Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
See, this is a huge failing of the women's movement -- thinking that being equal to a man, even with regard to man's WORST qualities, is somehow an improvement over being a woman!!!! I mean, how pathetic is that? How ironic that women strive to negate the natural strengths of their gender in order to emulate the worst qualities associated with males. That's a misquided aspiration if ever there was one.
Is it wonderful that there are more girl gangs in the ghetto now, and that they are becoming increasingly vicious?
I think we should all try to be better people while embracing what we are and recognize that "equal" does not mean "equivalent." Men should stop trying to learn how to cry and emote more, and women should stop trying to be cutthroat in the professional sphere.
|
How refreshing .. good old common sense ... but I now tend to expect that from you, so no surprise there!
Overal, the question posed in the OP is an attempt to simplify a complex issue. So, when dealing with a complex issue, it's best to break it down, and avoid absolutes.
Going back to the beginnings of this ... the feminist movement ... one can see an multifold agenda behind it. It was born in a very calculated way ... social engineering for which the negative consequences were not necessarily "unintended", and though many woman have personally benefitted, the negative aspects now being realized in hindsight is proving to be a net negative for everyone ... including those women.
The feminist movement provided far more benefits to those behind it's creation than the benefits realized by the feminists themselves, in the form of a huge expansion of "labor resources", which is always desirable for business, and bad for workers in general. When there is more competition for a finite labor pool, increased compensation and benefits and working conditions are the logical result to attract and secure those needed resources. On the other hand, when there are too few jobs for the number of potential workers, compensation and benefits drop, which is why big business looks at higher unemployment as a good thing, though I doubt many "workers" consider it a positive!
The second benefit to business was that the subsequent creation of a two income household replacing the traditional one income version provided increases in disposable income ... the need for two cars instead of one ... the ability to increase prices for goods ... more movement in real estate markets with the purchasing of larger homes, etc. etc. ALL of this was great for big business, and appeared to be great for the average family too ... at least during upturns in the economic cycle. But the moment the cycle takes a turn down, business contracts, trims it's labor pool, and the family takes the hit in reduced income to support the new price ceilings on all of their needs. That's the economics angle that has been a net negative.
Now there are also the social implications to go along with the negative economic impact which by all measures ... financial matters are always one of the key stress points in relationships and marriages. Two income workers stressed over finances as prices continue to increase while incomes stagnate or decline ... the marriage suffers through these stresses, as do the children of these families who no longer receive the nurturing and supervision that a full time stay at home "parent" provides. This opens the door wide for the "state" to become the children's parents, rather than the parents raising their kids.
This "re-engineering" of the societal structure of 'middle class America' relied on mainstream media propaganda that preyed upon individual selfishness and foolishness ... telling women that they can have it all ... a happy marriage, a full time career and raising a family too. THE BIG LIE, that is only now being recognized for what it was intended to be. The destruction of middle class America who have always been the intellectual, economic, and moral backbone of our society. But even now, few realize what a prominent role the feminist movement played in this carefully designed re-engineering of American society.
This has produced skyrocketing divorce rates, extraordinary numbers of single parent households, 3 or more generations of government raised children, and a middle class that is on the verge of extinction.
Of course, some women benefitted personally ... and there are always situations where women need to be self sufficient and have available to them the opportunities to achieve their individual goals in life which may not include marriage and children .. and they should certainly have those opportunities. At the same time, women must also have the ability to support their family in the absence of a partner (for whatever reason), so there are no universal absolutes in relegating women to one role in society.
At the same time, it is just as important to recognize how women in general have been used and manipulated into serving this agenda of social engineering which has produced a net negative over the long haul for society, children, their mates, and themselves too, none the least of which is the stolen choice to enjoy the traditional role of SAHM which is now reserved for only the financially fortunate few.
We've become a society of I-I-I ...ME-ME-ME .... MINE-MINE-MINE, and winner take all, and I want my cake and eat it too. The price for this self centeredness is just now coming due, and the costs to women include abandoning the duty of serving your children and your family's best interests, to being a corporate slave, serving theirs.
In the end ... the corporation won't love you, because it never did.
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.
