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.
No, they weren't. "Relegated" is one of those leftist smokescreen labels. It's like saying "undocumented worker" instead of illegal alien or calling government deficit spending "investment". Relegated is a meaningless term. Anybody can be relegated to anything. 90% of our military is men. Does that mean men are relegated into being soldiers?
It's a way of promoting an agenda without having to offer up any facts, since the term is so ambiguous it's impossible to prove it wrong. You can claim any situation to have been "relegated by X to be that way" in order to cast it in a negative light and promote a social cause.
The women of the 50s weren't struggling against oppression. They fully participated in the social norms of the day. Did women have less common economic opportunities than men? Yes. But were they relegated to that situation? No, they were not. They did it to themselves. They were not victims. They were willing participants in the common culture. But by using the term "relegated" you can portray the situation as one of victimization and generate an appeal to emotion.
The current generation has more female college students than men. The current generation has more women in management positions than men. The current generation has the average woman making more money than the average man.
We only have a ways to go because not all of the older generation has retired yet. You get these disparities in income and job positions by looking at the entire workforce. When you look at what is happening with the current generation, which is the logically proper way to determine feminism's effects, you see the disparity has now gone the opposite direction.
The idea that we've come so far but we still have a ways to go is a crock. It's feminist rhetoric trying to make itself stay relevant.
I would guess not since I've never seen anybody but you try to link feminism to disappearing jobs.
That's a logical fallacy. I could also say since the President of the country is black, racism must not exist. That's the same type of reasoning. Sorry, but it doesn't work. It's called hasty generalization.
So the Tea Party is weighing in.
If women weren't discouraged from getting into some of the better paying jobs then we wouldn't have a movement for an equal rights ammendment.
Yes there are more women in college than men but you sidestepped my statement about them. My son just graduated from a New York State engineering school. He just told me that there is one woman in engineering for every ten men. That's 10%.
Because government takes rights away if you let it.
There is nobody trying to make women unequal. Nobody.
Guess you have missed all of the continuous attacks against Roe v Wade and a woman's right to make her own medical decisions.....you know.....just like men do.
There are radical feminists. They are not made up by FOX News.They have names like Stop Patriarchy, and Maoist.
No one has successfully refuted my statement about women in engineering and computer science.
LauraC taught me that most of the women on FOX news have law degrees. What does that say about the money that FOX pays these people?
People demonstrate outside of Republican conventions dressed as body parts. Members of NOW are not true to their cause. Juneaubound then went too far and called FOX News news. You missed my point there. It's not news its an agenda.
Randomparent doesn't accept Andrea Dworkin as a feminist role model. I agree.
My thought is that people would rather get their news from good looking people than from ugly people. Just like they'd rather watch movies with good looking people and watch music videos featuring good looking people. Just like they'd rather vote for good looking people.
Move it along. Nothing to see here.
I could not care less if someone speaking the news is good looking or not. What I care about is that they're doing their job correctly. I also could not care less if a politician I'm voting for is good looking or not. The fact that you believe people vote based on looks & apparently have no objection to that speaks volumes.
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.
