So, is feminism dead?

[punqsux]

i found this REALLY strange.

i was in my sociology class today and the teacher was going around the room asking guys if they were feminists, and every guy except myself said no, which i kinda expected, because theres a real misconception that only females can be feminists.

so then he asked the girls, and not a single one said yes! there were a couple "i dont know" and some "sometimes?" replies, but i truned out to be the sole feminist in a class of about 45 people!

then the girl said "sometimes?" i turned to her and said "do you only want equal civil liberties on monday, wednesday, and friday? do you spend the rest of your time cooking barefoot?"

...yeah, she got really pissed XoD

does anyone else find this as strange as i do?

[Tromack]

Perhaps.
I'm not sure if I/America has the same view of feminism as you do. Do I believe in equal rights for all people? Yes. Does that make me a feminist? No.

[CaseyRyback]

I would have started rolling on the ground laughing if you had said that in one of my classes

[zewone]

Is being a feminist a good thing? I would rather think of the sexes as being equal, then being for one sole sex IMO.

[evilmax17]

Femenists were replaced by sluts, and self respect is quickly becoming folklore.

[Moxio]

Feminism dead? Hell. No.

[crazytalkx]

Sadly enough no.

[punqsux]

Perhaps.
I'm not sure if I/America has the same view of feminism as you do. Do I believe in equal rights for all people? Yes. Does that make me a feminist? No.

i believe in it it the purest meaning of the word, i dont agree with how some places (the army, fire departments) lower standards to "help" women get in, because thats just pandering! but i feel women should have every opportunity men have, im not an active feminist, but i believe in the principals.

[evilmax17]

Is being a feminist a good thing? I would rather think of the sexes as being equal, then being for one sole sex IMO.

Main Entry: fem·i·nism http://webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?femini04.wav=feminism'))
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

[DesertEagleXIX]

I thought there is no one 'branch' of feminism. Some people want women treated like equals, some want the distictions erased, etc. Some say, "No, women are different than men, and should be treated differently", an improvement on current conditions.

[punqsux]

Is being a feminist a good thing? I would rather think of the sexes as being equal, then being for one sole sex IMO.

feminism is not the idea that women are better than men, im not sure what you were implying here, but it sounds like thats what youre thinking (to me anyways)

EDIT: thank you evilmax ^^

[zewone]

Main Entry: fem·i·nism http://webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?femini04.wav=feminism'))
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Then yeah, I'm a feminist. I should look up words in the dictionary more, instead of imagining what the word means.

[DesertEagleXIX]

feminism is not the idea that women are better than men, im not sure what you were implying here, but it sounds like thats what youre thinking (to me anyways)

EDIT: thank you evilmax ^^

Buy women are better than men, at many things. They are much better communicators, for one.

[dcfox]

I bet if the teacher went around asking everybody if they believed in equal rights for everybody he would have gotten a different response. I think feminism got a bad rap from all the radicalism that came out of it, maybe that's why people hesitate to associate themselves with it.

[punqsux]

Buy women are better than men, at many things. They are much better communicators, for one.

oh please dont get me wrong, there are strengths and weaknesses that streotypically both sexes have, you cant ignore that, i just think everyone should have the same chances at everything, if a woman WANTS to go into a male dominated field, she should have the right to try, and not be discriminated against should she be as good as any man there.

[punqsux]

I think feminism got a bad rap from all the radicalism that came out of it, maybe that's why people hesitate to associate themselves with it.

guh?

http://hometown.aol.com/rt92283/jessie.jpg

[DesertEagleXIX]

oh please dont get me wrong, there are strengths and weaknesses that streotypically both sexes have, you cant ignore that, i just think everyone should have the same chances at everything, if a woman WANTS to go into a male dominated field, she should have the right to try, and not be discriminated against should she be as good as any man there.

I agree. But I'd also add, that some occupations are better suited for these 'stereotyipcal' personalities. (I added the quotes as I know some men that are very feminine and some woman that seem very..masculine)

Take a priest for example. I think women should have the option to become a priest. Most of the time, you listen, communicate and comfort. A good occupation for a woman. Same for a dentist, doctor, etc.

Our society socializes people to be masculine or femine; until that is changed, we are going to have huge problems with inequality, and lack of open opportunities.

[humidore]

To paraphrase Ali G: I'm a big fan of their "work"

That's what you meant in class, I'm sure ;)

[zion]

I bet if the teacher went around asking everybody if they believed in equal rights for everybody he would have gotten a different response. I think feminism got a bad rap from all the radicalism that came out of it, maybe that's why people hesitate to associate themselves with it.

That's my belief also, I've found that many of the people that call themselves feminists seem to be more interested in paying all men back for the actions of an ex-husband. Many people believe in equal rights, but just like many other ideologies a hand full of radicals have tarnished the name.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

:)
reminds me of two friends...well ones an exfriend now...but definately both femist to the core...but more among the lines of equal right of all...one of them is going to school for journalism...she wrote a fantastic article about the rights of kids under 21 yet over 18 and all the double standards involved with being in that age range...but it all goes back to her femist backgrounds.

I don't think most people are ever really exposed to what feminism really is...and probably most don't care.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

http://maddox.xmission.com/feminazi.html

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

most feminist I know are well dressed, well groomed, girly girl types...who just happen to be against things like affirmitive action, lowered base pay based on sex (which does actually happen), and any other 'unfair' thing they run across.

That link was funny ;)

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I should have added that "feminazis" are the reason no one would claim to be one now. :lol:

[punqsux]

http://maddox.xmission.com/feminazi.html
Your average Fascist will disregard any scientific argument unless the conclusion supports his existing belief.

funny, seems like maddox will do the same thing ^^

i mean using the radical feminists as an example to bash feminism is like some crap youd see on fox news (fat kid in dodgeball) or something like that.

[MadChedar0]

punqsux, go bake me a cake.


Seriously though, equality for everyone is important.

[camoor]

My problem is that feminism destroyed conceptions of what being "female" is without replacing it with anything.

I blame feminism for all the "Sex and the City" and "Will and Grace" crap on TV. Say what you will, but I want a sexy young Sophia Loren not a high-strung, high-maitenence horse-faced Sarah Jessica Parker.

That being said, I really do think it is unfair how differently society treats gender and sexual activity. Why do males "score", while females are "sluts"? Freaking backwards Puritan values, would that Plymouth rock had landed on them.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

My problem is that feminism destroyed conceptions of what being "female" is without replacing it with anything.

I blame feminism for all the "Sex and the City" and "Will and Grace" crap on TV. Say what you will, but I want a sexy young Sophia Loren not a high-strung, high-maitenence horse-faced Sarah Jessica Parker.

That being said, I really do think it is unfair how differently society treats gender and sexual activity. Why do males "score", while females are "sluts"? Freaking backwards Puritan values, would that Plymouth rock had landed on them.

It was too busy landing on Malcolm X.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

My problem is that feminism destroyed conceptions of what being "female" is without replacing it with anything.

Why should there be a preconcieved notion as to what someone should be based on anything other than an individual?

[HeadRusch]

Because human beings, because of the way our brains work, instinctively "GROUP". We group people by age, by weight, by gender, by attitude, by dress, by opinion, by religion, etc. To say that you view everyone as an individual is a flat out lie, we are biologically incapable of that. The best you can say is "I try like hell to treat everyone equally".


When it comes to Feminisim, I compare it to MTV :)

It took radical thinking and radical ideals to get the feminist movement off the ground in the 60's and into the 70's. MTV did the same thing with Music and Music Videos (they woke us all up that Radio was about more than soft-rock, country, and the same whack-assed 70's corporate rock we'd been fed for like..ever).

But then over time that radical element didn't know when to "Stand Down" after feminisim had achieved its goal of waking women up to the "invisible oppression" they were suffering, and changing mens attitudes. When that happened, all the focus went to the hulking She-Beasts and Man-Haters, and the entire concept of feminisim was clouded.

Just like MTV...It startedout with the best of intentions, but then simply didn't know when to quit, now its a 24 hour infomercial for corporate bands, and non-stop commercials to buy all that MTV deems is cool. And MTV knows its cool because they have the billion dollar sponsor contracts to prove it. Drink Sprite kids, its way better for you than anything else....plus, if you don't drink Sprite, you're a loser.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

grouping people is a natural habit...however why do anything more than group them according to thier personal choices...eating health/working out = personal choice to be fat/thin, bathing regularly=personal choice.
Who's to say what being a women means? Who's to say waht being a man means? my point is that the masses have the right to decide...not the select few that 'freed' them

[zion]

my point is that the masses have the right to decide...not the select few that 'freed' them

But they have decided, they have chosen to listen to a few voices and treat their word as law.:D

[BIG5]

End Women's Suffrage!

[camoor]

It was too busy landing on Malcolm X.

:lol:

Reminds me of the time your mom wore a Malcolm X tshirt, and a helicopter tried to land on her.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

But they have decided, they have chosen to listen to a few voices and treat their word as law.:D

I must have missed it living in a small rural town all my life. :)

I come from a town where the girls sports teams went further in the state tournaments than the guys teams.
Yet the two groups of popular girls were very different...one of course was the sports group that had sex and drank a lot.
The other was the christian sect that played in the musicals and had cast parties.
however both groups remained very loyal to whatever boyfriends they picked...some were even engaged by the time they got out of high school...and 50% of them are all married (basically the same proportion from each group)

I think I've just never seen anything other than basic human instinct...falling in love, getting married, and doing things that make them as an individual happy. What more do you/can you expect of women?

[chosen1s]

My complaint with "feminism" is that from what I see, while much good has come from it, today the feminist movement is pushing women to abandon what I would consider to be their femininity. Equal pay and all of that is great and I don't disagree with it. But women who choose "traditional" roles of home-maker and raising children seem to be looked down upon by feminists.

Why is it that we respect women's right to do what they want to do and be what they want to be...unless they want to stay at home and raise their children? Why is it that it's Ok for a woman to hope (not demand) that her husband will have a good job and bring home good wages, but it's not Ok for men to hope (not demand) that their wives will want to take care of the house and help raise their kids - in my opinion, the most important job in all of society. The feminist movement has responded to shameful double-standards not by eliminating them, but by creating new double-standards...and I disagree with that.

I'm also frustrated with feminism not because it puts women on equal footing, but because the movement has evolved in many ways into a backlash against men rather than a support system for women. Using the example above - my guess is that a true feminist would be horrified by the suggestion of a man that he would have the desire to one day have a wife who would be the homemaker and raise their children. If there is a good feminist on this board, she will respond and say "chosen1s, you're such a self-centered egotistical pig who thinks women should be his slave and blah blah blah". And in the end the feminist isn't protecting anybody - just bashing/hating men. You see how it goes from women's rights to hatred for men? I have the right to hope for whatever I want. If I hope my wife someday has webbed feet and likes to deliver newspapers to on her bicycle every day, or if I want a wife who owns her own business and has a nasty habit of firing people she doesn't like, or if I hope to someday have a wife with a third arm who juggles pumpkins, who are you, feminists, to tell me what I can and can't hope for?

That's why the women in your class didn't want to be identified as feminists - because in general the movement has gone in a different direction. In general, most of you wonderful women our there love us men and with love comes a desire to see good things happen to the people you love, and believe it or not men feel the same way about women. Feminism has taken a rather nasty position against men in the last several decades, and today's women who don't face the same double-standards (they are still there, but not nearly to the extent they used to be) rightly reject the movement that is constantly attacking their men. Good for you women. Good for you.

[zion]

I think I've just never seen anything other than basic human instinct...falling in love, getting married, and doing things that make them as an individual happy. What more do you/can you expect of women?

I expect that as long as those are the important things in life things will remain as they are.:D

[camoor]

Why should there be a preconcieved notion as to what someone should be based on anything other than an individual?

I would assert that family structures and societal roles promote social order, and complete sociological anarchy is too dangerous a force for most people. Take a look at any society where the family structure was ripped out (Africans in America for example) It takes centuries to repair damage like that. Look at the chaos caused by the sudden societal upheavals of the industrial revolution at the turn of the 20th century.

I'm not promoting Arthurian chivalry here. I'm just saying that in a country where almost half of all marriages end in divorce, more evolutionary societal guidance on how to make a partnership work (IE gender defintion) is probably not a bad idea. Or as the Frenchies say "Vive La Differance"

Temperance fanatics like Susan Anthony gave the whole feminist movement a bad taste in the mouth, would that braver women pioneers such as Ida Craddock would be recognized for their contributions.

[alonzomourning23]

I haven't read this topic.

With that said, there are two ways of viewing feminism. You can be in the rush limbaugh crowd, or the rebllious girl crowd and think that feminism means women are superior and that men suck, or you could be more level headed and view it as a fight for equality. How I view it depends on the situation, as I know both types are technically feminism.

edit: Though to be quite honest (as I just read a few posts about traditional roles), if I marry a women who then decides she wants to be a traditional housewife, I would hate that and have a hard time not looking down on her. The way I see it is we should both work outside the home, and split the work around the house. I'd hate to have a housewife, if she wants to be one she might as well find someone else. I like strong women.

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

I'm of the opinion that rise in marital problems that end in divorce is the direct result of a widening gap in the ability to communicate freely with one another...I read a study once on how guy/lesbian couples communicate better than straight couples (especially on the issue of sex) Most things could probably be fixed with a good old heart to heart in plain english. I don't see it having much if anything to do with women being confused about their role in the marriage...but then again I could just be not able to think like that.

I have personally never encountered this extreme feminist movement that hates men...but i've lived a pretty sheltered life. So my experiences don't count for much.

I know that any mention/implication of a double standard really makes me mad...why would people believe it's okay for one person to do something and not another? it just...grrrr

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

why would being a housewife make a woman any less strong?

[alonzomourning23]

I don't think many of the "extreme" feminists exist, it's mostly in the heads of limbaugh and his fans.

[zion]

I have personally never encountered this extreme feminist movement that hates men...but i've lived a pretty sheltered life. So my experiences don't count for much.

Go to a college and vist the women's studies department. You will be cured of ignorance in 5 minutes.:D

[alonzomourning23]

why would being a housewife make a woman any less strong?

I just can't get the image of soccer moms and 50's housewifes (think mrs cleaver) out of my head. It seems all the ones I know think it's the mans place to work and the womens place to either stay home, or choose between the two. I know this probably isn't always the case, but I just see it as old fashioned and a remnant of the past.

Since I'm going to need at least a masters for my major, I'm likely to marry an educated woman with career goals anyway.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

I think I've just never seen anything other than basic human instinct...falling in love, getting married, and doing things that make them as an individual happy. What more do you/can you expect of women?
I expect that as long as those are the important things in life things will remain as they are.:D

Man, fuck that shit. :lol:

That's not instinct, it's conditioning.

[dcfox]

I just can't get the image of soccer moms and 50's housewifes (think mrs cleaver) out of my head. It seems all the ones I know think it's the mans place to work and the womens place to either stay home, or choose between the two. I know this probably isn't always the case, but I just see it as old fashioned and a remnant of the past.

The idea that it's a man's place to work and it's the woman's role to take care of the house pisses me off. There's nothing I'd want more than to find a girl to support me financially while I stay at home. So if anybody knows of a sugar mommy out there have her contact me. :D

[kaji7p56]

There will always be women that want equal rights and women that just want a man. I'm just telling it like it is. When the feminist women can't keep men in their lives they will either, change for a man, or stay "strong" and probably stay "alone" for the rest of their lives.

Before you guys start jumping down my throats, let me say that I am all for the equality of women. If I had a daughter, I'd want her to be treated equally yada, yada, yada. The thing is, that the amount of men who would be willing to marry a woman knowing that she will NOT take care of the kids and work instead is very small. When we're dating, we don't really care what women do. When men are looking for wives, we look for certain things like someone to nurture our offspring, someone to cook the food, someone to clean the house, etc.

If a man knows that a woman will not do these things, he will not marry her. If he does marry her, then he is a fool. What is the point of getting married? To be with the one you love? You can do that without a marriage license. The point of settling down with a woman from a male point of view is that you see a future with her. You see your future kids, a house, a white picket fence, a dog named spot, etc. This is what men want when they reach a certain age.

A woman could change AFTER the marriage and want to work, that's a different situation. If we know from the get-go that the marriage will be all business and there will be a maid raising the kids, then the whole proposition of marriage loses it's appeal. The whole point of it is to have a "home" to come home to.

Like I said, there is a percentage of men that will support their wives going to work and not raising the kids, but they are in the minority. As "bad" as it sounds, most guys want a "wife" and that cooks and cleans and not a "room mate". We could stay single for that.

[Saucy Jack]

This is a very interesting discussion that everyone is having here. A great read.

All I know is that women have a lot over men. Women are capable of so much that it's scary sometimes. And I know a lot of men who will tell you that they are grateful to have a woman that will straighten their asses out a lot. Without women, we'd be lost a lot of the time. They are the most beautiful creatures on Earth, and they compliment men well.

I'd also like to hear some opinions on this: What about the women who want to have their cake and eat it, too? They want equal pay, etc., but also want special treatment in certain areas. Not quite sure how to phrase it, but hopefully you get the point.

And there are also arguments in favor of men having a lot over women. Without men making a lot of mistakes, how would women get enough practice to be so good at many things. :)

When men and women truly compliment one another and get along, that is a beautiful thing... and it kind of makes us equals.

By the way, I am still on medication and I have no idea whether or not I made any sense. I guess the thoughts are well-thought out in my head, but may not exactly translate to the keyboard. Medication... itchy.... tasty... :)

[zionoverfire]

Man, fuck that shit. :lol:

That's not instinct, it's conditioning.

But conditioning is the greater part of instinct.;)

Besides like you say it's all about the babies.:D

[alonzomourning23]

There will always be women that want equal rights and women that just want a man. I'm just telling it like it is. When the feminist women can't keep men in their lives they will either, change for a man, or stay "strong" and probably stay "alone" for the rest of their lives.

Before you guys start jumping down my throats, let me say that I am all for the equality of women. If I had a daughter, I'd want her to be treated equally yada, yada, yada. The thing is, that the amount of men who would be willing to marry a woman knowing that she will NOT take care of the kids and work instead is very small. When we're dating, we don't really care what women do. When men are looking for wives, we look for certain things like someone to nurture our offspring, someone to cook the food, someone to clean the house, etc.

If a man knows that a woman will not do these things, he will not marry her. If he does marry her, then he is a fool. What is the point of getting married? To be with the one you love? You can do that without a marriage license. The point of settling down with a woman from a male point of view is that you see a future with her. You see your future kids, a house, a white picket fence, a dog named spot, etc. This is what men want when they reach a certain age.

A woman could change AFTER the marriage and want to work, that's a different situation. If we know from the get-go that the marriage will be all business and there will be a maid raising the kids, then the whole proposition of marriage loses it's appeal. The whole point of it is to have a "home" to come home to.

Like I said, there is a percentage of men that will support their wives going to work and not raising the kids, but they are in the minority. As "bad" as it sounds, most guys want a "wife" and that cooks and cleans and not a "room mate". We could stay single for that.

Not sure where you live, but the vast majority of wives in the town I grew up in (and the majority nationally) worked full time jobs, along with their husbands. Raising kids should be a joint venture, and besides, to be with the one you love is the future for many people. You can do any of the things you suggested without a marriage license, but marriage is the ultimate step, the ultimate level of commitment. Why do you think gay couples push so hard for marriage rights?

Maybe it's different depending on where you live, but the men I know seem to assume that when they get married the wife will work, I don't know many men who strongly prefer to have a housewife, at least among my friends.

As for cooking and cleaning, I like my cooking and I can clean. If I wanted to be a lazy bum and sit on my ass after work and watch tv and drink beer while some drone sputters around the house cleaning up after me, I'd just live with my parents the rest of my life.

You sound like the stereotypical rural, middle american man who supports a traditional gender role system, and very strongly believes in traditional family roles.

I get the idea that your nightmare wife is a driven, college educated woman. Kinda sad really.

[kaji7p56]

Not sure where you live, but the vast majority of wives in the town I grew up in (and the majority nationally) worked full time jobs, along with their husbands. Raising kids should be a joint venture, and besides, to be with the one you love is the future for many people. You can do any of the things you suggested without a marriage license, but marriage is the ultimate step, the ultimate level of commitment. Why do you think gay couples push so hard for marriage rights?

Maybe it's different depending on where you live, but the men I know seem to assume that when they get married the wife will work, I don't know many men who strongly prefer to have a housewife, at least among my friends.

As for cooking and cleaning, I like my cooking and I can clean. If I wanted to be a lazy bum and sit on my ass after work and watch tv and drink beer while some drone sputters around the house cleaning up after me, I'd just live with my parents the rest of my life.

You sound like the stereotypical rural, middle american man who supports a traditional gender role system, and very strongly believes in traditional family roles.

I get the idea that your nightmare wife is a driven, college educated woman. Kinda sad really.


*DISCLAIMER for the guys that will read my post and try to prove me wrong*


First off, I said that some guys ARE willing to marry the "career woman" so I don't want to see 20 posts saying "You're wrong man! I can cook and clean". I get it, good for you. Most men (whether they will admit it or not) want a "wife".


*End DISCLAIMER*


When I'm dating a woman she can do whatever she wants. If she wants to get married we'll sort out the terms of the marriage beforehand. If we agree then we get married, if not then we go our separate ways. I'm not saying I won't budge on some things, though.

I live in Los Angeles and I'm 21. I am a College student and the woman I plan to marry should also have some sort of degree. Call me crazy, but I'd want the mother of my child to actually raise my child.

Like I said, I'm not going to force this on a woman. When I find the right girl and we are BOTH ready to have a family, the mother will stay home with the kids. If she wants to have a career then she can have it, but I won't be in the picture. This is a free country (sort of) and any woman is FREE to do as she pleases and I am FREE to not marry any woman that I don't want to marry. I don't think it's "sad", but then again anybody can claim that anything is "sad", so it's just a matter of opinion.

[Dead of Knight]

There are a couple girls in my school who are feminists, and they are super bitches. I don't think this has to do with the feminism thing though; they're just assholes on their own.

[camoor]

There are a couple girls in my school who are feminists, and they are super bitches. I don't think this has to do with the feminism thing though; they're just assholes on their own.

Yeah, there was this one girl we knew that was always excusing her super-bitchiness by saying she was PMS, finally someone told her that you can't be PMS all the time.

[evilmax17]

*DISCLAIMER for the guys that will read my post and try to prove me wrong*


First off, I said that some guys ARE willing to marry the "career woman" so I don't want to see 20 posts saying "You're wrong man! I can cook and clean". I get it, good for you. Most men (whether they will admit it or not) want a "wife".


*End DISCLAIMER*


When I'm dating a woman she can do whatever she wants. If she wants to get married we'll sort out the terms of the marriage beforehand. If we agree then we get married, if not then we go our separate ways. I'm not saying I won't budge on some things, though.

I live in Los Angeles and I'm 21. I am a College student and the woman I plan to marry should also have some sort of degree. Call me crazy, but I'd want the mother of my child to actually raise my child.

Like I said, I'm not going to force this on a woman. When I find the right girl and we are BOTH ready to have a family, the mother will stay home with the kids. If she wants to have a career then she can have it, but I won't be in the picture. This is a free country (sort of) and any woman is FREE to do as she pleases and I am FREE to not marry any woman that I don't want to marry. I don't think it's "sad", but then again anybody can claim that anything is "sad", so it's just a matter of opinion.

What's the point of a college degree if you're not going to use it? You should just get a highschool grad if that's what you want, because a college educated woman would spite you if you wanted her to squander her education.

[punqsux]

There will always be women that want equal rights and women that just want a man. I'm just telling it like it is. When the feminist women can't keep men in their lives they will either, change for a man, or stay "strong" and probably stay "alone" for the rest of their lives.

Before you guys start jumping down my throats, let me say that I am all for the equality of women. If I had a daughter, I'd want her to be treated equally yada, yada, yada. The thing is, that the amount of men who would be willing to marry a woman knowing that she will NOT take care of the kids and work instead is very small. When we're dating, we don't really care what women do. When men are looking for wives, we look for certain things like someone to nurture our offspring, someone to cook the food, someone to clean the house, etc.

If a man knows that a woman will not do these things, he will not marry her. If he does marry her, then he is a fool. What is the point of getting married? To be with the one you love? You can do that without a marriage license. The point of settling down with a woman from a male point of view is that you see a future with her. You see your future kids, a house, a white picket fence, a dog named spot, etc. This is what men want when they reach a certain age.

A woman could change AFTER the marriage and want to work, that's a different situation. If we know from the get-go that the marriage will be all business and there will be a maid raising the kids, then the whole proposition of marriage loses it's appeal. The whole point of it is to have a "home" to come home to.

Like I said, there is a percentage of men that will support their wives going to work and not raising the kids, but they are in the minority. As "bad" as it sounds, most guys want a "wife" and that cooks and cleans and not a "room mate". We could stay single for that.

i'd just like to say a few things, first off, its not a womans role to raise a child, its both parents. i dont know why we have this expectation that only women can be good parents, but its wrong. now obviously, if youre with someone who would do none of the parenting (though, what would the odds be of her actully having a baby) that would be a bad thing, since all of the parenting would rest on your shoulders, which would be equally hard on you as you are expecting of her.

There is no law against getting a house, a dog, kids, and a white picket fence w/o being married. love is love, and a piece of paper means nothing but a tax break.

it appears your gender role expectations are extreamly traditional, let me flip it around for a moment and ask you, what if you married a woman that made A) more than you, and, B) enough to support your family. would you do the housework and cooking so SHE has a home to come home to?

[punqsux]

They want equal pay, etc., but also want special treatment in certain areas. Not quite sure how to phrase it, but hopefully you get the point.


ill agree with you that this is a really good discussion, and id like to thank everyone for contributing.

as for special treatment, im totally against it. there's no reason for it, now by special treatment, i dont mean not opening a door for a woman, or something stupid like that, theres a line between equality and rudeness, but im talking about things like lowering requirements for job so women can pass them, as i stated earlier this is mostly physical jobs like fire fighting and military service and the such. i think that weakens those units as wholes.

[Reality's Fringe]

The most extreme possess the loudest voices. That's why there are a great deal of flagrant misconceptions about many ideologies. It is also why said ideologies are often times misconstrued or totally warped. It's best not to label yourself in regards to these issues.

[punqsux]

The most extreme possess the loudest voices. That's why there are a great deal of flagrant misconceptions about many ideologies. It is also why said ideologies are often times misconstrued or totally warped. It's best not to label yourself in regards to these issues.
I'd argue its best not to let media warp your mind into thinking all people of a given sect are radicals.

[Reality's Fringe]

I'd argue its best not to let media warp your mind into thinking all people of a given sect are radicals.

The people who get warped are usually in the majority. That's why I've found it best to avoid as many labels as possible.

"d00d, u a feminist?!"
"I believe in equal rights for everyone"
"..oh"

As opposed to

"d00d, u a feminist?"
"Yeah"
"OMG, you gay?! You a traitor to men!"

People have the distinct inablility to take the opinion of a prominent figure and process/analyze it in order to factor it into their own judgements and beliefs. They usually just assimilate it, which is why I try to avoid labels. In addition, I feel that having such a label confines you to what you can and cannot believe. Ie. Democrats and Republicans

[lilboo]

I dont see the point for femenism existing anymore. Everyone has equal rights, so what's the point? Well, everyone but gays really.

I guess, IMO, that femenism is more of a choice. "I want a career" "I'll cook & raise kids"--if it's HER choice, then I guess that's what its about.

The tough thing is, that we live in a society that families need a double income. It's ashame that children are being raised by daycares and what not. Of course, if one spouse has a VERY good career, then one of the 2 could stay with the children. I saw on Dr Phil one time, about this man who was a "stay at home dad" because his wife had an awesome career (forget what it was). He was on there because he felt he lost his manhood and whatnot and Dr Phil said that he [the Dad] had one of the hardest jobs in the world and all the women in the audience gave him a standing ovation...LOL

But yeah I think that femenism is a thing of the 20th century. Now it's all about gay activists. Can't this country do anything right? My God..

[alonzomourning23]

Well, women still make less than men, are disproportionately represented, and (as seen in this thread) many men still want their women working dropping babies and barefoot in the kitchen.

Though when a men strongly favors men he's called a chauvanist pig. When a women strongly favors women she's called a feminist. The problem is, while chauvanist is generally reserved for jerks, feminist is anyone who thinks women should be treated equal to women should smite all men.

[Reality's Fringe]

Regardless on my thoughts of equal rights, I still like boobies. Let us not forget this undeniable maxim.

[Mike23]

i found this REALLY strange.

i was in my sociology class today and the teacher was going around the room asking guys if they were feminists, and every guy except myself said no, which i kinda expected, because theres a real misconception that only females can be feminists.

so then he asked the girls, and not a single one said yes! there were a couple "i dont know" and some "sometimes?" replies, but i truned out to be the sole feminist in a class of about 45 people!

then the girl said "sometimes?" i turned to her and said "do you only want equal civil liberties on monday, wednesday, and friday? do you spend the rest of your time cooking barefoot?"

...yeah, she got really pissed XoD

does anyone else find this as strange as i do?

Since when could women attend school???

IKIK. :D

[mykevermin]

Though when a men strongly favors men he's called a chauvanist pig. When a women strongly favors women she's called a feminist. The problem is, while chauvanist is generally reserved for jerks, feminist is anyone who thinks women should be treated equal to women should smite all men.

Well, that's what us sociologists call hegemony, my friend. In the work context, though, it's homosocial reproduction.

mmm, jargon!

myke.
...it's also an (oversimplified) explanation for why African-Americans can use the "n-bomb" as a term of endearment and bonding, but for other races to do so is inherently racist.

[alonzomourning23]

Since when could women attend school???

IKIK. :D

My school was 63% women I believe, or womewhere around the high 50's-mid 60's. My psych and sociology classes were probably 75% women.

[Mike23]

My school was 63% women I believe, or womewhere around the high 50's-mid 60's. My psych and sociology classes were probably 75% women.

Toronto schools are like that. Here at McMaster, it's about even, women only having a slight edge.

And it was a joke. :D

[alonzomourning23]

Toronto schools are like that. Here at McMaster, it's about even, women only having a slight edge.

And it was a joke. :D

I know it was a joke, it just made me think of that. Lots of hot asian women at my school, really hot asian women. And hot arab women too, but they always seemed unattainable.

[kaji7p56]

i'd just like to say a few things, first off, its not a womans role to raise a child, its both parents. i dont know why we have this expectation that only women can be good parents, but its wrong. now obviously, if youre with someone who would do none of the parenting (though, what would the odds be of her actully having a baby) that would be a bad thing, since all of the parenting would rest on your shoulders, which would be equally hard on you as you are expecting of her.

There is no law against getting a house, a dog, kids, and a white picket fence w/o being married. love is love, and a piece of paper means nothing but a tax break.

it appears your gender role expectations are extreamly traditional, let me flip it around for a moment and ask you, what if you married a woman that made A) more than you, and, B) enough to support your family. would you do the housework and cooking so SHE has a home to come home to?

If the woman made more than me and wanted me to stay home I probably wouldn't even marry her in the first place. I'm not going to force this on any woman. She is going to know how I feel about these things before I even propose. If she does not want that life then that's okay. I don't get how hard this is to understand: I'm not going to force a woman to do something she does not want to do.

[alonzomourning23]

If the woman made more than me and wanted me to stay home I probably wouldn't even marry her in the first place. I'm not going to force this on any woman. She is going to know how I feel about these things before I even propose. If she does not want that life then that's okay. I don't get how hard this is to understand: I'm not going to force a woman to do something she does not want to do.

Well, that's not entirely the case. The woman may really love you and decide it's worth it to forget her dreams. Whether it's a problem with her self esteem or not, you may be heavily influencing a woman to give up her career to be with you, even if it's something she really doesn't want to do.

Things like this make me see how different my family is. Even in the 50's the majority of women worked in my family, and my grandmother ran the house, controlled my grandfather, and worked full time. My family has always had strong working women, or if not strong then at least working. My family is all poor-middle class and when a guy doesn't work he's viewed as lazy, no direction and going nowhere. When a woman doesn't work she's viewed as lazy, has no direction, and is going nowhere. Actually, out of all the adults in my family, 2 men don't work most of the year (they bounce from job to job, that is when they bother looking, the women bring in the vast majority of the money) and one woman doesn't work, and since the woman is on welfare with 4 or 5 kids (can't remember) people comment about her the most. One of the non working men used to work, and the wife bounced around, now it's switched. The wife got just as many comments as her husband does now (Actually a little more, since they were much poorer then)

I have a few indian friends as well and know alot of their family members, even those women work and India has much more traditinional family roles and beliefs.
So not only is the idea of traditional family roles sexist to me, it's not a concept I'm familiar with, as I really have had no exposure to it.

[kaji7p56]

Well, that's not entirely the case. The woman may really love you and decide it's worth it to forget her dreams. Whether it's a problem with her self esteem or not, you may be heavily influencing a woman to give up her career to be with you, even if it's something she really doesn't want to do.

I'm not going to change a woman into something see does not want to be. The whole point of dating is to find the right person. Once I find her, if she wants to be my "wife" and everything that comes with it we'll get married.

For the sake of argument, let's say I find a woman who does not want to be a housewife but will do anything I say because she loves me. It's still her choice. Why do you think such a small number of girls in punqsux's class even responded to the word feminism? That's not what MOST of them are after (some of them are after that). They want someone to take care of them and there most guys want to take care of them.

For a bunch of feminists, you guys aren't tolerant of my opinions.

[alonzomourning23]

I'm not going to change a woman into something see does not want to be. The whole point of dating is to find the right person. Once I find her, if she wants to be my "wife" and everything that comes with it we'll get married.

For the sake of argument, let's say I find a woman who does not want to be a housewife but will do anything I say because she loves me. It's still her choice. Why do you think such a small number of girls in punqsux's class even responded to the word feminism? That's not what MOST of them are after (some of them are after that). They want someone to take care of them and there most guys want to take care of them.

For a bunch of feminists, you guys aren't tolerant of my opinions.

The reason there are so few people who refer to themselves as "feminists" is because the limbaughs of the world have branded feminism as a pro woman, anti male, radical, lesbian ideology. Most people don't realize that normal feminism is simply viewing men and women as equal.

Though it's her choice, but for someone who's supposedly in love with her you really aren't giving much concern to her happiness. You are pressuring her into an arrangement that she doesn't really want, you pressuring her to give up what she (if she has a college degree) has been workign for. That's a horrible thing to do to the person you supposedly love. You can get a lover to do a lot of things against their will you know.

Though you're last comment is strange, how would someone saying they're a feminist mean they should be tolerant of traditional family views.

[HeadRusch]

You know I don't know but somewhere along the way this topic began to signal the "WTF?" alarm in my head....

This isn't that hard of a question to answer. Feminists are branded as Radical, crop-cut wearing butch Lesbians. Its not accurate, any more than being a gay man means you're a tiptoeing, flower-picking effeminate fairy.....but those are the people who are always out in front of the camera at the Gay Parade, right?

So get past the stereotypes........this topic isn't "Are you a feminist" but "Are you generalist".....do you buy into sweeping generalizations and stereotypes.

Its easy to do, alot of people do it, and it takes constant effort to not let your mind slip into that mode.

[kaji7p56]

The reason there are so few people who refer to themselves as "feminists" is because the limbaughs of the world have branded feminism as a pro woman, anti male, radical, lesbian ideology. Most people don't realize that normal feminism is simply viewing men and women as equal.

Though it's her choice, but for someone who's supposedly in love with her you really aren't giving much concern to her happiness. You are pressuring her into an arrangement that she doesn't really want, you pressuring her to give up what she (if she has a college degree) has been workign for. That's a horrible thing to do to the person you supposedly love. You can get a lover to do a lot of things against their will you know.

Though you're last comment is strange, how would someone saying they're a feminist mean they should be tolerant of traditional family views.

You're missing my point and instead focusing the on the word "feminist".



What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not going to be "pressuring" or "influencing" any woman's decision. I am going to find a woman that shares my point of view, of which there are many. We are both going to get what we want. If I think for one second that she does not want the "home" life, then we don't get married. It's not hard to understand.



Before you respond with the same old "You're forcing her!!!!" read the above paragraph carefully. Read it slow and let it soak in.

[punqsux]

The people who get warped are usually in the majority. That's why I've found it best to avoid as many labels as possible.

"d00d, u a feminist?!"
"I believe in equal rights for everyone"
"..oh"

As opposed to

"d00d, u a feminist?"
"Yeah"
"OMG, you gay?! You a traitor to men!"

People have the distinct inablility to take the opinion of a prominent figure and process/analyze it in order to factor it into their own judgements and beliefs. They usually just assimilate it, which is why I try to avoid labels. In addition, I feel that having such a label confines you to what you can and cannot believe. Ie. Democrats and Republicans

i'd prefer not to "dumb it down" for the masses, i say what i believe in, if people want to judge me on their own preconceptions, im fine with that, because it shows the kind of person that they are.

[alonzomourning23]

You're missing my point and instead focusing the on the word "feminist".



What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not going to be "pressuring" or "influencing" any woman's decision. I am going to find a woman that shares my point of view, of which there are many. We are both going to get what we want. If I think for one second that she does not want the "home" life, then we don't get married. It's not hard to understand.



Before you respond with the same old "You're forcing her!!!!" read the above paragraph carefully. Read it slow and let it soak in.

That's different then what you were saying before. Before it was more along the lines of an ultimatum, you either do this or we don't get married. It was a question of whether she would do it, not whether she really wanted to (as you said now).

[Reality's Fringe]

i'd prefer not to "dumb it down" for the masses, i say what i believe in, if people want to judge me on their own preconceptions, im fine with that, because it shows the kind of person that they are.

I just mean that avoiding stereotyped labels can make it clearer and easier to get your point across, at least in my experience. Preventing prejudgements makes the idea exchange much smoother, at least for me :)

[Gamer's Girlfriend]

this arguement reminds me of a couple of friends of mine...they got married after they both graduated college, both went into their respective family businesses. She made by far more than him. Then they had a child. He quit working to take care of the kid and the house because they didn't like any of the sitting agencies around.
He has a very expensive hobby which she sponsors and supports (although he does normally win enough from it to pay for it).
They now have 3 kids and she's still the only one that's working...

I can see where a lot of different things can be said about these two ranging from he's abusing her in the since that he's making her pay for everything including his hobby to she's oppressing him by making him stay home. I never actually thought about it until this...they must catch a lot of hell from strangers. But the whole reason he quit was because they didn't want a stranger raising their kids...the same situation could more often does occur with women staying home...how is that any different? is it wrong becuase it fits the traditional gender role, or is the other way wrong in that it doesn't? Or should every couple with kids just let them be raised by some impartial unloving daycare system

[javeryh]

I'm all for feminism. Angry chicks are good in the sack.

[mykevermin]

this arguement reminds me of a couple of friends of mine...they got married after they both graduated college, both went into their respective family businesses. She made by far more than him. Then they had a child. He quit working to take care of the kid and the house because they didn't like any of the sitting agencies around.
He has a very expensive hobby which she sponsors and supports (although he does normally win enough from it to pay for it).
They now have 3 kids and she's still the only one that's working...

I can see where a lot of different things can be said about these two ranging from he's abusing her in the since that he's making her pay for everything including his hobby to she's oppressing him by making him stay home. I never actually thought about it until this...they must catch a lot of hell from strangers. But the whole reason he quit was because they didn't want a stranger raising their kids...the same situation could more often does occur with women staying home...how is that any different? is it wrong becuase it fits the traditional gender role, or is the other way wrong in that it doesn't? Or should every couple with kids just let them be raised by some impartial unloving daycare system

Male/female headed households are *slowly* converging in their roles (women are working more, househubandry is not as uncommon as it once was, children aren't being rasied according to strict gender socialization processes anymore, etc.). Of course, as spouses and as parents, men and women are still *way* different, at the aggregate level, but the patterns are converging.

So, parents are more conscious of how they raise their children. More parents are beginning to encourage their children to do what they want, learn things, be assertive, etc - I suppose, for lack of a better word, you could call this the more "liberal" approach (due to allowing equal opportunities for boys and girls alike, whether or not they play "gender-blind" feminism or "celebratory" feminism).

The funny thing is, and something I just *know* is going to happen to me as a parent, is this: sociological research shows patterns of behavior from fathers to daughters that is very encouraging, as mentioned above. Girls are being seen and heard, to twist the old phrase. The funny part? Once the daughter hits puberty, and more importantly, begins to date, the father, no matter how egalitarian before hand, almost instantaneously regresses into the typical kind of glowering atavistic protective father type that many of us encountered in our teenage years: "So, you're going to have my daughter home by 10." That kinda shit. With far and few exceptions, the research shows that fathers, regardless of how gender-equal they consider themselves, they almost all turn into this kinda dad.

myke.

[Quillion]

Buy women are better than men, at many things. They are much better communicators, for one.

Huh? I didn't understand.

That's probably because we're both men.

[Quillion]

I'm all for feminism. Angry chicks are good in the sack.

They really are, until they start the handcuffing and melted wax, riding crops, 2x4s, cutting, burning with paperclips, stuff like that.

[Quillion]

Male/female headed households are *slowly* converging in their roles (women are working more, househubandry is not as uncommon as it once was, children aren't being rasied according to strict gender socialization processes anymore, etc.). Of course, as spouses and as parents, men and women are still *way* different, at the aggregate level, but the patterns are converging.

So, parents are more conscious of how they raise their children. More parents are beginning to encourage their children to do what they want, learn things, be assertive, etc - I suppose, for lack of a better word, you could call this the more "liberal" approach (due to allowing equal opportunities for boys and girls alike, whether or not they play "gender-blind" feminism or "celebratory" feminism).

The funny thing is, and something I just *know* is going to happen to me as a parent, is this: sociological research shows patterns of behavior from fathers to daughters that is very encouraging, as mentioned above. Girls are being seen and heard, to twist the old phrase. The funny part? Once the daughter hits puberty, and more importantly, begins to date, the father, no matter how egalitarian before hand, almost instantaneously regresses into the typical kind of glowering atavistic protective father type that many of us encountered in our teenage years: "So, you're going to have my daughter home by 10." That kinda shit. With far and few exceptions, the research shows that fathers, regardless of how gender-equal they consider themselves, they almost all turn into this kinda dad.

myke.

Do you want some horny sixteen year-old knocking up your daughter? Isn't it normal to be protective of your spawn/progeny/genetic carriers?

Pubescent males are pre-disposed to nail everything that moves to spread around as much genetic material as possible. Females are designed to be monogamous so as to have a male around to provide.

In today's society, these things aren't necessarily the way things work, but we are still instinctually programmed for them. You can't change your nature.

[mykevermin]

Do you want some horny sixteen year-old knocking up your daughter? Isn't it normal to be protective of your spawn/progeny/genetic carriers?

Pubescent males are pre-disposed to nail everything that moves to spread around as much genetic material as possible. Females are designed to be monogamous so as to have a male around to provide.

In today's society, these things aren't necessarily the way things work, but we are still instinctually programmed for them. You can't change your nature.

Not the point. The point is that most fathers who, although they previously raised their children equally despite their sex, at roughly the same time period changed their parenting styles into the same general set of characteristics (setting curfews, requiring more detailed information of the child's whereabouts, getting to know the girl's male friends in-depth, etc.). These are characteristics that, you might say, are typical of the parent who comes to realize they now have a young adult in the home. However, these behaviors emerged in the parents of adolescent females much more than it did adolescent males (thus suggesting that, by adolescence, even the most egalitarian parents fall subject to norms of gender socialization for children). The point of the study is to show that patterns of childrearing that are converging towards similarity for children seem to disappear into the status quo at the onset of puberty.

As someone who identifies themselves as a liberal and a feminist, I believe that my daughter, should I have one, should be given as many opportunities and encouraged to do whatever it is the hell she wants (within the domain of what we consider appropriate, of course). To think that the research shows that I'll likely become a domineering overprotective paranoid type at the onset of puberty is, to me, a fascinating suggestion. It's one that I would not have expected of myself, and, frankly, something I find really funny (but that's my sense of humor).

myke.
...so, what was your point again?

[alonzomourning23]

They really are, until they start the handcuffing and melted wax, riding crops, 2x4s, cutting, burning with paperclips, stuff like that.

Tell me when you get to the bad part. Though you forgot whips and what exactly is "riding crops"?

[kaji7p56]

That's different then what you were saying before. Before it was more along the lines of an ultimatum, you either do this or we don't get married. It was a question of whether she would do it, not whether she really wanted to (as you said now).

I guess it's my fault. I should have made it clear from the start.