woman to spend her talents on. Never mind that she could be putting her energies to good use in some scientific endeavor, or actually creating something useful. No, she should stay home and watch bad TV shows, "yap on the phone," or sleep through the day.
> Nowadays? A woman has to get up early in the morning to get her husband > and kids out of the house, go to work, come home and start cooking dinner > right away.
Or, maybe the husband helps in cooking? Or maybe the whole family participates? I know that to Christians this is a foreign concept, but really, there is no reason why a woman must be the only person who does any chores around the house.
> Evening hours, previously a time to relax, is now spent > cleaning, doing the laundry, helping the kids with their homework, ect...
All things that her husband can help with. And her older children. You know, there are places where children do chores around the house, terrifying though that concept may be.
> By the time all her chores are done, she's usually too tired to enjoy her > 'wifely duties' with her husband.
Only if the house is being managed with the same old assumptions about gender roles that you Christians pushed on society.
> This is liberation?
No, liberation is when women are out in the workforce, using their brains, using their talents, and contributing something to the world. The same way that men do. No, men and women are not equal -- only a woman can be pregnant -- but that does not mean that women should be penned up in their homes. No amount of fundamentalism on your part is going to change the reality that women do have the ability to be scientists, engineers, or managers, or even blue collar workers.
> Men were the biggest winners of the feminist movement; they no longer need > two jobs or have to work overtime; they have your paycheck.
What a tragedy! A family where everyone contributes what they can! Why, if that becomes the norm, people might start questioning the other artificial impositions the Church made on society! We must not allow that to happen, right J?
> I've always believed that the feminist movement was the worst thing to ever > happen to women. In the good old days, all a women had to do was take care > of the home; making sure all her husband's and children's needs were met. > The rest of the day was free time when a woman could yap on the phone with > friends or watch her favorite soap opera or take an afternoon nap. Nowadays? > A woman has to get up early in the morning to get her husband and kids out > of the house, go to work, come home and start cooking dinner right away. > Evening hours, previously a time to relax, is now spent cleaning, doing the > laundry, helping the kids with their homework, ect... By the time all her > chores are done, she's usually too tired to enjoy her 'wifely duties' with > her husband.
> This is liberation? Ladies, the men haters at NOW have screwed you over. Men > were the biggest winners of the feminist movement; they no longer need two > jobs or have to work overtime; they have your paycheck.
> Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent US Feminist Asks
> By Hilary White
> October 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an Op Ed in the New York Times, > leading US feminist Maureen Dowd has expressed her surprise that recent > research continues to find that women, who may have been economically > "emancipated" by the feminist revolution, are more unhappy now, forty years > later, than men.
> Calling it a "paradox" that women may have thrown off the aprons, Dowd > wrote, "But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved. Did > the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?"
I do not at all feel that the feminist movement benefited men more than women. The movement did not at all state that everyone had to go out and get a job and take care of her husband and children. It was designed to give women a choice, meaning if we wanted to go out and get a job, we could. Most women do not live their life like the example you supplied. I know plenty of women who have time to get up eat WITH their family, instead of cooking for them and watching them eat, and then go off to work and come home to a relaxed atmosphere just like their husband. If you are doing all the cooking and cleaning in your household and still going to work full time, then you need to restructure your household to be comepletely honest. Your children need chores and your husband needs to learn how to cook and you both need an alternate cooking schedule. If your children are too young to do chores then, once again, you and your husband need to work something out because there should be no need for you to do all the work in one house when there is more than one person living there. Also this goes back to you, if you do not want to work and would rather spend your time being a housewife, then Do Not Wok. No one is forcing you to do so. But blaming a movement that helped single mothers prosper and kept women from starving to death during the World War is no way to go about that situation. Reconsider how you are dealing with household organization and things would be so much better, im sure. So to answer your question, no, the feminist movement does not benefit men more than women and it was not the worst thing to happen to women. May not be the best, in your situation, but it is definitely not the worse. Just think if we did not have the choice and were all forced to have the title of Mother and Wife only. So many brillian ideas, companies, franchises, and universities would be non- existent right now.
On Nov 3, 12:08 pm, "nswt2d@umsl" <nsw...@umsl.edu> wrote:
> But blaming a movement that helped single > mothers prosper and kept women from starving to death during the > World War is no way to go about that situation.
Could you write some more about how feminism kept women from starving to death during the World War. I hadn't heard of it myself.
The essential Orwellian, authoritarian, irrational, "politically correct",illogical and Machiavellian dogma of feminism is that: " Women (and minorities) are discriminated against in employment,education, and otherwise. Therefore, laws should be promulgated that give the same preferential treatment in the same over males, especially Caucasian males. Males, especially Caucasian males, are not discriminated against. Therefore, laws should not be promulgated which give them protection against discrimination." Further, if any male, especially any Caucasian male, opposes the aforementioned dogma and/or is perceived as a threat to the same, he will be discriminated against not only because he is a male, especially a Caucasian male, but because of his actual and/or perceived opposition to the same. As a result of the aforementioned, men have assumed the role of "domesticated animals" in those nations which have fallen to feminism with their sex lives and conditions of living controlled by their feminist masters through the totalitarian feminist Orwellian state. Men, therefore, while women have unjustly benefited significantly from the feminist totalitarian Orwellian state, men have been unjustly subjugated and denigrated economically, socially, politically, culturally and legally. Of course, the same represents a profound breakdown of the "social contract" with the resultant break down and destruction of the nation, culture, and society economically, politically, culturally, and militarily.
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. James Madison, President of the United States o Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788-10-17)
Mr. B wrote: > > I've always believed that the feminist movement was the worst thing to > > ever happen to women. In the good old days, all a women had to do was take > > care of the home; making sure all her husband's and children's needs were > > met.
> As opposed to, you know, using whatever talents she might have. I suppose > there were exceptions amongst the upper class women, assuming that their > talents surpassed their male counterparts so significantly that they could > not be denied (for example, Ada Lovelace), but for the most part, women were > just shoehorned into meaningless and less than fulfilling lives.
Although J is wrong here - the reason we should oppose feminism is not because it didn't help women, but because it did - you ignore the fact that most MEN were 'shoehorned into meaningless and less than fulfilling lives', and indeed, still are.
> I've always believed that the feminist movement > was the worst thing to ever happen to women. [...]
Isn't Mohammedism touted as "the worst thing to ever happen to women" by Western media?
Of course, a case can be made that Islam is the Arab culture's form of feminism; for instance, the burqa protects women against what Western feminists scorn as "the threat of the male gaze."
Also, a woman was the first convert to Mohammedism. (You can look it up.)
> This is liberation? Ladies, the men haters at NOW > have screwed you over. Men were the biggest winners > of the feminist movement; they no longer need two jobs or have to work > overtime; they have your paycheck.
That's traditionalist balderdash, J. The feminist movement did not make "winners" out of men. You just identified feminists as "men haters," remember? (Duh.) Unfortunately, traditionalists like you J, just as that other gang of womanfirsters the feminists do, are ideologically (and irrationally) committed to the false dichotomy that claims that anything bad for women must be great for men. Thus, fools like you conclude that if feminism and man-hating was bad for women (which it is) then feminism and man-hating must be wonderful for men (which it isn't - duh again dummy).
> Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent > US Feminist Asks [...]
The preachers of calumny against men at LifeSiteNews are too stupid to realize that feminism is bad for both men and women. Sheesh! In fact, because they insist on clinging to the false Victorian era belief that women are too pure to do anything ba-ad - unless there's a man somewhere who _made_ the woman do it - they (like feminists, ironically) on trying to push all the blame for women's bad behavior (specifically, baby-killing in and outside the womb) onto men.
By the way, J, calumny can be a mortal sin. It's form of bearing false witness. (You can look that up too - try the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for starters.)
-- ...I could see that my Church has long since been 'emasculated'. The current trend toward 'inclusive' language is not, as I once thought, the beginnings of a process, but the finishing touches. The real damage was done decades -- perhaps even centuries -- ago.
>> > I've always believed that the feminist movement >> > was the worst thing to ever happen to women. >> > In the good old days, all a women had to do was take >> > care of the home; making sure all her husband's >> > and children's needs were met.
>> As opposed to, you know, using whatever talents >> she might have. [...]
For most women, what J described _are_ "whatever talents she might have" that she wished to exercise. Tell me, Mr. B, when was the last time you saw a woman rubbish collector?
Without men, Civilization would last until the oil needs changing.
>> I suppose there were exceptions amongst the upper class >> women, assuming that their talents surpassed their male >> counterparts so significantly that they could not be denied >> (for example, Ada Lovelace),
Mostly, Ada Lovelace supplied the female companionship and the note-taking. The ideas she's given credit for by authors of computer science textbooks struggling to put a little PC into their texts were pretty much all Babbage's. See: "Repurposing Ada" by Michael Mattis _Salon_, March 16, 1999 <http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/16feature2.html>
>> but for the most part, women were just shoehorned into >> meaningless and less than fulfilling lives.
> Although J is wrong here - the reason we should oppose > feminism is not because it didn't help women, but because it did - > you [Mr. B] ignore the fact that most MEN were 'shoehorned > into meaningless and less than fulfilling lives', and indeed, > still are.
Good catch, Andrew Usher, for noting that Mr. B ignored the obvious about exactly which sex is most often "shoehorned into meaningless and less than fulfilling lives." Oh well, if Mr. B didn't ignore the obvious then Mr. B couldn't swallow that "women have (or had) it worse" nonsense feminists have been pushing on the public for decades.
However, feminism didn't help _women_ - it only 'helped' a small minority of women, it expanded the options of upper-crust women who were already well off. Betty Friedan, for instance, was not the trapped-in-suburbia housewife she stereotyped in her polemic _The Feminine Mystique_. No, she was quite well off with hired help - including a housekeeper, btw - as she went off doing her bit for the Red cause as a writer and reporter published by socialist pamphleteers and in communist-front group tabloids.
Btw, that housekeeper who did the drudgery in the Friedan household was not 'liberated' by any feminist. Her liberation was the work of men, the men who invented, built, delivered to the home, and (let's not forget!) _paid_for_ the vacuum cleaner, clothes washer, dish washer, self-cleaning oven, etc. _and_ the electrical and gas distribution systems that made them possible.
-- The people with the most freedom to redefine love were women who had married the most successful men. These women began asking Stage II questions, such as.. "Why am I called Mrs. _John_ Doe -- who am _I_?"; "Why am _I_ always serving _him_, deferring to _his_ opinions?"; "When the children are grown, will my life have meaning?" ... Her concerns were institutionalized: the women's liberation movement.
His concerns were repressed. He kept to himself his hurt that his wife seemed more interested in the children, in shopping, and in herself than in him. That he felt criticized for working late rather than appreciated for working late. To him, his wife seemed to define communication as her expressing her negative feelings but not him expressing his. ...
When he did express his concerns, they were dismissed as his "male midlife crisis." ... His crisis got the bad rap.
Society wrote: > However, feminism didn't help _women_ - it only 'helped' > a small minority of women, it expanded the options of > upper-crust women who were already well off.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that feminism affected only those. All women had their options expanded (At the expense of men, of course).
> Betty Friedan, > for instance, was not the trapped-in-suburbia housewife > she stereotyped in her polemic _The Feminine Mystique_. > No, she was quite well off with hired help - including a > housekeeper, btw
Yeah, no surprise. It's this class of women that produce the biggest complainers. Although I've never seen it mentioned, I'm quite sure that the correlation between wealth and happiness is significant for men, but not women. Women that want to complain - which nowadays is almost all of them - will always find something to whine about.
> - as she went off doing her bit for the > Red cause as a writer and reporter published by socialist > pamphleteers and in communist-front group tabloids.
It's amazing how many smart people bought the Marxist line completely. It just goes to prove the maxim that people tend to turn off their critical thinking when it comes to politics or religion.
|
