Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Wynona]

I agree with "at all costs." But what about at SOME costs? For example, do you believe that women should or shouldn't have the same access to the same education as men?

I have no issue with women getting access to education.

But I disagree with education being standardized across gender as if men and women learn exactly the same and always have the same goals.

For example, a lot of modern feminists are upset that less women go into STEM fields. Honestly, who cares? They have the option to and access. They just largely choose other fields.

My problem with higher education is the way our culture worships it as a status or lifestyle necessity, not that women have excess to it.

If a teenage girl gets pregnant before college, for example, people essentially act like her life is over. And many would encourage her to terminate the baby's life at some clinic to secure her future.

The truth is, higher education is a luxury and privilege most people in history didn't have access to and most people around the world survive without. Most people have jobs, not careers.

That teenage girl can get a degree later in her life should she still find it valuable. But it sucks that people will fearmonger her away from keeping her own child because of education idolatry and this idea that you can only ever be a burger flipping loser without a degree.

 

[Mink57]

I was curious since you agree with the 80 percent (if I understood correctly). From my perspective the world has drastically changed. When I was a young mom starting back in 1988, when my children were young I didn’t question at all if my husband and I separated that I’d be granted primary custody, with him having every other weekend. There was an understood model of yes …the majority favoring women. But if I had my children young today and the same thing happened…a separation. I would not be so confident. I do think the courts would look at my husbands stability, his able to provide stability financially. If he choose to pursue custody I do think he’d have a strong case. If anything, again, I think it would be 50/50. Where 50/50 a lot of the time, not all…leans towards no one paying child support since it’s split where each handles their home and contributes to the children while they are in their care. Only time will tell…but I honestly think the old model is gone. I’ve seen too many court cases in the past decade. I have yet to see it fit the old model from back when I was a mother, or even how it was a decade ago. like I said even grandparents rights have changed from long ago. You listed reasons for deciding on what is best for the children. I doubt those reasons as well. They all seem outdated in the current world we live in. I do think the criteria’s are changing, along with norms. That is just my input.

The criteria still exists but courts today recognize that there's not a one-size-fits-all structure. The criteria isn't some checklist that a judge uses for EVERY instance without the consideration of any other criteria.

Point is, that while MOST of the time, children DO live with their mother, it doesn't mean they live with their mother on a full-time basis. I've said before, courts like status quo for the children. For example, if a man wants a divorce, and he moves out of the home into his own place, the court will consider where he lives...if his new place is within the same school district and the kids could attend the same school. If not, it probably won't matter HOW much money the man makes. Courts want the kids lives to be disrupted as little as possible. So, even if she makes less than her ex-husband, the court just might award custody to HER.

Also, if the court awards child support, it doesn't mean that child support MUST be paid!!! If the two of you agree on a different amount....or on no amount AT ALL, the court isn't going to care. The court doesn't police such matters unless and until it's brought to their attention.

I DO believe reforms are needed, but I couldn't begin to tell you in WHAT capacity.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The criteria still exists but courts today recognize that there's not a one-size-fits-all structure. The criteria isn't some checklist that a judge uses for EVERY instance without the consideration of any other criteria.

Point is, that while MOST of the time, children DO live with their mother, it doesn't mean they live with their mother on a full-time basis. I've said before, courts like status quo for the children. For example, if a man wants a divorce, and he moves out of the home into his own place, the court will consider where he lives...if his new place is within the same school district and the kids could attend the same school. If not, it probably won't matter HOW much money the man makes. Courts want the kids lives to be disrupted as little as possible. So, even if she makes less than her ex-husband, the court just might award custody to HER.

Also, if the court awards child support, it doesn't mean that child support MUST be paid!!! If the two of you agree on a different amount....or on no amount AT ALL, the court isn't going to care. The court doesn't police such matters unless and until it's brought to their attention.

I DO believe reforms are needed, but I couldn't begin to tell you in WHAT capacity.

I’ve seen court cases now where it is pointed out a mother can pump breast milk. This is no longer a reason for why a man can’t feed with a bottle just as well as any mother can. again, time will tell. Myself I don’t and wouldn’t encourage any woman to assume anything regarding courts that now see men with men and women with women and judging things like pronouns. If we haven’t noticed the whole gists of this thread is most moms working outside of the homes where they are absent just as much as the fathers who have to work to feed and house their kids. That is why I think those statistics are outdated. It’s a new day and age. That is all I’m saying. Even live-in significant others can claim being the norm for a child for the past five years …where the courts can and will give them custody instead of any aunts, uncles, or other family members stepping up. Because then live-in significant others can claim just as much rights and involvement towards the status quo of a child they have been involved with. In a world with tons of evolving perspectives on what family looks like…I don’t buy that this isn’t already being manifested in court rulings.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The criteria still exists but courts today recognize that there's not a one-size-fits-all structure. The criteria isn't some checklist that a judge uses for EVERY instance without the consideration of any other criteria.

Point is, that while MOST of the time, children DO live with their mother, it doesn't mean they live with their mother on a full-time basis. I've said before, courts like status quo for the children. For example, if a man wants a divorce, and he moves out of the home into his own place, the court will consider where he lives...if his new place is within the same school district and the kids could attend the same school. If not, it probably won't matter HOW much money the man makes. Courts want the kids lives to be disrupted as little as possible. So, even if she makes less than her ex-husband, the court just might award custody to HER.

Also, if the court awards child support, it doesn't mean that child support MUST be paid!!! If the two of you agree on a different amount....or on no amount AT ALL, the court isn't going to care. The court doesn't police such matters unless and until it's brought to their attention.

I DO believe reforms are needed, but I couldn't begin to tell you in WHAT capacity.

One other thought. The reasons I asked when you were a paralegal. When my daughters were little there was a time when I worked in the cafeteria at school. I could get off the same time as them. I liked this job. But what school and kids looked like back then has significantly changed. I have a close friend who works in the school cafeteria today and the landscape has drastically changed. She shares with me things she sees and witnesses every single day, and NONE of that was happening when I worked in the schools. My friend gets depressed saying how bad it has gotten. For me to go back to working in the school cafeteria…I’ve no doubt it would be a very huge …culture…shock from when I worked there.

 

[Wynona]

 

[Mink57]

I have no issue with women getting access to education.

But I disagree with education being standardized across gender as if men and women learn exactly the same and always have the same goals.

For example, a lot of modern feminists are upset that less women go into STEM fields. Honestly, who cares? They have the option to and access. They just largely choose other fields.

If you have a daughter old enough to be looking into entering any of the STEM fields, would you encourage her to follow her passion? Would your husband encourage her? How about her extended family? How about her teachers? Friends? Siblings? And even if she got a degree in STEM, would she be encouraged by others to pursue a career in those fields? If she applied for a job in those fields, think she'd be making the same money as a man with the same credentials? Would she be free of harassment and discrimination from the stereotypical attitudes and beliefs of others?

Nope.

Even though feminism has made some BIG strides in this area, many people world-wide still have stereotypical views about men and women; that STEM is for MEN. Women need not apply.

My problem with higher education is the way our culture worships it as a status or lifestyle necessity, not that women have excess to it.

If a teenage girl gets pregnant before college, for example, people essentially act like her life is over. And many would encourage her to terminate the baby's life at some clinic to secure her future.

SOME people may act like that. And SOME people may encourage her to do so.

The truth is, higher education is a luxury and privilege most people in history didn't have access to and most people around the world survive without. Most people have jobs, not careers.

But I think that MOST people in the world want to do a bit more than just "survive." Surviving SUX.

That teenage girl can get a degree later in her life should she still find it valuable. But it sucks that people will fearmonger her away from keeping her own child because of education idolatry and this idea that you can only ever be a burger flipping loser without a degree.

That teenage girl would need a LOT of support to keep that child...starting with her own parents.

 

[Wynona]

If you have a daughter old enough to be looking into entering any of the STEM fields, would you encourage her to follow her passion? Would your husband encourage her? How about her extended family? How about her teachers? Friends? Siblings? And even if she got a degree in STEM, would she be encouraged by others to pursue a career in those fields? If she applied for a job in those fields, think she'd be making the same money as a man with the same credentials? Would she be free of harassment and discrimination from the stereotypical attitudes and beliefs of others?

Nope.

Even though feminism has made some BIG strides in this area, many people world-wide still have stereotypical views about men and women; that STEM is for MEN. Women need not apply.

I did take an interest in STEM after college attempt #2. I managed to eke out a technical degree in computer technology, a work certification, a data entry job, and a retail job at Staples.

Not one person ever discouraged me. In fact, all my classmates, family, and friends were excited about the opportunities I cod get into. There were jobs and resources even pushed in my direction for being female, black, and interested in the field.

We are not living in patriarchy at all. We  all in feminism land now!

If my daughter wants to go to college and have a career, I won't be stopping her.

But I won't be repeating a the college-at-all-costs mantras I grew up with. Every option has a cost. She will be informed about the cost of focusing on college and career during her young adult years in a way I never was. But once she's an adult, it is truly her decision.

 

[Wynona]

That teenage girl would need a LOT of support to keep that child...starting with her own parents.

Christian church, time to roll

 

[Mink57]

I’ve seen court cases now where it is pointed out a mother can pump breast milk. This is no longer a reason for why a man can’t feed with a bottle just as well as any mother can. again, time will tell. Myself I don’t and wouldn’t encourage any woman to assume anything regarding courts that now see men with men and women with women and judging things like pronouns. If we haven’t noticed the whole gists of this thread is most moms working outside of the homes where they are absent just as much as the fathers who have to work to feed and house their kids. That is why I think those statistics are outdated. It’s a new day and age. That is all I’m saying. Even live-in significant others can claim being the norm for a child for the past five years …where the courts can and will give them custody instead of any aunts, uncles, or other family members stepping up. Because then live-in significant others can claim just as much rights and involvement towards the status quo of a child they have been involved with. In a world with tons of evolving perspectives on what family looks like…I don’t buy that this isn’t already being manifested in court rulings.

Statistically speaking, of the dual income couples, working mothers still do MOST of the childcare/childrearing/housework.

 

[Mink57]

One other thought. The reasons I asked when you were a paralegal. When my daughters were little there was a time when I worked in the cafeteria at school. I could get off the same time as them. I liked this job. But what school and kids looked like back then has significantly changed. I have a close friend who works in the school cafeteria today and the landscape has drastically changed. She shares with me things she sees and witnesses every single day, and NONE of that was happening when I worked in the schools. My friend gets depressed saying how bad it has gotten. For me to go back to working in the school cafeteria…I’ve no doubt it would be a very huge …culture…shock from when I worked there.

I agree. To all of this!

 

[Wynona]

But I think that MOST people in the world want to do a bit more than just "survive." Surviving SUX.

You can thrive without a college degree, a two car garage, without a lot of things people consider requirements for success today.

 

[Mink57]

I did take an interest in STEM after college attempt #2. I managed to eke out a technical degree in computer technology, a work certification, a data entry job, and a retail job at Staples.

Not one person ever discouraged me. In fact, all my classmates, family, and friends were excited about the opportunities I cod get into. There were jobs and resources even pushed in my direction for being female, black, and interested in the field.

We are not living in patriarchy at all. We  all in feminism land now!

No, we're not. While opportunities have advanced for SOME, others are lagging. While the US is a progressive country, places like Afghanistan ban girls from getting a secondary education.

But even in the US, women in general still don't make the same amount of money for the same jobs as men do.

If my daughter wants to go to college and have a career, I won't be stopping her.

But I won't be repeating a the college-at-all-costs mantras I grew up with. Every option has a cost. She will be informed about the cost of focusing on college and career during her young adult years in a way I never was. But once she's an adult, it is truly her decision.

Would you inform your son in the same way?

 

[Mink57]

You can thrive without a college degree, a two car garage, without a lot of things people consider requirements for success today.

Guess it depends on the definition of "thrive." Somehow, I don't see living paycheck to paycheck as "thriving."

ARE there decent jobs out there that don't require college degrees? Sure. But can one apply for and GET MOST of those jobs right out of high school? Probably not.

The decent paying jobs that don't require a degree aren't entry-level, and MOST require some experience.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Statistically speaking, of the dual income couples, working mothers still do MOST of the childcare/childrearing/housework.

I’m not denying this. I’m not denying what moms do. I was a stay at home mom(except for the few times I took on small jobs). I do not know how in the world moms work AND do the child care, husband care and cooking…They must be superwoman to handle it all. They definitely have more energy than I do.

That is not the point. The point is there seems to be a contradiction. It doesn’t add up. The thread is about stay at home moms and how vital the role of mother/wife is. How feminism has made it out to be if a woman chooses the role of mother instead of going after a career, she is viewed as less than. I thought this thread is regarding the dying breed of stay at home moms who submit to their husbands and take on a submissive role as a help-meet.

What I don’t get is… the world obviously grows colder to that biblical (ideal)mother, or (ideal)woman, or (ideal)wife. IF anything…where we are at today… I can see it going more toward courts also no longer thinking that biblical lifestyle holds it value, nor importance.

To me it’s putting a lot of faith in a court system that to be honest…which more and more may look at a woman voicing her biblical beliefs as not being as stable as the woman who works full time and juggles it all. This thread is how that biblical role is frowned upon more and more. Yet we still think todays court system acknowledges it. Leans towards it. How much stock do courts today put into a help meet?

I’ve struggled with being a stay at home mom. Almost everyone has voiced over the years it is no longer normal. I was viewed as strange because every other woman worked a full time job. My husband and I were viewed as having a weird arrangement. Homemaker is no longer common. Not where I live. If friend, family and peers raise a brow at “I’m a helpmeet” …why would I think courts acknowledge it?

 

[Wynona]

But even in the US, women in general still don't make the same amount of money for the same jobs as men do.

If you mean that there's a wage gap for the same job positions thatis due to just pure sexism, that is false reporting. It is illegal to pay a woman 80 cents for a job and a man 1 dollar for the same job.

The false reporting has to do with the choices men and women make in their careers. If women take time off work for childcare, that accounts for a wage gap in total earnings compared to a man in that same field. But to claim that there's a gap due to discrimination is misleading and false.

By feminism land, I mean the U.S, Canada, the UK and other western countries where feminism is now an overwhelming mainstream and controls the media. Afghanistan is not feminist land. I think feminists ought to take up arms there instead of complaining about unfounded claims of patriarchal and sexist discrimination here in the United States.

I haven't heard of a lot of modern feminist missionaries going overseas to help the women who are being oppressed there. The most Ive heard of is global education initiatives. But fighting for women's rights in places where men  actually view women as property and risking their wrath?

I see a lot more keyboard activism than that.

 

[Wynona]

Guess it depends on the definition of "thrive." Somehow, I don't see living paycheck to paycheck as "thriving."

What is your view of "thriving"?

 

[Wynona]

I’ve struggled with being a stay at home mom. Almost everyone has voiced over the years it is no longer normal

IFor better or worse, I know my personality is somewhat abnormal. But there's an advantage with that.

I think "normal" is highly overrated and I use the anti-social parts of me to push through criticism and stigma.

I fully expect to be insulted and mocked for not finishing my four year degree and being a homemaker, and writing about how much of a blessing it has been.

But I believe in it. I'm willing to risk having missed out. I just genuinely don't feel like Im missing out.

The more I embrace that I was just not meant by God to fit in, the happier Ive gotten as an adult.

I don't see a lot of conservative Christian black women who enjoy nerd culture and vintage fashion. But that's fine. I will never fit in. I was made to stand out. And for a good purpose. Someone may need to see an alternate path the same way I did.

 

[Mink57]

I’m not denying this. I’m not denying what moms do. I was a stay at home mom(except for the few times I took on small jobs). I do not know how in the world moms work AND do the child care, husband care and cooking…They must be superwoman to handle it all. They definitely have more energy than I do.

I THOUGHT I spotted a faint "S" on my chest a few times when I was "doing it all"!!!!

That is not the point. The point is there seems to be a contradiction. It doesn’t add up. The thread is about stay at home moms and how vital the role of mother/wife is. How feminism has made it out to be if a woman chooses the role of mother instead of going after a career, she is viewed as less than. I thought this thread is regarding the dying breed of stay at home moms who submit to their husbands and take on a submissive role as a help-meet.

What I don’t get is… the world obviously grows colder to that biblical (ideal)mother, or (ideal)woman, or (ideal)wife. IF anything…where we are at today… I can see it going more toward courts also no longer thinking that biblical lifestyle holds it value, nor importance.

Not sure about that. The Proverbs 31 wife was a working woman. She DID work outside the home. BUT...she also had HELP at home. Maidservants. How many women have that TODAY?

Also, we, as a society have gotten away from the gender definitive terms in the Bible AND the law. The words "man/men" have been replaced with "Humans/manKIND" depending on the issue that's being discussed. Women's rights are not necessarily being seen as "women's" rights but that of HUMAN rights, that women have been traditionally dismissed from.

To me it’s putting a lot of faith in a court system that to be honest…which more and more may look at a woman voicing her biblical beliefs as not being as stable as the woman who works full time and juggles it all. This thread is how that biblical role is frowned upon more and more. Yet we still think todays court system acknowledges it. Leans towards it. How much stock do courts today put into a help meet?

If that was true, then why do so many SAHM's often receive alimony AND child support...IF the courts don't put much weight into an unpaid helper*? (*=I'm still not sure why some bible versions use the term "help MEET" instead of "helper" or "help MATE". There's an entire thought process about this in some bible circles that believe that the original Hebrew word means more like "companion" instead of someone who "helps").

Court often DO recognize the value of unpaid domestic help by a spouse. Just imagine if a husband actually had to pay his wife to do all she does! Most husbands wouldn't be able to afford a wife!

I’ve struggled with being a stay at home mom. Almost everyone has voiced over the years it is no longer normal. I was viewed as strange because every other woman worked a full time job. My husband and I were viewed as having a weird arrangement. Homemaker is no longer common. Not where I live. If friend, family and peers raise a brow at “I’m a helpmeet” …why would I think courts acknowledge it?

Like I said above, the courts often DO acknowledge it.

 

[Mink57]

If you mean that there's a wage gap for the same job positions thatis due to just pure sexism, that is false reporting. It is illegal to pay a woman 80 cents for a job and a man 1 dollar for the same job.

Not true, Wynona. Companies that do that are COUNTING on the woman either not knowing how much her male counterpart is making (unless he wants to share it with her) and/or, not making a stink about it because, hey...it's ONLY 20 cents. It was OBVIOUSLY true years ago because when women were called to factories during WW2, they found out that they were doing their husband's jobs and getting paid even LESS than a mere 20 cents. They fought it in court. PROVED it was true, and the courts responded accordingly. Yes, if a woman was doing a man's job, she should be PAID what he was getting.

It IS illegal, and the courts hear cases like this daily BECAUSE some people still do this even though it's illegal. Murder and rape are illegal but, do you think that SOME people care? Of course not! They'll commit the crimes anyway because they believe they can get away with it.
And a lot of times, they DO.

The false reporting has to do with the choices men and women make in their careers. If women take time off work for childcare, that accounts for a wage gap in total earnings compared to a man in that same field. But to claim that there's a gap due to discrimination is misleading and false.

No, it is not.

By feminism land, I mean the U.S, Canada, the UK and other western countries where feminism is now an overwhelming mainstream and controls the media. Afghanistan is not feminist land. I think feminists ought to take up arms there instead of complaining about unfounded claims of patriarchal and sexist discrimination here in the United States.

Because the claims are not unfounded. Sex discrimination DOES still happen here in the US.

And feminists DO take up arms with places like Afghanistan. Female Genital Mutilation is WIDELY practiced in Africa. And feminism has a HUGE problem with that. Honor killings STILL go on, even if a man suspects his wife of cheating...or if a daughter is raped. When did you ever hear of an honor killing of a man who cheated? Or of a man who was raped?

Forced marriage is STILL in full force in some countries, with the child female 'bride' being as young as 10 years old. Would you force your 10 year old daughter to marry a 30 year old man? Or marry AT ALL at that age?

Domestic violence is rampant, worldwide. If you think for a moment that it's not as widespread as it is, think again! And WHY does it happen so often? Because SOME men believe that IF a woman doesn't "submit" to his every sense of entitlement, he gets to beat her up.

I'll hope that you never have to experience these horrors, Wynona. But by the same token, I hope that you can understand that some OTHER WOMEN do.

I haven't heard of a lot of modern feminist missionaries going overseas to help the women who are being oppressed there. The most Ive heard of is global education initiatives. But fighting for women's rights in places where men  actually view women as property and risking their wrath?

I see a lot more keyboard activism than that.

And yet it happens. Every day.

I've posted this before. Don't know if you've read it, but it's here for you again:

Rebecca Lolosoli - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mink57]

What is your view of "thriving"?

I was homeless for about a year. I was NOT "thriving."