Feminists?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1714002' date='Nov 29 2008, 06:12 PM']I don't think it was meant as a challenge-I think it was meant to help clarify what you were saying as you accused people of taking what you said out of context. -Katie[/quote]
No I wasn't accusing them of what [u]I[/u] was saying out of context, I posted scarcely in this thread up until now. I was accusing them of taking another poster's words out of context, then I got asked questions out of the blue about what I think 'how reasonable/unreasonable is it that women apply their talents outside of the house', which was completely non-sensicle since I had never said anything regarding such. Hence, to me, rather random, and as such, my non-sensicle answers.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1714068' date='Nov 29 2008, 08:20 PM']No I wasn't accusing them of what [u]I[/u] was saying out of context, I posted scarcely in this thread up until now. I was accusing them of taking another poster's words out of context, then I got asked questions out of the blue about what I think 'how reasonable/unreasonable is it that women apply their talents outside of the house', which was completely non-sensicle since I had never said anything regarding such. Hence, to me, rather random, and as such, my non-sensicle answers.[/quote]

Ok, my bad I thought you were talking about something you posted. Anyway, CSLF was new to the debate and she was just trying to see what people's thoughts were and to get perspective on the context of the things that were said, there was no malice. -Katie

[Socrates]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1712913' date='Nov 28 2008, 03:21 PM']If women are being pressured into the work force when they would rather be stay-at-home mothers, this is because of living expenses, not because the women who [i]want[/i] to work "ruined" it for them.[/quote]


[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1713005' date='Nov 28 2008, 06:36 PM']"The world in which we now live is a world whose outlook is so distorted that we absolutize what is relative (money-making, power, success) and relativize what is absolute (truth, moral values, and God). Power, riches, fame, success, and domination are idolized; humility, chastity, modesty, self-sacrifice, and service are looked down upon as signs of weakness. This last sentence, Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell - the glorification of strength and the denigration of weakness - has become the shallow core of modern thought and feminist belief." - Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand

And it is true. This is why young women are pressured into the work force. Many of them do not wish to be stay-at-home mothers and wives "for the rest of their lives" because the characteristics of such a vocation and life (self-sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, etc) are seen as weakness in the eyes of the world. It has been taught that these things degrade the human person. The human person who has not achieved success, power, great money, and high education is a failure. And, as unfortunate as it is, self-proclaimed feminists have endorsed and spread this hierarchy of values that is the spirit of our time. Women have been victimized by this distortion.

The minority of women want to be mothers and wives. For the majority, it is not considered as their vocation or desire. Do the majority want this or are they coerced in to this by high-living expenses? No. Women are pressured and told that to be a mother and a wife is nothing wonderful or grand, but rather simple and weak. It was self-proclaimed feminists who support and encourage these ideas, and have been at the fore-front in the "emancipation of women" or rather the "masculinization of women."

There are many forms of feminism. However, we have seen how feminism has grown. We have witnessed and continue to witness feminism at it's full growth and radical-ness. Feminism as a movement has always sought social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Unfortunately as the main core of this movement has progressed (leaving behind forms of it that held truth and justice as the key points) it has unwittingly acknowledged a superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like them in all ways. It is this movement which has done the most harm to women; far more then it has done good. It is this movement that can probably be blamed as a primary reason that the majority of women spurn virginity, motherhood, and to be a wife. And it is this movement in it’s main form that has applied the pressure to those who choose motherhood and to be a wife

I don't think living costs has anything to do with it.[/quote]
Good post, TTM.

While living costs, etc. do often play a part in married women/mothers working, there is also certainly a strong strain in feminist thought which does indeed look down on women who choose to be "full-time moms," and actively pushes young women to choose career over family. "Stay-at-home moms" and housewives are looked down on as not "fulfilling their real potential." (While obviously, as a man, I have not had to deal with this directly, I've heard first-hand accounts of it, and have read such sentiments from feminists.)
The more "radical" forms of feminism even look down on marriage and "traditional" families, period.
Just read "classic" feminists such as Gloria Steinem to see what I'm talking about.

I'm not against women working and making good wages, but I think the move for more women to put career before family and children has had a seriously damaging effect on our society.

The ideal of the man, rather than the woman, being the primary breadwinner is not just a result of "sexism" or "patriarchy," but of human nature and needs.
Not to in any way downplay the importance of the role of the father, but having the care of a [i]mother[/i] is much more crucial to a child's upbringing, especially in infancy and early childhood. A mother is capable of nurturing babies and small children in a way a man is not. (This is the reason women, not men, have breasts).

[Galloglasses' Alt]

It's OK.

Whenever these sexism threads pop up, I have to be careful, wether anyone likes to admit it or not, say soemthing and people are more likely to take it out of context. I remember a few times I posted in sexism-related threads, (not neccesarily on phatmass), and got taken completely the wrong way.

Hence why I accused HCF about putting words in another poster's mouth as she seemed to take what they said, asked a rhetorical question and extraplicated on it. I feared the same was happening to me, hence the blunt answers.

[Socrates]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1710152' date='Nov 24 2008, 10:38 PM']I can definitely elaborate on the inferiority she mentioned. Has a man ever "cat-called" you before? If the answer is yes, then you've experienced a form of discrimination: being objectified, being seen as a piece of meat, a body looked at for one's selfish pleasure. The man will do this and gain a sense of power because he knows the female (in many cases) can not physically beat him up the way a man can. He gets sick pleasure and drowns himself in her weakness and inability to fight back.[/quote]
The answer to this problem is chivalry - which is ironically often blamed and condemned by feminists.

I'm a guy, and when walking down the street, I've often gotten cat-calls and "objectifying" remarks regarding my body from girls in cars. (Obviously such "sexual harassment" is not as intimidating to a man than to a woman, but more flattering, if a bit uncomfortable).
But the point is, such sexual "objectification" is not limited to men, and is not part of some "patriarchal" plot or power play, but simply men (or women) behaving badly.

I'm not condoning such behavior; I simply disagree with the common feminist interpretations of it.

[quote]Building on that, an outspoken and opinionated woman is oftentimes called the b-word, whereas an outspoken and opinionated man is considered aggressive and intelligent.[/quote]
In most cases, the problem often isn't so much being outspoken and opinionated, as a grating, shrill or "superior" attitude, and lack of tact.
Most men, I think, appreciate intelligence in a woman; we just don't like a bitchy, snotty know-it-all attitude (unfortunately common in the post-feminist era).

A man who acts in an equivalent manner isn't necessarily considered intelligent, but is often called a jerk or a "d***" or worse.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Socretes, while you have a point, please, please, [i]please[/i], monitor your language before you post is taken out of context again

Edited November 30, 2008 by Galloglasses' Alt

[rkwright]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1714158' date='Nov 29 2008, 08:03 PM']Socretes, while you have a point, please, please, [i]please[/i], monitor your language before you post is taken out of context again [/quote]

haha do you know Socrates? Hes more than capable of handling those who make the mistake of taking the post out of context. Heck... hes got a body that women "cat call" over... I phear him

BTW Socrates, I totally agree with you on this. I've been reading this for a few days and struggling to find the right words, but you sir did the job.

[Mr_Private_Person]

Feminists are cool, as long as they know they're place.

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/2643389700_9e82b49228.jpg[/img]

[picchick]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1714144' date='Nov 29 2008, 07:52 PM']The answer to this problem is chivalry - which is ironically often blamed and condemned by feminists.

I'm a guy, and when walking down the street, I've often gotten cat-calls and "objectifying" remarks regarding my body from girls in cars. (Obviously such "sexual harassment" is not as intimidating to a man than to a woman, but more flattering, if a bit uncomfortable).
But the point is, such sexual "objectification" is not limited to men, and is not part of some "patriarchal" plot or power play, but simply men (or women) behaving badly.

I'm not condoning such behavior; I simply disagree with the common feminist interpretations of it.


In most cases, the problem often isn't so much being outspoken and opinionated, as a grating, shrill or "superior" attitude, and lack of tact.
Most men, I think, appreciate intelligence in a woman; we just don't like a bitchy, snotty know-it-all attitude (unfortunately common in the post-feminist era).

A man who acts in an equivalent manner isn't necessarily considered intelligent, but is often called a jerk or a "d***" or worse.[/quote]

I pretty much agree with your post here.

However, I do not condone chivalry. I think that it is good manners really. I condone patronization. I think that women who are as you describe do not represent women well and should not be considered feminists. Is that how I want women represented? No. The Paris Hiltons, Linsey Lohans of the world are not good representations of us.

I think that cat calls for either sex is objectification and is wrong.

I guess my goal here is to change the face of feminism. Yeah, I know, good luck. The picture of feminism today, in my opinion, is wrong.

And yes, Mr. Whatever your face, if the woman is happy in the kitchen working and upholds her womanhood then she is a feminist.

Edited November 30, 2008 by picchick

[CSLF]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1713746' date='Nov 29 2008, 01:52 PM']I have absolutely no clue why you're asking me that in relation to my last post as I was not hinting at any of those qeustions.

But i'll answer if that would do.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable for a woman to apply her talents outside the home?
Nope.

What roles do you see as fulfilling for women?
Wearing the pants of the family.

Are there any limitations?
...There are limitations to wearing the pants?

If so, what are they?
Erm, the shoes?

What roles do you see as fulfilling for men?
Keeping the roof from falling in on everyone.

Are there any limitations for men?
Duh.

If so, what are they?
No matter how hard men try it is utterly impossible for us to change the quilt covers on beds, it is something physically impossible for us to do without ripping it into shreds first. (first hand experience, or maybe I just stink at it)

[/quote]

I believe what was said (and I didn't know how to quote at the time and it seems the post was modified as I cannot find it but I know I didn't make that drivel up) was that women were, and I quote:

" Ironically, at that same time, women were encouraged to become more and more like men. They were to [i][b]find their fulfillment in jobs rather than in motherhood[/b][/i]."

YOU say that it was taken out of context, but I believe that language is telling and the formulation of that statement implied that fulfillment in a job was masculine and took away from the fulfillment of motherhood.

Also, the reason that I broke it down into questions (which I deliberately tried to phrase in an unbiased way which may have come off as patronizing), that would minimize contextual confusion through clarity (the problem that you had with my post).

I don't know why you bothered to post your answers though, sarcasm is easily misinterpreted causing more problems, unless you were serious...

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1714361' date='Nov 30 2008, 12:46 AM']I pretty much agree with your post here.

However, I do not condone chivalry. I think that it is good manners really. I condone patronization. I think that women who are as you describe do not represent women well and should not be considered feminists. Is that how I want women represented? No. The Paris Hiltons, Linsey Lohans of the world are not good representations of us.

I think that cat calls for either sex is objectification and is wrong.

I guess my goal here is to change the face of feminism. Yeah, I know, good luck. The picture of feminism today, in my opinion, is wrong.

And yes, Mr. Whatever your face, if the woman is happy in the kitchen working and upholds her womanhood then she is a feminist.[/quote]

Completely agree. -Katie

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='XIX' post='1712964' date='Nov 28 2008, 04:00 PM']Correct me if I am wrong, but are living expenses really that different from what they were 40 years ago. Do you have any substantial data to back up the claim that our basic needs are substantially more expensive than they used to be?[/quote]

I suppose I should have added more than "living expenses" to my response. I will first give you a real life example of what I do mean, however. My cousin and her husband are in their early thirties and had their fourth child this past year. They are both elementary education teachers (my aunt would watch the children during the day hours.) They were living in a house way too small for their growing family, which they were paying rent for. My cousin decided she would like to stay home with the children. In order to make this possible they had to move six hours north in order to find affordable property for a single-income household. My point is that expenses vary depending on where you live (usually more expensive the closer you are to a city) and they are certainly not the same as they used to be. My house, at this moment, could go for over half a million...and at first glance I assure you this would not be your assumption! When my parents bought it twenty-three years ago, it was no where near this price.

I also should have added that many women [i]want[/i] to work. Myself included. I do not feel "pressured" to work nor do I feel that I would be looked down upon for being a stay-at-home mother. By the reactions I am reading here, I am beginning to feel the opposite! It seems that women who stay at home are approved of, whereas those of us who want to work (whether that means being single and working, being married and working, or being married with children and working) are the ones who are disapproved of - because we are "ruining" it for the moms who want to stay at home, of course.


[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1713005' date='Nov 28 2008, 05:36 PM']This is why young women are pressured into the work force. Many of them do not wish to be stay-at-home mothers and wives "for the rest of their lives" because the characteristics of such a vocation and life (self-sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, etc) are seen as weakness in the eyes of the world. It has been taught that these things degrade the human person. The human person who has not achieved success, power, great money, and high education is a failure. And, as unfortunate as it is, self-proclaimed feminists have endorsed and spread this hierarchy of values that is the spirit of our time. Women have been victimized by this distortion.[/quote]

I am sorry if this sounds rude, but have you ever thought that maybe women WANT to work? It seems like you hold this very negative view towards working women (not the individuals per se but the idea). It is almost "reverse feminism" (if we equate "feminism" with your personal definition, which comes off as negative).

[quote]The minority of women want to be mothers and wives. For the majority, it is not considered as their vocation or desire. Do the majority want this or are they coerced in to this by high-living expenses? No. Women are pressured and told that to be a mother and a wife is nothing wonderful or grand, but rather simple and weak. It was self-proclaimed feminists who support and encourage these ideas, and have been at the fore-front in the "emancipation of women" or rather the "masculinization of women."[/quote]

I have to really disagree with you on this one. Where do you get this idea that women are pressured/told that mothers and wives are "simple" and "weak?" I definitely do not see this in popular culture, particularly Hollywood where many women are having children while continuing their careers. The media is not portraying them as simple or weak. So where is this being portrayed?

And please do not associate a working woman with a woman who wants to be masculine. That is just offensive.

[quote]Feminism as a movement has always sought social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Unfortunately as the main core of this movement has progressed (leaving behind forms of it that held truth and justice as the key points) [b]it has unwittingly acknowledged a superiority of the male sex by wishing to become like them in all ways.[/b][/quote]

Examples other than your opinion that women who want to work are trying to be men, please.


[quote name='picchick' post='1714361' date='Nov 29 2008, 11:46 PM']I pretty much agree with your post here.

I condone patronization. I think that women who are as you describe do not represent women well and should not be considered feminists. Is that how I want women represented? No. The Paris Hiltons, Linsey Lohans of the world are not good representations of us.

I think that cat calls for either sex is objectification and is wrong.[/quote]

Agree.

[Tinkerlina]

I completely agree with you, HCF. I have never felt that if I were a stay at home mom, I would be looked down upon. I agree that after reading some of the opinions here, I feel that I [i]would[/i] be looked down upon for wanting to have a career. I don't know where the idea comes from that women are pressured to work and don't want to. Not all, but many of the women I know work because they find fulfillment in their careers. For those who do not, perhaps it is largely because of the dwindling job market. I believe that women and men are fulfilled by a variety of things; family, career, etc. Obviously, family takes priority when it comes to fulfillment; no one I know is more fulfilled by their job than by their family. However, each person is an individual and the path they are to take depends on the individual gifts which God gave him/her. -Katie

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1714426' date='Nov 30 2008, 01:06 AM']I completely agree with you, HCF. I have never felt that if I were a stay at home mom, I would be looked down upon. I agree that after reading some of the opinions here, I feel that I [i]would[/i] be looked down upon for wanting to have a career. I don't know where the idea comes from that women are pressured to work and don't want to. Not all, but many of the women I know work because they find fulfillment in their careers. For those who do not, perhaps it is largely because of the dwindling job market. I believe that women and men are fulfilled by a variety of things; family, career, etc. Obviously, family takes priority when it comes to fulfillment; no one I know is more fulfilled by their job than by their family. However, each person is an individual and the path they are to take depends on the individual gifts which God gave him/her. -Katie[/quote]

Thank you.

I certainly do not look down upon stay-at-home mothers, nor do I look down upon those women who pursue careers (whatever their marital status).

And just because I really want a career does not mean any of the following:
1. I am pressured
2. I believe being married and/or being a mother would make me weak
3. I want to be a man

Those are just bizarre claims.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1714430' date='Nov 30 2008, 02:10 AM']Thank you.

I certainly do not look down upon stay-at-home mothers, nor do I look down upon those women who pursue careers (whatever their marital status).

And just because I really want a career does not mean any of the following:
1. I am pressured
2. I believe being married and/or being a mother would make me weak
3. I want to be a man

Those are just bizarre claims.[/quote]

I don't know, maybe my wanting a career means that I harbor a secret desire to be a man? -Katie