Feminism (male input welcomed)

[slowlickitysplit]

Edit

[slowlickitysplit]

Dutch,
I agree with you; it has always been the radicals that get things done. From Ghandi to King to (trying not to choke - jk) Betty Fernand (sp). I think the thing that we need to question is the value of the action. They are demonstrating the olympics for homeless rights. You sound like you approve? What if they did the same thing at the special olympics? Then the question becomes whose values do we use as the judgment for appropriate behavior even by radicals? As 420 fans i would hope it would lay somewhere in the realm of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else".

- Slow -

[thcbongman]

Dutchlover...sorry to be hikacking your thread but I feel I have to respond. Guess I've spent too much time around BFA.

Dave Byrd.
I am sure you are a well educated man and I imagine at some point you must have taken micro and macro economics so I think you can see that you either dismised or ignored my central point that todays economy is a direct result of women CHOOSING to supliment thier husbands income in the 60's. When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone. I know you are white collar but if you doubt this go to your local chain store and ask some of the young women working there. I know of at least 3 women where I work who stay with there husbands only because they can't afford to go out on thier own. Sounds a lot like the old farm days when a man and a woman NEEDED eachother for survival.
My point, though I know you disagree, is that women choosing to go back to work has led to women having to go back to work and it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling.

PS. I am aware that Susan B. Anthony was not the first suffereget, I was trying to keep things clear as we could debate the true beginings of feminism for days.

- Slow -

Wow is all I can say. You certainly can attributed deindustrialization and administrative costs to rising living costs. To say it's solely because of more women entering the workforce is absurd. You can't point out a sole factor because the economy is too complex for such closed-minded analysis. It's just like saying civil rights is the cause for rising living costs. It's amounts to put it bluntly, slander.

[Polymirize]

Poly,
This is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did women go into the work force from economic need as Dave appears to claim or did women going into the workforce bring about inflation as I claim? I support my theorey with an example at least. Dave uses big words to sound like he's quoting fact but in truth he simply stating his opinion.
To everyone: I am done with this line. You know where I stand and this is boring and a bit annoying.
Peace.

Please don't presume that Dave is speaking so far above my level of understanding that I didn't grasp all of his big words and simply think he sounds good instead.
This is not the chicken and the egg. Because with the chicken and the egg, at least you're pretty safe in assuming that they're related.
Your example didn't really support anything. And I think Dave made a good point which I'll agree with, your understanding of history is backwards.

If you want to be a man about this, you'd just concede that you have nothing to back up your point. I'm more than willing to discuss this if its still considered a valid point.
You seem to be getting worried that your annoying people. Maybe its less what you say, and more how mindlessly you cling to it.

[birdgirl73]

I believe you're mostly annoyed, Slowlickity, because people have used very simple logic—and fine words—to point out unassailable facts. You can call them opinions if you like, but even the most traditional economist or historian will confirm what we're saying about women entering the workforce out of fiscal necessity. The female employment era had an early start during World War II, long before anyone termed the trend feministic, but it was borne out of economic necessity then, too. Those wartime-working ladies returned to home and hearth to begin bearing those of us who're the spawn of the Baby Boom. And they emerged again in the workforce in large numbers in the 1960-to-1974 span when the Vietnam conflict, inflation, and various other economic forces were at work. Sure, plenty of other things factored in. We had reliable birth control after 1960, which allowed women to have fewer children and more freedom. And we increasingly got more education, which had the same effect.

I encourage you to converse with a historian or economist of your choosing at your earliest convenience so you can transfer your misplaced annoyance onto historical reality. You can transfer your annoyance at vocabulary to me because it was I, not my husband Dave, who trotted out the “big words” on you. I think you were mostly annoyed with him because he shot down your women’s employment-heart disease theory at point-blank range.

On a final note, I’m all for women who stay at home and raise their families if they can. I was raised by a stay-at-home mom and an equally involved dad. Probably that’s why I turned out to be so sweet and deferential. As I said earlier, I was able to engineer my life so that I could stay at home with my own child, too. But that was because I had an accommodating, forward-thinking employer who valued families as well as women’s professional contributions and because I had enough education myself—and a husband with the same—that we could swing that financially. I applaud families who make the financial sacrifices to allow one parent to be the primary caregiver, and I know it’s not easy. It’s rearing children and keeping a home that is the hardest job on earth, not being a professional woman. Parenting pays off, though. I can’t think of any contribution I made professionally—or will in the future—that’ll be as important to society as a well-raised child who becomes a happy, positively contributing citizen.

[birdgirl73]

I'd like to see a dicussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.

Just name the time, Breuk . . .

Personally, I do not wish to be part of a "Village" and being responsible for taking care of kids.

I'd vote for Yillary when hell freezes over. :smokin:

Oh, Breuk, here you're almost too tiresome to merit a response, but let me simply say that you can lie to yourself and tell others you proudly dismiss any connection to children, but at heart I hope youâ??re not clueless enough to really believe that. I'm certainly not.

Iâ??m well aware of your sentiments about children and people who bear them. I think your disdain is actually a result of your own out-of-balance upbringing, which I know involved abuse and pain and has left you with lingering bitterness. You wonâ??t get any argument from me that youâ??ve likely done a great service to society by not having children of your own. In your heart and mind, however, I hope youâ??re not so myopic or isolationistic that you canâ??t see that other peopleâ??s children are going to touch your life in very direct ways, even if you have no concern for them now. Theyâ??re going to be the ones who assess and collect your taxes. Write the legislation that governs you. Mold the global policy that shapes your world. Theyâ??re going to be the ones find new cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease and even celiac disease. Who will nurture and nurse you, spoon-feed you, help you get up out of your chair, and change your diapers when you require that assistance, see to your funeral arrangements, and probate your will. Theyâ??re already the ones whoâ??re out there defending you from enemies both foreign and domestic.

So I hope youâ??ll re-evaluate your stance as not being connected to the metaphoric village and not having any investment in children, no matter what you think of Senator Clinton. Because you are connected even if youâ??re not yet perceptive enough to comprehend that.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I'd like to see a discussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.
Just name the time, Breuk . . .
Weâ??ll get to it in time. Cnildfree women talking about their views make me sound like the president of the Foundation for Children as Gods, lol.

Oh, Breuk, here you're almost too tiresome to merit a response, but let me simply say that you can lie to yourself and tell others you proudly dismiss any connection to children, but at heart I hope youâ??re not clueless enough to really believe that. I'm certainly not.

Iâ??m well aware of your sentiments about children and people who bear them. I think your disdain is actually a result of your own out-of-balance upbringing, which I know involved abuse and pain and has left you with lingering bitterness.
Hey, I never said I had "abuse" from my parents or upbringing - I had a lot of bad breaks, which I took in stride - and do a lot less bitching about my problems than many middle-class whiners with kids. Your personal remarks are "tiresome", and the sign of a weak argument - I'm speaking about my perceptions in general - not attacking anybody in particular on this board.

You wonâ??t get any argument from me that youâ??ve likely done a great service to society by not having children of your own.
I'd probably make a better parent than 95 percent of those that have children - if it were my inclination.

In your heart and mind, however, I hope youâ??re not so myopic or isolationistic that you canâ??t see that other peopleâ??s children are going to touch your life in very direct ways, even if you have no concern for them now.
I have "concern" in that there are too many of them in the world - and people have them for stupid reasons.

Theyâ??re going to be the ones who asses and collect your taxes. Write the legislation that governs you. Mold the global policy that shapes your world. Theyâ??re going to be the ones find new cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease and even celiac disease. Who will nurture and nurse you, spoon-feed you, help you get up out of your chair, and chansge your diapers when you require that assistance, see to your funeral arrangements, and probate your will. Theyâ??re already the ones whoâ??re out there defending you from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Children do not do these things - adults do. And I won't be wearing "diapers", or end up in a nursing home. Nobody in my line ever did, and I wont be the first.

Happiness is being free - and not living in a fools' paradise.


So I hope youâ??ll re-evaluate your stance as not being connected to the metaphoric village and not having any investment in children, no matter what you think of Senator Clinton. Because you are connected even if youâ??re not yet perceptive enough to comprehend that.

I'm "perceptive enough to comprehend" when I'm getting ripped-off by a person with a constituency of incompetent parents that needs my money to care for and entertain more expensive, obnoxious little reproductions of themselves.

P.S. most of the Childfree organizations are run, and frequented by, women. Whether they are "feminists" or not, they are out there - and their number is increasong, along with childfree males, in the world.

[Maggz]

I figured since this is the Women's Forum that a thread on Feminism is very appropriate. This IS NOT a male bashing thread (a lot of men assume feminism=anti-male, which is not true...well with radical feminism it pretty much is, but that's another story. lol)!! This thread can be about anything to do with feminism...men, feel free to ask questions about it and share your concerns with it if you have any...

Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):

Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?

What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?

What does feminism mean to you?

What issues do you think are most important for feminists?

Hey come on pussy cat, smile a little bit..huh?

[birdgirl73]

Children grow up to be adults, Breuk. That was my most basic point, and you let it whiz right by you.

I never said it was your family that caused you the abusive pain; you've said that was religiously connected, but that certainly still counts as pain. The out-of-balance was, as you've mentioned several times, in the way you were parented, especially the largely female influence. I'm not saying you've whined about this. You haven't. It's simply information you've volunteered, perhaps more than you realized. (Same reason I added celiac sprue there to the cures that the instant, never-children adults will cure.)

[Breukelen advocaat]

Children grow up to be adults, Breuk. That was my most basic point, and you let it whiz right by you.

I never said it was your family that caused you the abusive pain; you've said that was religiously connected, but that certainly still counts as pain. The out-of-balance was, as you've mentioned several times, in the way you were parented, especially the largely female influence. I'm not saying you've whined about this. You haven't. It's simply information you've volunteered, perhaps more than you realized. (Same reason I added celiac sprue there to the cures that the instant, never-children adults will cure.)

I was more angered than "pained" by religion. I kept a low-profile in the instituions I attended, but saw a lot of less-fortunate kids get abused.

As far as my upbringing, you have either misunderstood me, or have me confused with someone else. I had both parents, but my mother died at age 39, when I was in my early teens. Fortunately, my father was around until I moved out to live on my own.

I am already "cured" of Celiac, an autoimmune disease, because I stopped eating gluten. My recovery was great, and I only talk about it because the vast majority of doctors in the United States are ignorent of it, as many as three million people in the U.S. have this condition - and are being misdiagnosed and/or ignored. There will never be a "cure" for it, really - the best I hope for is a pill that will minimize effects from cross-contamination when eating out. For now, I only eat-out in restaurants that know how to prepare dedicated gluten-free items. It's great to be well - and getting better all the time. I hope that more of the millions of people with it are able to fix themselves, as I did.