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.
[quote=rodentraiser;42919534]As a woman who never, ever wanted to be a mother or a SAHM, I'd personally prefer to see the country go down the skids than be miserable trying to fulfill a role other people think I should have. I see it as a thankless, pain-in-the-butt job and I don't care how important you or anyone else says it is. If staying home, having babies, and cleaning and cooking all day is something you want to do, by all means, feel free to do it. That's a choice I'm glad you can make, choice being the operative word here.
Wow.
But some of us are equally grateful that a "militant, feminist movement" came along and allowed us to do something other than be a wife and mother.
The pill and women's liberation gave women way more choices than they had in the 50s. And neither of those things happened before the 60s. Don't tell me about the choices I had before then. I know what they were - I lived them. And I'm here to tell you I'd never go back to the 50s, 60s, or even the 70s and all those "choices" I had before Gloria Steinem and the rest came along.
You continue to credit and paint with such a broad brush, and that was my point. You act as if women didn't have viable, respectable choices before Abzug Steinem et al starting displaying their narcissistic radicalism before the TV cameras. The culture was changing way before then. We are talking the same time frame here and I knew plenty of women who owned businesses, for example, including my high school educated, growing up very poor Mother. Who btw was represented by a husband and wife legal team. For whatever reason you didn't have those options, you are wrong that females didn't have options, they did and that's why I took issue with your initial post. I won't disagree with the "way more choices" today because that's obvious. But it was the more reasonable voices, the ones that appealed to issues of fairness and legal equality that people responded to, not the militant politically motivated feminists. They were a turnoff to the voting citizenry.
Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and a few others deserve credit for making this country just a little bit better and a little bit fairer. I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up in a world where the only thing she thought that she could do in life was to be a wife and a mother.
Discrimination against women was always more subtle and less easy to combat than racial or religious discrimination was.
I think much of the angst that the feminist movement aroused was that it forced people (both men and women) to confront stereotypes and prejudices they had held for hundreds of years. No one particularly likes to be jarred out of their sense of complacency and have to confront a new paradigm. That's exactly what the feminist movement was asking people to do.
The timing of the movement was perhaps a bit unfortunate. It really didn't get going until about 1970. By 1970, the USA had gone through the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the environmental movement. It amounted to a great deal of social change in a short period of time. Perhaps, it was more than any society could really absorb in ten years or twelve years. It was my observation that feminism quickly provoked a backlash. Its part of the reason the Equal Rights Amendment would fail to win ratification.
As for Steinem's remarks, whether they were serious or in gest, I don't agree with them. However, everyone occasionally says something that we disagree with. I view Steinem as someone who was right about 75% of the time and wrong the other 25% of the time. Lots and lots of people are wrong more than that. Even so, I do plan--at least right now--on voting for Hillary Clinton.
As a mom of two in the 20 - 30 range and knowing each circles of friends, the history of these ladies may grab their attention in a meme of some sort, or perhaps as part of a film project. I'm not saying they shouldn't know about these ladies, but the comments these ladies make will not influence young adults of today. (Ergo, their relevance in their lives). These kids (<30) are shocked that women were never treated as equals, just as they are shocked by the civil rights movement and the GBL movement. Our kids are color - sex - sexual preference blind. They will achieve what my generation sought, and they may give a nod to the past, but they will relish their choices and not look back.
That's nothing to be proud of.
They're shocked about the civil rights movement? That women didn't have the vote till less than 100 years ago?
It's called history and it's important.
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,875 posts, read 3,322,441 times
Reputation: 9172
There are women that will vote for Hillary for no other reason other than she is a woman. Then you have women who wont vote for her just because she is a woman.
What a loon. As a woman it's embarrassing to think women still look up to this old hag. Can she just go away?
The most disgusting thing is really your comment.
I think Steinem's remark is very odd, to say the least. However, your comment is far worse. First, you denigrate a crucial figure in the women's movement as a "loon." Then you insult her based on her age.
Yes, you should be embarrassed - about your own words. Are you really a woman? It's hard to believe that a woman could write that.
In her overzealousness to elect Hillary, Gloria either put her foot in her mouth or her comments were a tactical political ploy to gain support for Hillary that backfired on her.
Either one happens to the best of them. Apparently, she has since apologized on social media.
Either way, both parties have women running for President and that is all feminists should really be concerned with.....that women have achieved the opportunity to do that. Achieving a win, is up to the individual women who run.
She made a really big misstep..........doesn't negate a lifetime dedicated to improving the lives of women and expanding the opportunities and choices that women today enjoy.
As a woman who never, ever wanted to be a mother or a SAHM, I'd personally prefer to see the country go down the skids than be miserable trying to fulfill a role other people think I should have. I see it as a thankless, pain-in-the-butt job and I don't care how important you or anyone else says it is. If staying home, having babies, and cleaning and cooking all day is something you want to do, by all means, feel free to do it. That's a choice I'm glad you can make, choice being the operative word here.
Wow.
But some of us are equally grateful that a "militant, feminist movement" came along and allowed us to do something other than be a wife and mother.
The pill and women's liberation gave women way more choices than they had in the 50s. And neither of those things happened before the 60s. Don't tell me about the choices I had before then. I know what they were - I lived them. And I'm here to tell you I'd never go back to the 50s, 60s, or even the 70s and all those "choices" I had before Gloria Steinem and the rest came along.
You continue to credit and paint with such a broad brush, and that was my point. You act as if women didn't have viable, respectable choices before Abzug Steinem et al starting displaying their narcissistic radicalism before the TV cameras. The culture was changing way before then. We are talking the same time frame here and I knew plenty of women who owned businesses, for example, including my high school educated, growing up very poor Mother. Who btw was represented by a husband and wife legal team. For whatever reason you didn't have those options, you are wrong that females didn't have options, they did and that's why I took issue with your initial post. I won't disagree with the "way more choices" today because that's obvious. But it was the more reasonable voices, the ones that appealed to issues of fairness and legal equality that people responded to, not the militant politically motivated feminists. They were a turnoff to the voting citizenry.
Millions of women and men responded to Gloria Steinem. Just because you didn't doesn't mean they were a 'turnoff'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredcop111
There are women that will vote for Hillary for no other reason other than she is a woman. Then you have women who wont vote for her just because she is a woman.
There are men who will vote for Trump just because they think he has a big penis. There are men who will refuse to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
Guess the message didn't resonate with the young women.
She doesn't resonate with younger women either, most of the more radical feminists do not. Women my age (30) grew up in a different time largely as equals. Most people my age see her not as an egalitarian but as an antonym to patriarchy. We don't really have a word for that. I mean, if you're just talking about patriarchy meaning fatherly then yes, we have matriarchy. But that's not what anyone means when they say patriarchy. They mean a society ruled by men where men are in a role of superiors to women. We don't exactly have word for it. The closest actual word is feminist which doesn't necessarily mean that at all but is also why most younger women especially do not identify as feminist. Rather they're egalitarians, which is not what Gloria Steinem is. She's a feminist in the sense that she's it's the antonym to patriarchy and male chauvinism, which doesn't resonate with younger women. They grew up in a world that is much more egalitarian. Not perfectly, but more so. It's not an alien concept to them that a man could (and actually should, and often times do) better represent their interests than a woman could. It's not because they think men are superior to women. It's that an individual man versus an individual woman. They're able to consider that possibility without much of a hangup whereas that's very hard for Steinem. Partly that's the divergent interests. Most younger women don't want an anti-patriarchal society where women rule society over subservient men. They just want to be treated more equally. They don't even want to be treated as men, just accepted more equally as women.
There are men who will vote for Trump just because they think he has a big penis. There are men who will refuse to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
Men have no moral authority here.
Not really, no. They'd vote for Ben Carson because he's black and black people... or they'd vote for Cruze or Rubio as they're really the only two that are young enough to still be virile without the little blue pill. There's not many men voting based on that.
At the same time, there's unfair criticism of women around the same. It's like every women who does or doesn't vote (damned if you do, damned if you don't) for Hillary isn't capable of actual having a more legitimate reason. Personally, I think those that do and/or attack others for doing it (Gloria Steinem may be both of those things) should be called out. It's no more ridiculous than saying men vote for (or don't) for Cruze, Rubio, or Carson are doing so predominantly because of their outward appearance of virility. It's ridiculous in both cases. Both those that do inform their votes that way and those who jump to that conclusion about others should be ashamed of themselves and called out on it.
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.
