Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Mink57]

I'm not sure you need feminism for this.

In the past, women did work heavy labor jobs if their husbands needed it to survive. They worked these horrible cotton mills during the Industrial Revolution, for example. Small children did too.

But the fact that men did not see this as ideal was not them feeling smug and superior towards women What man feels great about their wife having to work in a coal mine out of necessity? Coal mines and work are a hardship for survival. I don't fault the patriarchal men for seeing the home as a better place to be for their wives and daughters than a coal mine.

First of all, feminism wasn't just started as an organized system overnight. Small groups protesting for women's rights popped up all over the US, even as early as in Colonial America. The word 'feminism' wasn't even coined until the 1830's.

Yes, there was a minority of married women who worked in those 'horrible cotton mills' during the Industrial Revolution. But about 90% of the women who worked there were unmarried, childless, single women.

Feminism covers a number of issues. Equal pay for equal work and equal opportunities for women aren't the only ones.

Patriarchy can be abused just like any other powrr structure. Ive seen women abuse their family matriarch status as well.

I agree. Abuse of power can occur in any dynamic. Between husband and wife, boss and employee, parent and child, social system and other social system, etc., and even between individuals of the same nature (woman vs. woman, child vs. child)

But where does all of this abuse come from? I know you've mentioned several times in this thread alone that you didn't think that EGO had much to do with it. And yet, it does.

But most people throughout history were not invested in keeping women down to laugh at them. They were simply trying to survive.

In what way does keeping a woman 'down' have anything to do with 'survival'?

A wife working out in the fields or a coal mine was a sign of hardship for a family, not a symbolic victory for women.

Wives were not the only women who worked out in the fields and coal mines. And those working wives who DID work in those industries because the family was facing financial hardships were discriminated against just as much as single women. What feminism (in part) was striving to do was to change the attitudes of people, so that women were treated respectfully. If a married woman needed to work (because her husband was laid-off, disabled, sick or just plain lazy), she shouldn't be discriminated against. And if a single woman wanted to work, she also shouldn't be discriminated against.

There is a price to pay for women desiring the same respect men get.

There shouldn't be ANY price to pay for respect

Are we willing to become expendable and expected to sacrifice as readily as they are?

Women were already expendable and expected to sacrifice even more than what 'he' did. Again, I point to the Rosie the Riveters of WW2. Millions of married women sacrificed their homes and time away from their children so they could take over for their husband's who were away at war. Once the war was over, the women either quit to resume their homemaking, were laid-off (expendable) or fired (expendable). Heck, my late husband told me that one should only make a sacrifice once in a great while. He was clueless as to how much I would sacrifice for HIM.

A woman can pay the price for that and truly work hard. But it's a higher price than a man would pay because *women are fundamentally built different than men* It will never be the same price.

Men and women share more similarities than differences.

Should they be allowed to? They have done in the past and continue to. The only difference now is that were living in a time where being at home and raising kids is considered less important than things men have traditionally done in the grand scheme of things. This is absolutely horrible for society, for humanity.

Being a homemaker and raising kids is viewed in a negative light by SOME people, just like

Children need homes to thrive. We can arguably live without coal miners before we can live without mothers.

I agree that children need homes to thrive, but I don't agree that WOMEN MUST be the ones to accomplish this. Some fathers are just as capable--if not MORE so in some cases--of providing the same nurturing environment for a child that mother's can.

Saying women should not just be raising babies and managing homes is like saying Bill Gates should not just settle for being a millionaire CEO.

I don't think this is a good comparison, Wynona. After all, Bill Gates gets paid for the work he does, whereas a married woman with children does not get paid for her work. If Bill Gates doesn't wish to do a certain task he can delegate that task to someone else. Can a homemaker practically do this? Most homemakers I know can't afford to delegate to anyone outside of the home to take care of some tasks inside the home.

Whether a woman "should" be just raising babies and managing homes, or "should" be out in the working world, should be left up to the individual woman AND/OR, the individual couple; and not anyone else's idea of what she "should" or "shouldn't" be doing.

We are so obsessed with power and being seen with status that we devalue a cornerstone of society---the home. Mainly because most people will never see the work there. But the results of this unseen work are so incredibly needed today.

Some people devalue this. Others don't.

 

[Mink57]

LOL. No, it IS necessarily breaking your commitment to initiate divorce. You're too funny.

If one commits adultery, one has already broken their vow of "forsaking all others...till death do us part."

 

[Wrangler]

If one commits adultery, one has already broken their vow of "forsaking all others...till death do us part."

Yup. Perhaps you are catching onto the vibe of evil Competitive Feminism and here. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Wrangler]

Equal pay for equal work

No longer the rallying cry of what you call RADICAL feminism. Now, they want equal pay for unequal work.

 

[Wrangler]

In what way does keeping a woman 'down' have anything to do with 'survival'?

Wow! I guess you never heard in military scenarios to keep ones head down? "Incoming" or "Duck" might be equivalently used.

We discussed this before, the male of the species, like the peacock, gets the attention of the predator, buying the survival of the species with its life. What is the female peacock doing? Keeping her head down, out of sight of the predator.

 

[Wrangler]

Women were already expendable and expected to sacrifice even more than what 'he' did. Again, I point to the Rosie the Riveters of WW2. Millions of married women sacrificed their homes and time away from their children so they could take over for their husband's who were away at war.

The man-hating is appaling. Her sacrifice: time away from kids. His sacrifice: Life or limb or lifetime PTSD. In what kind of feminist, man-hating world is her sacrifice more than his? Imagine if the roles were reversed.

 

[Wrangler]

There shouldn't be ANY price to pay for respect

Agred. Yet, you cannot give respect to men and the patriarchy for the society you enjoy today.

 

[Wrangler]

Women were already expendable

There did not die by the millions on battlefields and put first on life boats because women were expendable.

 

[Wrangler]

I agree that children need homes to thrive, but I don't agree that WOMEN MUST be the ones to accomplish this.

That is just going against the role nature has provided for women. Lots of women cannot work outside the home near the end of their pregnancy. Your evil ideology is superceding the practical. When you live at the margins the husband working while the pregnant spouse prepares to give birth matters.

You can invoke all the entitled accomodations you want of what society "should" do for women but that is just another example of abandoning equality when it suits you.

 

[Mink57]

That is just going against the role nature has provided for women.

Nature didn't provide any 'role' for women. Just because a woman has a uterus does NOT mean that her ONLY 'role' or even MAJOR role is to become pregnant.

Plenty of women have aptitudes for math and sciences (for example), male 'dominated' subjects. At least, they're male dominated subjects in the US. Women consistently score higher on IQ tests. In highly educated countries such as Sweden, the gender gap among teenage boys and girls in math and science is practically non-existent.

Lots of women cannot work outside the home near the end of their pregnancy.

And even MORE women CAN and DO work right up until their due date.

Your evil ideology is superceding the practical. When you live at the margins the husband working while the pregnant spouse prepares to give birth matters.

This has nothing to do with practicality. It has to do with CHOICE.

You can invoke all the entitled accomodations you want of what society "should" do for women but that is just another example of abandoning equality when it suits you.

Not even close.

 

[Mink57]

There did not die by the millions on battlefields and put first on life boats because women were expendable.

And WOMEN didn't send millions of men onto battlefields, nor did they declare that WOMEN should be put first on lifeboats.

 

[Wrangler]

Nature didn't provide any 'role' for women. Just because a woman has a uterus does NOT mean that her ONLY 'role' or even MAJOR role is to become pregnant.

Denial. All life forms have a biological imperative.

 

[Wrangler]

Plenty of women have aptitudes for math and sciences (for example), male 'dominated' subjects.

Your covetousness always goes back to this. Why not focus on the inequality men suffer, like:

1. early death,
2. sexist laws that make 10 of 11 prisoners male,
3. homeless and suicide whose rates are nearly as bad,
4. 9 out of 10 killed in war and on the job,
5. reproductive male rights ignored.
6. unequal parental custody?

Your post shows feminists sin of coveting. Only looking where women are not equal while turning a blind eye to the inequality men suffer. Bad form.

 

[Wrangler]

It has to do with CHOICE.

Wrong again! Equality has to do with living up to equal responsibilities, including the consequences of choices; not just choice.

Feminists want what never was and never will be, freedom without responsibility. Hence, if you want equality, GO BE EQUAL; be 50% of the infrastructure labor to keep society going, e.g., oil rigs, building and road construction, engineering, logging, plumbing, electricians, carpentry, mining, etc.

 

[Wrangler]

And WOMEN didn't send millions of men onto battlefields, nor did they declare that WOMEN should be put first on lifeboats.

Competitive feminism.

 

[Wrangler]

I think you missed these questions and the vids showcasing evil feminism.

Are you admitting RADICAL feminism is evil?

Why is radical feminism not good?

 

[Wynona]

In what way does keeping a woman 'down' have anything to do with 'survival'?

What do you mean by "keeping a woman down exactly"? Im saying that is a modern interpretation of gender roles and that doesn't line up with most men and women of the past.

Wives were not the only women who worked out in the fields and coal mines. And those working wives who DID work in those industries because the family was facing financial hardships were discriminated against just as much as single women. What feminism (in part) was striving to do was to change the attitudes of people, so that women were treated respectfully. If a married woman needed to work (because her husband was laid-off, disabled, sick or just plain lazy), she shouldn't be discriminated against. And if a single woman wanted to work, she also shouldn't be discriminated against.

Were women just disrespected as workers before feminism? I need proof. I plan on doing a deep dive into women's lives in history in the 1800's in The U.S and the UK because I think women were encouraged to work. My point was that women definitely worked outside the home before feminist groups took ahold of mainstream culture and I don't think they were belittled for it by the culture.

There shouldn't be ANY price to pay for respect

There are different levels of respect. Basic respect for all people is different from respect earned by virtue. Wanting the same respect as men without being willing to work doing same sacrifices is silly.

I agree that children need homes to thrive, but I don't agree that WOMEN MUST be the ones to accomplish this. Some fathers are just as capable--if not MORE so in some cases--of providing the same nurturing environment for a child that mother's can.

I think most mothers who aren't pschologically broken have an inherent biological advantage in nurturing children. A feminist actually wrote a book about the importance of a present mother from ages 0 to 3 in a child's life that is not interchangeable with a father. The book is called Being There. Ill edit in the author soon.

Edit:

Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood In The First Three Years Matters by Erica Comisar LCSW

Some people devalue this. Others don't.

Feminists as a majority devalue home-centeredness. Thats been horrible for society.

 

[Wynona]

Whether a woman "should" be just raising babies and managing homes, or "should" be out in the working world, should be left up to the individual woman AND/OR, the individual couple; and not anyone else's idea of what she "should" or "shouldn't" be doing.

Yet feminists have had plenty to say on what women and women in relationship should and shouldn't be doing.

There is no neutral opinionless zone in the culture. Not one person ever suggested Id be happy as a homemaker or even that I didn't need college education to be a happy successful adult.

 

[Wrangler]

Radical femnisim? Priority seating and lower cost based on sex.

 

[Wrangler]

This is too funny and all too common. The man is called an a-hole for having discipline and keeping his word to his friends. Radical feminism?