Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "fighting" that feminists have done over the past three decades have not been without negative social consequences. A notable rise in incivility is among them, as is the epidemic of illegitimate births and the increase in violence against women.
Actually, all of those things would be as well or perhaps even better correlated with the rise into public prominence of the divisive and accusatory religious right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Frankly, I am somewhat persuaded by those in this thread who have argued from an economic perspective, and emphasized the impact that the increased work force (augmented by millions of working women) has had on stagnant wages and benefits.
Actually, if you plot the growth of the seasonally adjusted civilian labor force between 1965 and 1985, you get very nearly a straight line. Theories of any sudden surge in the workforce over that time period as the result of inundations of new women workers are essentially mythical. And the mere fact that an argument includes the words supply and demand does not mean that the argument is from an economic perspective.
Precisely. As in the Duke "rape" case, in abolishing men's sports to comply with Title IX, and in using race to determine both where children will attend school, and whose application will be accepted to a public college or university.
I don't know how you work the Duke rape case in, but I certainly agree that it's a shame the way these women and racial minorties have been riding roughshod over the rights of whites and males for all these years. On the other hand, of course, there's the matter of remedy to consider, and when you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it's pretty customary to be asked at least to put the cookie back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
But there is no movement to address these unfairnesses.
Oh, of course there is. You've got folks like the Rutherford Instutute, the ACLJ, the CIR, and the Thomas More Law Center wandering all over the place defending the rights of the oppressors to oppress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Quite the contrary. The "progressives" seek to broaden them. See the Duke faculty response to the dismissal of charges, the outcry over the recent SCOTUS decision to strike down the Seattle plan, and the outrage on campuses because race-based admissions policies have been questioned.
Again you'd have to establish some relevance re Duke. Otherwise, you are looking at two attempts to gut the remedies by which the nefarious work of rights abusers has for some time been offset and restrained. This is a far cry from the lack of responsibility that would indeed be shown in trampling upon the legitimate rights of the abusers themselves. There is not a right to abuse, and one cannot be created by inversion. If the law says a dollar must be divided 50-50, yet the white guy is found holding 60 cents, you don't get to plead to the court that, hey, you're taking ten cents away from me just because I'm white. We're actually taking the ten cents away from you because you have previously taken ten cents too much.
Do we really need "career women" in our society, rather than traditional, normal, regular women who are more apt to take on more traditional roles? Why is it the goal of almost every woman these days to have a career, rather than simply be supportive of a man who acts as head of a household? Can we not acknowledge that there are indeed differences between the genders, and women are better suited for certain tasks than others, many of which differ from those of men?
Please define what a "normal", "regular woman" means to you.
Define the "supportive" role of a woman. Exactly what "tasks" are better suited for women? Give specific examples.
All true, for sure--but you didn't go far enough.---
Note that things such as being gay, black, or female are not actions. They fall into the category of status. You could legitimately deny rights that are dependent upon citizenship to a non-citizen, but as soon as you start to talk about personal behavior (which was pretty soon), you are talking about actions. Everyone is responsible and potentially culpable for actions. Included would be such actions as shirking a primary responsibility of citizenship by attempting to usurp, deny, or abridge the legitimate rights of another.
My experience exactly---working Moms were a rarity.
Did you put much effort into your research back then, or were you and your buddies more interested in getting down to the creek to get some fishing in? The half dozen or so households in your neighborhhod wouldn't quite qualify as an actual sample...
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
I couldn't even BEGIN to get into the reasons for the change--that would take several forums. But it's a huge picture--from "breakdown" of spousal and parental responsibilties (the "me" part of it)...
An oft-repeated myth. Where is the evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
...to the admitted erosion of the dollar...
??? Put everything into constant dollars. Changes in nominal dollars have no necessary impact. It's changes in relative price structures that can have actual effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
...but one thing that few mention, is just the fact there was so much less "stuff" to "want". Those teenagers lucky enough to have a car had an old "clunker" (paid for with a part-time job). Few "fashion trends"---no true "mall culture"---no Ipods, no cell phones, no CD's, no "private bedroom", one TV per household (we had none at all)
Could have written the same in the 1950's, but you'd have been talking about that first TV, along with air conditioners, washer-dryers, transistor radios, freezers, second cars, power mowers...and lots more. There were very few consumer goods available during WWII and hardly so many during the Depression either. The 50's saw a virtual explosion of such. So many new things...so much more to buy than there had been thirty years earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
---Aside from anything else, the sheer size and number of our "wants" today virtually demands a second income.....
Genius! Except a hundred years too late. Consumerism -- which is what you've just described -- dawned on corporate magnates in the first decade of the 20th century. Henry Ford was one, though just one, of those who proved it worked. By 1910, consumerism was a big thing in boardrooms everywhere, and there has been no looking back since. By the rule you just enunciated, the dawn of consumerism was one of the significant events that assured that women would follow men in the transition from work inside the home to work outside the home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the original career woman
