Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Wynona]

I used to have an Mechanical contracting business and we knew a guy who owned a Jewelry store and I was building a house for him in the mountains. Well, the gas, plumbing and heat & Air. And we invited him and his wife to dinner. Bob was always asking if he can have some of her Perogies that are so famous around town, lol. And eventually she said yes and...was supposed to make a big batch. It's todaY they're coming dont be late for dinner!

But I was late. I came in and they were already sitting at the dinner table. She made me a plate real quick and I took two bites and knew immediately that, these werent her Perogies. I said (without thinking, lol!) Hey these aint yours! What are these froze from a bag or something...?! And they were, lol. She had been pressed for time about something and thought she could take a short cut, and it just didnt fly with me! When she makes Perogies it always takes her 2 to 3 full days of cooking and preperation because she always made a huge pot full. (huge). And I made look bad, but she shoulda known and warned me to keep quiet. Poor Bob.

He did get some of the real ones after that. She owed him, lol! Bob prolly couldnt have been able to tell that they was from a bag if I hadnt opened my mouth!

I relate to her in this example. Once you start cooking really wel, it just becomes the standard so its really hard to go back to shortcuts! Cooking well can be a double edged sword if only in that way. You start having a reputation.

 

[BlessedPeace]

What am I missing? (Feel free to share?) It may be true that many feminists are not against women being traditional by choice. But the idea that marriage is slavery or that housework is inferior to careers outside of home did originate with the feminist movement.

It's like the no true Scotsman fallacy. "That's not actual feminism!" Not all feminists agree on everything. But mocking traditional feminine roles is definitely a byproduct of feminism.




What ridicule and mockery? Unless you mean your argument with MA2444? I wasnt trying to pick sides. Im happy both of you posted. I may have missed some of what was said. Otherwise, Im not sure what you mean by this.

If you would have read my post you would have seen I did not say marriage as slavery originated with the feminist movement.

In point of fact Yeshua was supporting of Feminism in 1st century. As was Saul.

Knowing what Feminism is makes that understandable.

Enlighten you as to what Feminism entails? What you're missing?

It's your thread . One that targets what you do not understand.

 

[Wynona]

If you would have read my post you would have seen I did not say marriage as slavery originated with the feminist movement.

In point of fact Yeshua was supporting of Feminism in 1st century. As was Saul.

Knowing what Feminism is makes that understandable.

Enlighten you as to what Feminism entails? What you're missing?

It's your thread . One that targets what you do not understand.

You say my claims are unsubstantiated. That in itself is a claim that I'd like you to back up with your own reasoning but you certainly don't have to.

I don't mind people backing up claims on 'my thread'. I actually prefer it, especially if the claim is I don't know feminism.

I try put in the effort to research feminism in it's different waves through American history. Im not just trying to put you on the spot to be a contrarian. I sincerely would be open to correction if I missed something. But you don't have to. Im still happy you posted.

 

[Wynona]

If you would have read my post you would have seen I did not say marriage as slavery originated with the feminist movement.

Fair enough.

 

[MA2444]

I relate to her in this example. Once you start cooking really wel, it just becomes the standard so its really hard to go back to shortcuts! Cooking well can be a double edged sword if only in that way. You start having a reputation.

That's for sure! Once word got around that Ed's wife is a super duper cook no one ever turned down a dinner invite from us! At that time the kids were still only about 10 or 11 plus we was in Business and she kept all the books and was the secretary, and still kept her house. (the office was home based).

So she had a lot on her plate at the time and I dont begrudge her for trying to take a shorcut. By then she had learned about all the shorcuts in the grocery store and got a wee bit Americanized at times, lol. Not too much at home I'm glad to say. I didnt mind if she used frozen vegetables instead of chopping up a bunch of fresh but frozen Periogies do not come close to Real Polish Perogies made from scratch, and she could make them 10 different ways! (at least)

When she mad Cabbage rolls she would always wind going to 8 different stores to get just the most perfect Cabbages for them. That was impressive to me. And they are goood!

I think all the Polish people are like that. EVen when I was just her boyfriend and coming to her parents house...that's the first thing they always did was to shove a plate full of Polish food at me. I learned a thing or two from them about being a good host! Good People!

 

[Wynona]

"In the process, feminists concluded that men were right about everything. If men thought that housewives were dumb, that staying home and raising kids was mindless drudgery, it was so. It didn’t matter that our foremothers for generations had found homemaking noble and fulfilling. What did they know?—they were stupid housewives! We were embarrassed by our female ancestors and envied the males. They had power, and we wanted power. We couldn’t imagine any success except success in men’s terms.

Thus, feminism unconsciously adopted the very values of the people they claimed to be opposing, because it’s so easy to get c o n f u s e d about what you really want. We ignored the evidence of our own eyes. We saw men losing their identities in their careers, exhausted from the “rat race,” nourishing ulcers at three-martini lunches, and dying early of heart attacks, yet we clawed to gain the same privilege. Even the memory of the absence of our own daddies from our childhood didn’t open our eyes. It was the sour grapes principle in reverse: The grapes may look sour, but as long as men wanted them, we’d choke them down."

---
Excerpt from Three Bad Ideas For Women by
Frederica Matthews-Green

 

[BlessedPeace]

• Feminism is for everybody

• The Lancet

Published:February 09, 2019DOI:Redirecting


PlumX Metrics



“To be ‘feminist’ in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression.” bell hooks made this clear and powerful statement in her 1981 study of sexism, racism, and the feminist and civil rights movements Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Almost 40 years on, the world is still reckoning with pervasive and inexcusable gender inequality underpinned by bias and sexism, and research and health care are no exception.

Today, The Lancet publishes a theme issue on advancing women in science, medicine, and global health, with the aim of showcasing research, commentary, and analysis that provide new explanations and evidence for action towards gender equity.

This theme issue is the result of a call for papers that led to over 300 submissions from more than 40 countries. The overwhelming conclusion from this collection of work is that, to achieve meaningful change, actions must be directed at transforming the systems that women work within—making approaches informed by feminist analyses essential.
It is well established that women are under-represented in positions of power and leadership, undervalued, and experience discrimination and gender-based violence in scientific and health disciplines across the world. Intersectional approaches have provided insights into how other categories of difference such as ethnicity, class, geography, disability, and sexuality interact with gender to compound inequalities.

Most submissions to this theme issue came from high-income countries, highlighting the need to support scholarship from the Global South.

Geordan Shannon and colleagues provide a global overview of gender inequality in science, medicine, and global health, and discuss the evidence for the substantial health, social, and economic gains that could be achieved by addressing this inequality. Indeed, some studies, including one in this issue by Cassidy Sugimoto and colleagues, show that more diverse and inclusive teams lead to better science and more successful organisations.

• View related content for this article

Despite decades of recognition, these problems have proved stubbornly persistent. It is now commonplace for organisations to make public statements valuing diversity, hire diversity officers, and implement programmes to advance women's careers.

Yet, all too often, such programmes locate the source of the problem, and hence the solution, within women and their own behaviour. Thus, although actions such as mentoring and skills training might be well intentioned and advantageous to a degree, they often fail to engage with broader features of systems that disproportionately privilege men. For instance, Holly Witteman and colleagues show, using data from a federal funder, how gender bias disadvantages women applying for grant funding.

Reflecting on these biases can be difficult for professions like science and medicine that are grounded in beliefs of their own objectivity and evidence-driven thinking. A trio of papers in this issue demonstrates the value of critical perspectives in this regard. Malika Sharma explains how the “historical gendering of medicine prioritises particular types of knowledge (and ways of producing that knowledge), and creates barriers for critical, and specifically feminist, research and practice”. Feminist and other critical perspectives enable researchers to question the underlying assumptions that produce and maintain social hierarchies, and in doing so, imagine ways to transform fields and practices to make them more equitable and inclusive.

Likewise, Sara Davies and colleagues argue that a feminist research agenda is key to advancing gender equality in global health, and Kopano Ratele and colleagues explain why efforts to engage men in advancing gender equality must be grounded in an appreciation of theories of masculinity.
For actions to have lasting and far-reaching consequences, they must therefore be directed at creating institutional-level change.

Several pieces in this theme issue discuss such approaches, with a Review by Imogen Coe and colleagues providing a toolbox of organisational best practices towards gender equality in science and medicine.

The Lancet's commitments to addressing gender bias in publishing are detailed in a Comment. Gender equity is not only a matter of justice and rights, it is crucial for producing the best research and providing the best care to patients. If the fields of science, medicine, and global health are to hope to work towards improving human lives, they must be representative of the societies they serve. The fight for gender equity is everyone's responsibility, and this means that feminism, too, is for everybody—for men and women, researchers, clinicians, funders, institutional leaders, and, yes, even for medical journals.

 

[MA2444]

• Feminism is for everybody
• The Lancet

Published:February 09, 2019DOI:Redirecting

PlumX Metrics



“To be ‘feminist’ in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression.” bell hooks made this clear and powerful statement in her 1981 study of sexism, racism, and the feminist and civil rights movements Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Almost 40 years on, the world is still reckoning with pervasive and inexcusable gender inequality underpinned by bias and sexism, and research and health care are no exception.

Today, The Lancet publishes a theme issue on advancing women in science, medicine, and global health, with the aim of showcasing research, commentary, and analysis that provide new explanations and evidence for action towards gender equity.

This theme issue is the result of a call for papers that led to over 300 submissions from more than 40 countries. The overwhelming conclusion from this collection of work is that, to achieve meaningful change, actions must be directed at transforming the systems that women work within—making approaches informed by feminist analyses essential.
It is well established that women are under-represented in positions of power and leadership, undervalued, and experience discrimination and gender-based violence in scientific and health disciplines across the world. Intersectional approaches have provided insights into how other categories of difference such as ethnicity, class, geography, disability, and sexuality interact with gender to compound inequalities.

Most submissions to this theme issue came from high-income countries, highlighting the need to support scholarship from the Global South.

Geordan Shannon and colleagues provide a global overview of gender inequality in science, medicine, and global health, and discuss the evidence for the substantial health, social, and economic gains that could be achieved by addressing this inequality. Indeed, some studies, including one in this issue by Cassidy Sugimoto and colleagues, show that more diverse and inclusive teams lead to better science and more successful organisations.

• View related content for this article

Despite decades of recognition, these problems have proved stubbornly persistent. It is now commonplace for organisations to make public statements valuing diversity, hire diversity officers, and implement programmes to advance women's careers.

Yet, all too often, such programmes locate the source of the problem, and hence the solution, within women and their own behaviour. Thus, although actions such as mentoring and skills training might be well intentioned and advantageous to a degree, they often fail to engage with broader features of systems that disproportionately privilege men. For instance, Holly Witteman and colleagues show, using data from a federal funder, how gender bias disadvantages women applying for grant funding.

Reflecting on these biases can be difficult for professions like science and medicine that are grounded in beliefs of their own objectivity and evidence-driven thinking. A trio of papers in this issue demonstrates the value of critical perspectives in this regard. Malika Sharma explains how the “historical gendering of medicine prioritises particular types of knowledge (and ways of producing that knowledge), and creates barriers for critical, and specifically feminist, research and practice”. Feminist and other critical perspectives enable researchers to question the underlying assumptions that produce and maintain social hierarchies, and in doing so, imagine ways to transform fields and practices to make them more equitable and inclusive.

Likewise, Sara Davies and colleagues argue that a feminist research agenda is key to advancing gender equality in global health, and Kopano Ratele and colleagues explain why efforts to engage men in advancing gender equality must be grounded in an appreciation of theories of masculinity.
For actions to have lasting and far-reaching consequences, they must therefore be directed at creating institutional-level change.

Several pieces in this theme issue discuss such approaches, with a Review by Imogen Coe and colleagues providing a toolbox of organisational best practices towards gender equality in science and medicine.

The Lancet's commitments to addressing gender bias in publishing are detailed in a Comment. Gender equity is not only a matter of justice and rights, it is crucial for producing the best research and providing the best care to patients. If the fields of science, medicine, and global health are to hope to work towards improving human lives, they must be representative of the societies they serve. The fight for gender equity is everyone's responsibility, and this means that feminism, too, is for everybody—for men and women, researchers, clinicians, funders, institutional leaders, and, yes, even for medical journals.

That's what feminists want? That's quite a word salad, but what does it mean succinctly?

Do feminists want to be a "kept woman" where he pays all the bills and does the housework and cooking?
Do they want husbands at all?
Do they merely seek hgher pay for the same professions as their male counterparts?
Or do they just want the power in society that men seem to enjoy?

And who's being unfair to these women? Is it society? Is it the men?

Teach me something about feminism.

 

[Wynona]

“To be ‘feminist’ in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression.”

Thanks BlessedPeace. Do you believe gender and gender roles are a societal construct? As always, just curious.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Thanks BlessedPeace. Do you believe gender and gender roles are a societal construct? As always, just curious.

In many respects, yes.

The fabled notion a single mother is unable or unfit to raise her family,as example.

The notion a woman cannot be a CEO.

Or,that she needs a man to be complete in herself.

Or,that as a single woman she cannot inherit. Once a law in many states here .

Or, that she cannot vote for her national future. As was once thought too.

Or,that she is in enable,unfit,to enter combat.

Today,women pilot fighter jets. Serve on warships. And are even in Special Forces. Even as a SEAL.

Bless them all , women and men, for their service and sacrifice.

 

[Wynona]

In many respects, yes.

The fabled notion a single mother is unable or unfit to raise her family,as example.

The notion a woman cannot be a CEO.

Or,that she needs a man to be complete in herself.

Or,that as a single woman she cannot inherit. Once a law in many states here .

Or, that she cannot vote for her national future. As was once thought too.

Or,that she is in enable,unfit,to enter combat.

Today,women pilot fighter jets. Serve on warships. And are even in Special Forces. Even as a SEAL.

Bless them all , women and men, for their service and sacrifice.

I would also disagree with a couple of those things.

For example, a woman not being able to be a CEO or needing a man to complete herself. Women can now do a lot of things men have traditionally done in this country. We have choices now that many women of the past did not. I don't think its a question if women can or not.

Since women now have so many choices I wonder why feminism is still such a strong movement in America? Why do we still need a push towards feminism? When is it mission accomplished? We have gender equality in every systemic sense (in some cases, women preferred). Why don't I see more feminists going overseas where women are going through physical horrors because of their culture's customs?

If feminism's goal was about eliminating gender constructs that limit what men and women can do, Id say we've arrived years ago. I don't consider patriarchy a threat at all to American women today. My view is the minority of the minority.

Women have always been capable of doing things men do. But making that a single goalpost of progress often fails to address the strengths women have that men cannot supply, and what makes most women feel fulfilled and happy.

For example, the following article cites statistics about a gender gap in Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It also suggests bias from society discouraging girls to pursue these fields.

The Importance of Closing the Gender Gap in STEM – All Together

Various methods can be used to smash age-old stereotypes and interest young girls in engineering, showing how they can ultimately make it a career.

alltogether.swe.org

I have an associates degree in Computer Technology that I currently don't use. I took an interest in that field because it pays well. My classmates were almost all men. But honestly? I didn't find it as interesting as they did. I can do what they did. But it was never as fulfilling for me.

It is a mistake to think that equality means sameness or same results. Not as many women choose to go into STEM because they are not generally not as interested. Plenty of people encouraged my interest in Computers. Hardly anyone encourages my interest in homemaking. The article may think in terms of gender roles being an arbitrary limitation but that doesn't mean that they never have any basis in reality or human nature.

My problem becomes when feminists ignore reality and human nature in pursuit of a gender-roleless ideal. To the extent that feminists acknowledge real differences in men and women, I tend to agree with them.

 

[MA2444]

Or,that she needs a man to be complete in herself.

I think we know that the partnership/marriage thing that was given to man by God, is in fact a teaching tool from God to teach us about relationships and being one with another. Types and shadows of Heaven. As above, so below! That said all one reallys needs is the Lord and not a spouse. He is the spouse! Right? (He's also called the Groom and has a male name but we wont go there, lol)

How can a woman, in a practical sense of day to day life not need a man in her life to complete certain tasks for her? I never see the wives i the driveway all saturday fixing their car. That's the man's job. I should be done by suppertime. There is completion, I thought?
Even if she ist married does she take the car to the mechanic which is typically a male? Or does she not need him to complete her transportation?

Women could not live with out the men. Who would build the roads? Who works in the oil fields? They need oil for their cars. She dont want to work in the oil fields. Let the men do that and you go off to be a CEO instead? Men could not live without the woman. Wel, you can and it's peaceful but the house sure dont have that feminine touch any more, lol.

That's ok! Be a CEO. There are lady CEO's. But they can do the job. Can all women handle being a real CEO? I've heard that many companies are laying off their women. Because their getting to be too picky wanting to do less and get paid more, oh and I took a 2 hour lunch to get my nails done so you better not even mention that! Stuff like that. There's less drama in the workforce without women employees they said.

So in a practical sense, feminism makes no sense to me. She will get a flat tire. She can not install her own Jacuzzi tub in her home. Those can be a pain in the butt even for men. Ask me how I know, lol.

I just dont get it. Feminism seems, totally backwards.

It prolly is mens fault that women have become like this, feminists. That's what happens you spoil them too much. Hey we're out of wood for the fireplace. Your turn honey!
See what I mean? She dont chop wood and shouldnt have to. I dont chopping wood. I've chopped lot of wood. You know what she did for me?! She made a nice dinner for me. Oh I love that girl, she's the best! We complete each other and have all the bases covered. Completion for a relationship. One + one = One. Am I wrong?

 

[Wynona]

 

[MA2444]

I never see the wives i the driveway all saturday fixing their car. That's the man's job. I should be done by suppertime.

Actually one time my wife watched me rebuild a 4 barrel Holly Carberator on the kitchen table down to the last little ball bearing and it worked so she wanted to do hers! She had a small car at the time with a single barrel carb. But she had watched me and was determined to do hers too! And she did it and it worked first try! But then again, she always sort of a special lady like that.

Not that didnt need me, she dumped quite a bit of other stuff onto me and I said yes mamm cuz I know the mans job. And she didnt want to do everything.

So I believe that some women have what it takes to be in special forces physically and trainingwise are able to learn the good stuff. But there's no way in the world that all women could do the task. You cant expect someone to know something that they never learned. So why are feminists complaining loudly about more women should be in special forces? (is that why you made that point?) If they were to get rejected from the physical or training because in some way they just couldnt hang like the one girl who made 1st LT and is a tough gal! Woill she scream inequality then? That special forces is very serious business and responsible for hard core defense.

The military actually did a study on women in combat, and they put one tough girl in the midst of a team of men and sent them out. What happened was not good for military tactics. The men tended to natually be protective of the woman which was a distraction from focusing on the mission. So they concluded there is less distraction with no women in combat situations. Maybe at the rear helping in the hospitals? Women are wonderful at that. Do they have to have an M4 also? Not really. The nurturing and caring nature of women in the combat hospital is good for moral for the patients! So they have a place and can help a lot if they want to. And this is not an oppression on women. It's just good common sense.

 

[BlessedPeace]

I would also disagree with a couple of those things.

For example, a woman not being able to be a CEO or needing a man to complete herself. Women can now do a lot of things men have traditionally done in this country. We have choices now that many women of the past did not. I don't think its a question if women can or not.

I don't think you read my post correctly.

Since women now have so many choices I wonder why feminism is still such a strong movement in America? Why do we still need a push towards feminism? When is it mission accomplished? We have gender equality in every systemic sense (in some cases, women preferred). Why don't I see more feminists going overseas where women are going through physical horrors because of their culture's customs?

If feminism's goal was about eliminating gender constructs that limit what men and women can do, Id say we've arrived years ago. I don't consider patriarchy a threat at all to American women today. My view is the minority of the minority.

Women have always been capable of doing things men do. But making that a single goalpost of progress often fails to address the strengths women have that men cannot supply, and what makes most women feel fulfilled and happy.

For example, the following article cites statistics about a gender gap in Science Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It also suggests bias from society discouraging girls to pursue these fields.

The Importance of Closing the Gender Gap in STEM – All Together

Various methods can be used to smash age-old stereotypes and interest young girls in engineering, showing how they can ultimately make it a career.

alltogether.swe.org

I have an associates degree in Computer Technology that I currently don't use. I took an interest in that field because it pays well. My classmates were almost all men. But honestly? I didn't find it as interesting as they did. I can do what they did. But it was never as fulfilling for me.

It is a mistake to think that equality means sameness or same results. Not as many women choose to go into STEM because they are not generally not as interested. Plenty of people encouraged my interest in Computers. Hardly anyone encourages my interest in homemaking. The article may think in terms of gender roles being an arbitrary limitation but that doesn't mean that they never have any basis in reality or human nature.

My problem becomes when feminists ignore reality and human nature in pursuit of a gender-roleless ideal. To the extent that feminists acknowledge real differences in men and women, I tend to agree with them.

Feminism is about gender equity.

 

[MA2444]

Feminism is about gender equity.

Gender equity is fine. Nothing at all wrong with that. They are in every way equal to men and can learn to do anything. We have female Doctors, CEO's, Managers, and all sorts of things. We can do that to the women said. Men said, have at it. I havent seen any picketing by women we want to be Bricklayers, stop oppressing us! You dont see that. But they want to be a CEO? Are you only seeing the Florescent lights and swivel chair? CEO's have a massive responsibility, long hours, business trips, Managing Personel (Bet that's fun!, making and closing big business deals, Hiring, firing and the CEO reports directly to an entire Board of Directors. So while she is a CEO, the buck stops there because She is the Manager and there are problems in the company and why havent you handled it mamm? By the way, dont forget that at the corporate meeting tomorrow you should have a detailed report on all Business Operation...Have you finished that yet? I gues you're working late tonight.

But she sure does have equity. She is capable and strong! So much equity and equality that, she is as capable as any man and has the right to be paid for it! (And I agree with that!) But how did society's men react to womens demands? They stopped opening doors for women, stopped changing their tires, she is responsible for ALL the bills now and clean her own house. When women get their equity from men, life changes for the woman. How are women reacting to this treatment now? Many Feminists are online saying...this aint what I signed up for! I dont to work 40 hours per week every week. For some it turns out to be 60 hour work weeks! They say that's not what they want now that they have it. Oh the good old days when women did not work and just stayed home and kept the house clean and watch the kids. (I realize that housework and kids is a lot of work for women, and that used to be all that was expected of a good wife.

I'm not kidding, listen to the Femnists in this video talking about equality and working all their life like men do.

 

[Wynona]

I don't think you read my post correctly.

Feminism is about gender equity.

Feminism can arguably have good intentions. Gender equity and progress is the intention. I am mainly looking at the results.

 

[MA2444]

Feminism can arguably have good intentions. Gender equity and progress is the intention. I am mainly looking at the results.

I would take up the argument that there is no good intentions in it. Lol, where would I start?! It's betrayal from the get go. To their own women!

Because like you say, if you look forward to the outcome it becomes clear it's a lie upon the women because the future of Feminism guarentees being alone, or all single mothers. From what I read, the statistics now are that 1 out 3 births are not the husbands baby. SO who wants to marry her?

Prenuptial agreements and DNA test for every baby will make a woman be honest, and with restraint perhaps. Otherwise welcome to all your own bills. Open your own door, That's equality, right?

 

[BlessedPeace]

Feminism can arguably have good intentions. Gender equity and progress is the intention. I am mainly looking at the results.

Maybe it would help to first look at the history of women prior to Feminism.

Start with the Bible.

 

[MA2444]

Hey look, they let women be in the Secret Service. That's no small time job. They say in this video that there were two females on the stage team of 4 (I think). But I only ever really seen the one for sure. Reports said when the shots rang out this female jumped for cover (!!) and not for the President. Then when the others jumped on Trump like they are supposed to, she joined in for a few and then let loose because they had Trump fully down. Then there was footage of the female wnadering around the stage with her pistol in her hand looking confused. She tried to reholster and failed then she went into low ready and walked back and forth and then went to high ready and started waving it back and forth towards the crowd! Should that female have the job and that much responsibility?!
I say no, wow.

Enjoy.