Did feminism ruin relationships between men and women? (father-in-law, child support, average)

[DeanACM]

Originally Posted by RyokoMariaUrameshi

Feminism - Salon.com


It just seems like more and more people are miserable.Every married person or person in a relationship that I know is unhappy and they tell me don't get married and have kids it ruins everything. Or "men suck, they are pig, dogs" or "women are too independant, they need to get back to the kitchen". Everyone is always getting divorces, its like you're bound to fail if you marry. I remember there was a time that people stayed married for life now, people have 48 hour marriages.

.

Not entirely. Modern tv ads and shows ruined relationships.. not feminism. Tv ads and shows that train the masses to think that a vain domineering woman is an attractive one and that average men are 'losers'. People end up behaving like the stupid characters on tv.

[Huckleberry3911948]

we didnt like the way our grandparents did marriage and family, so we did our own version.
we have failed.

[helios666]

Originally Posted by JustJulia

I can never understand why women who heartily support contraceptives and abortion claim not to be feminists. The right to control whether or not you reproduce is probably the #1 issue for feminism.

When you put it like that- then I guess you could say I'm a feminist. I of course am 100% pro choice, I think it's just the word itself I take issue with more than what it stands for; I hate labeling myself. And I take issue with being associated with certain "trouble makers" like Gloria Steinham, who takes things to the extreme. I equate her to the walking female version of PETA. She does mean well and has been a pivotal role at times for us, but I think she has a blindside that isn't always beneficial and has actually played a hand in taking some of our feminine "power" away- I'll explain in detail a particular issue later...

Originally Posted by Ameribull

And feminism has nothing to do with equal pay or rights for women. Thats what it was disguised as. Im all for "equality". But the destruction of the family unit and the displacement of mens role did nobody any favors.

It convinced women that the best accomplishment in life was to be like men. When in fact they were already better than us in most ways. So all they did was lower themselves to be more like us. They gave away thier grace and morals to be sexually equal. And men being men of course took full advantage of womens newfound "independence". But secretly men just resent women for it. Deep down when a women acts that way men just loathe them. But thats just my outdated opinion I guess.

I don't think you're outdated- I actually think you're onto something- to a point. Men are men, and women are women. And there are distinct differences between the two. Some people don't understand- especially women- that being equal to men is just as important as being different from them. And that difference should be celebrated and enjoyed! But those differences shouldn't include "prescribed" roles for either sex because, although women may be typically good in some roles and likewise men, everyone is different. Both sexes should be respected for the paths, and roles they choose in life, irregardless of whether or not they match up to cultural or societal "norms".

And I do agree with you about the familial structure having taken a fall as a result; I think the dissolution of the "nuclear" family is one of the reasons for a lot of the problems we as a society face today. HOWEVER- my idea of "family" can mean two lesbians ot two gays raising children, or a heterosexual couple where the wife works, and the man stays home and takes care of the kids. Details like that aren't what matters, it's the family values that matter- and it sickens me that religion has twisted the phrase "Family values" to where I want to run in the opposite direction whenever I hear it. They don't "get" it. It's about stability and love, whatever package it comes in.

Originally Posted by DeanACM

Not entirely. Modern tv ads and shows ruined relationships.. not feminism. Tv ads and shows that train the masses to think that a vain domineering woman is an attractive one and that average men are 'losers'. People end up behaving like the stupid characters on tv.

I agree wholeheartedly that the media sets a terrible example for people nowadays. But I'm not so sure that it's necessarily a "domineering woman" that is usually how most women are being represented- seems we've gone ass-backwards these days, and women are back to being just sex objects, acting ridiculous and just being "arm candy" for men, especially in videos where the musician represents himself with lavish cars and drinks and has a harem of hot women around him as if they're worshipping him. Ugh!

One last point, about Gloria Steinham that I take issue with- her view on what I guess I'd call "soft porn" like playboy or penthouse or other girly mags. She acts as if women are being vilified and are victims, and I couldn't disagree more. Think about it- who's really in control there?!? THE WOMEN! Let's face it- men are simple creatures when it comes to visual stimulation and the female body. You can't change that, and why should we? Men will ALWAYS be intrigued by staring at naked women and doing "whatever they do..." as a result. Women aren't like that, and may not understand- but it's not our place to do so. Doesn't matter in the least. But that's something that we should feel empowered about, not ashamed of- the fact that we, simply by being females, can make men stop dead in their tracks. Among other things, just by being us! And women who choose to take off their clothing so they can be admired by men should be respected, not shunned and treated as if they sold their soul. They didn't. They just took advantage of something nature gave them, and used it to their advantage. But at the same time, there are elements of disrespect within these industries and, in those cases, I would like to think that every woman has enough respect for herself to know when that line is being crossed- and refuse to cross it. Sadly that's not always the case, but hopefully there will come a time when the degree of adoration for women and the degree of respect for women are at the same level.

[JustJulia]

Originally Posted by helios666

When you put it like that- then I guess you could say I'm a feminist. I of course am 100% pro choice, I think it's just the word itself I take issue with more than what it stands for; I hate labeling myself. And I take issue with being associated with certain "trouble makers" like Gloria Steinham, who takes things to the extreme. I equate her to the walking female version of PETA. She does mean well and has been a pivotal role at times for us, but I think she has a blindside that isn't always beneficial and has actually played a hand in taking some of our feminine "power" away- I'll explain in detail a particular issue later...

I understand. Feminism is the new F word. Take our OP: going to school, wants to wait to marry, wants to have her own money to be sure of a secure future, supportive of a woman's reproductive freedom ... she sounds pretty feminist to me.

There are fringe elements of any group, and they usually get the most press. I'm Christian and have to fend off ideas that somehow Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, those slimy fatheads, speak for me and my family. They don't. And being a feminist doesn't make me a manhater, either. The words are not synonymous.

[dubyanumberone]

Femininsm isn't the problem, Lifeboat Feminism is the problem.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

Its really simple....your original post re topic included the significance of
the behavior of people indicating opinion. This is the "definition of ...
attitude. I suggested that logically attitude is the germ of the business
thats being discussed. You then remarked that you have no idea how
attitudes or ..."the behavior of people indicating opinion" have changed since the 20's and so on through to present day. It is emphatically illogical to marriage the study of the behaviour of people and opinions as you brought to light in original post and then assert that you have no idea how the attitudes have changed as....both "define" the identical meaning..)websters) And you know, I've been complimentary and....smokescreening with a list of Social Studies is
not addressing the aforementioned .... BLUNDER Mishap, or whats known as mistake
I can't help in a more deductive submission and will prob leave this with you. If you go over the posts it hopefully
will help. Thank-you for the excersize

I get what you are saying, but I do not think you can logically make that leap. I think you are extrapolating what you perceive to be the general attitude changes toward relationships from the 1920s to today and whether the loss of the attitude you perceive to have existed is worth the social gains made in women's rights, correct? What my problem with that is is that it is subjective. I do not think something as broad as the attitudes of a society in a place large as the United States, towards something as complex as relationships can really be understood in full do to the massive differences in region, class, ethnic background, etc. Now since you alluded to film from the 20-40s I believe that may be the source for your extrapolation. I have to warn you though film, particularly film produced under the old studio/star system, with the Hollywood codes, was designed largely to portray a romanticized ideal of relationships, often loosely done in the style of the domestic novels of the 19th century. So of course that is going to promote a skewed view, this is more apparent if you look at where many of these romances are set, (among the upper class elite of the Northeast). Essentially what I am saying is if you are basing your idea of what relationships were like in the 1920-40s in part on "Bringing Up Baby" and "It Happened One Night" you are idealizing something that never existed.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by murofe

You "think that is great"? that a man wants to be a house-husband? Then I guess that you also think it is great that a woman wants to be a house-wife? So if it is so "great" then why have women/feminists been complaining about how oppressive it is to be a house-wife and been insisting that women should have careers instead?

No one would argue that being a stay-at-home mom or dad isn't a real job and is hard work. What early feminists objected to was the idea that domestic work is the only thing a woman is capable of doing, merely because she's a woman. There's a big difference between choosing to be a stay-at-home parent and having that be one's only option because society says one can't be anything else.

[Black Jack22]

Originally Posted by DeanACM

Not entirely. Modern tv ads and shows ruined relationships.. not feminism. Tv ads and shows that train the masses to think that a vain domineering woman is an attractive one and that average men are 'losers'. People end up behaving like the stupid characters on tv.

Feminism controls the media. It is therefore a feminist media.

[Morphous01]

Originally Posted by helios666

I can think of something more selfish- making the choice to bring to full term an unwanted pregnancy and then having, AND KEEPING, a baby that you cannot afford to care for emotionally, nor financially. Now THAT is selfish.

I don't buy it 666, animals live on far less then we do, but yet, you don't see them killing their offspring because the season is not right, or the lake has dried up.

They don't do this because it's called LIFE 666. Life/nature does not require us to be super rich in order to raise a child. It only feels this way because man has built up an artificial way to live that cuts out mother nature and makes you rely on him (man). Food is free, air is free, water is free, and land can be free too if man will only share! (People are idiots, they pay 500k to walk through their own front door.)

But if you want to talk materialism, in many cases, a child that is given too much turns out to be spoiled rotten, or a problem child anyway. As a matter of fact, look at your average American child, they have more toys, consume more food and acquire more "education" then any other civilization prior to them, and you tell me, do you think they are turning out ok?

So my point is, besides basic food and shelter, all a child needs is LOVE. It's something so simple to give, but yet, it's obvious that many people have a hard time expressing it; even towards their own children!

Originally Posted by helios666

And as for what you said about the cosmetic companies, as if they have some sort of pro-abortion "agenda"....you're joking, right?!?

Other then making a profit, I don't know what other kind of agenda they could have. Regardless, I find it applauding that people would use human remains in a industrial for profit setting.

[maddog1]

What ruined things between men and women is the idea (the correct idea) men have that they can get easy se*x. No reason to marry anyone or even commit to them very much. Everything is casual. This certainly worked against women in a big way.