Did feminism ruin relationships between men and women? (Facebook, never, dating)

[2mares]

It is a jump to infer this

But feminists want legislation that would make a part time librarian get paid as much as a CEO who works 80 hour weeks.

Obama brought up the myth in his state of the union address

from introducing legislation to close the gender wage gap.

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by 2mares

It is a jump to infer this



from introducing legislation to close the gender wage gap.

How do you close a gap that doesn't exist?

[2mares]

Im not arguing Obamas moot legislation. I agree with you on that. But nowhere did anyone say closing a gender gap meant a part time low level employee would earn the same wage as a salaried CEO.

If you dont believe a gap exists, why did you post a link to an article discussing gender wage gaps? For clarification the article stated the gap falls behind typically in older women who stop working, go part time or reach the glass ceiling, nothing about pursuing their low paying dream job.

[betamanlet]

Originally Posted by 2mares

Im not arguing Obamas moot legislation. I agree with you on that. But nowhere did anyone say closing a gender gap meant a part time low level employee would earn the same wage as a salaried CEO.

If you dont believe a gap exists, why did you post a link to an article discussing gender wage gaps? For clarification the article stated the gap falls behind typically in older women who stop working, go part time or reach the glass ceiling, nothing about pursuing their low paying dream job.

What COULD it mean then? What would the legislation do?

Also, this "glass ceiling" stuff is BS too, another self imposed ceiling. You don't become CEO by working part time. That's life, deal.

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by 2mares

Men did not GIVE women the right to vote. Rights are rarely given freely by the ruling party. Yes it took decades of WOMEN picketing, going to jail, marching, pleading, using the media. Pretty much the same way civil rights were won for blacks. Again, women were already in the workforce before 1920.

A) I agree rights are not typically given from the ruling class/party to their subjects.

B) Despite all the cajoling, protesting, and civil disobedience they did, women did not grant to themselves the right to vote. It was men in congress that voted. MEN. That voted. To pass legislation giving women the right to vote.

C) Nobody said women didn't work before the 1920s

[Do a Barrel Roll]

Originally Posted by solytaire

You know what I think is ironic?...Amid its cultural feminist tide, the U.S. is concurrently almost entirely reliant on a steady influx of immigrants to sustain its population, and to supplement the population growth that has come to a screeching halt as relationships between American men and women are completely dysfunctional, if not severed altogether....

Yet, with these very immigrants upon which we rely, comes a population with cultures that have not, and will not be dominated by radical feminism...so, as we replenish our population with these cultures, I foresee more perceived oppression of women in this country, as latino, asian and african populations arrive, unwilling to forfeit the male dominance found in those cultures. And in general, the women of those cultures dont quickly adopt western feminist philosophy either; if they adopt them at all.

But these terrible relationships between American men and women will continue until the American woman we see today is extinct, or bred out of existence, as she isnt breeding enough offspring to carry on her philosophical legacy.

We will eventually arrive right back to where we began. Because I suspect that women of other cultures wont seek to continue the reversal of the natural roles of the human sexes, the way American women have. I suspect this, because they havent done so in all of their many more centuries of existence. As soon as all of the American feminist minded women of today die off, and because we arent repopulating at a rate consistent with our rates of death, this cultural phenomenon of radical feminism will die out too.

And thus the fight will end...at least for a while..

This would be an ideal situation. But there are a few conundrums with that.

1) Many female immigrants who have arrive in the US - particularly recent immigrants - are so stuck on their own ways that they refuse to be with someone who's not of their nationality, or of a nationality that is within the vicinity of their native homeland. If the immigrant is a group of people who were in intense poverty and are tempted to stay in there place with social welfare handouts, there's a danger of delaying the assimilation process, and hence longer it will take for the typical American to have access to new mates. This is very noticeable in the case of Latino Americans. And even those who would want to marry Americans, along with the cultural barrier, the ideal (or stigma) of wanting to be with an American in order to gain status (whether legal or social) would probably linger with most of these couples.

2) Even though many second of third generation offspring of immigrants become assimilated, the fact that many of them become Americanized "in the modern ways of chauvinism and narcissism" that has defined the recent social ways of this past decade all-in-all cancels out the fact of their upbringing from a more traditional family where the female should act more feminine and remain sexually pure (or at least not promiscuous). Along with this, the assimilation of the modern era (2000s/today) has a subtle yet apparent message of promoting the "preppy/yuppie subculture" as the only acceptable form of assimilation. It's one thing when you're raised around that kind of culture, but most immigrants offspring who embrace the preppy/yuppie culture are very selective of their "preferences" and choosing of mates, limiting out the pool of women to date once again to a select few, sometimes even excluding males of their own race/nationality (no matter how assimilated they are as well) from potential mates. This is definitely happening with Asians & South Indian women, some of whom have assimilated to ALL of America's traits, the honorable and degrading ones. Degrading ones in their case would be the typical narcissistic princess persona, the miss independent b*tch attitude, and one that's exclusive to them: the "craving for only white males" neo-colonialist outlook.

3) The breeding and/or dying out of new-age feminist minded women will not happen for a long time, and if it does, it'll undoubtedly take decades or even centuries.

The best solution for a correction in breeding patterns is to have equivocal globalization. If we can have a bunch of immigrants (most of whom aren't even willing to assimilate to embrace the non-detrimental unique cultural aspects of America) flock here to work, why the hell can't we have Americans (who can do the job and are willing to travel) leave for outer counties to work and live there. This would give a great opportunity for beta males who are intelligent enough to do the work. Also, the "true alpha males" who's self-assured personality unswayed by conforming trends has been left as deemed "beta by default" by the lemming masses, would be benefit from having easier access to the world as well, as these men would prove to be among the best leaders. Whether for an international firm or a family of their own, these "silent alpha males" possesses both the positive attributes of traditional alpha and beta males. When the following happens, that's when the social fabric of America will collapse within itself.

[2mares]

What COULD it mean then? What would the legislation do?

What exactly did Obama say it meant. I cant put words in his mouth. As I said I did not hear his address.

I actually dont know if the glass ceiling still exists. What I was infering was at some point in a career one reaches their top pay scale. If this is do to discrimination or just being as high on the ladder as you can go, I dont know.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by 2mares

It is a jump to infer this



from introducing legislation to close the gender wage gap.

Just pay everyone $7 an hour and be done with it. From the janitor who cleans the floors, to a CEO who runs a multimillion dollar company, $7 an hour.

[gwynedd1]

I think people are discovering the link between feminism and Marxism. Feminist activism does imply that the market will not reward economic output accordingly.

[2mares]

A) I agree rights are not typically given from the ruling class/party to their subjects.

B) Despite all the cajoling, protesting, and civil disobedience they did, women did not grant to themselves the right to vote. It was men in congress that voted. MEN. That voted. To pass legislation giving women the right to vote.

Your point is?

C) Nobody said women didn't work before the 1920s


You did not state specifically that women didn’t work prior to 1920 but stating that industrialist convinced congress to support women’s suffrage and the feminists movement because it was in their best interest (increased taxes) to have women entering the workforce as thought they weren’t already is dismissing the fact that women were in the workforce before 1920.