Fanatical Feminism

[Sunni Man]

Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.

Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.

She is the ideal role model of the lib/fem super woman who has it all.

Yet, they hate her because she doesn't believe exactly like they do.

What a bunch of hypocrites

I'm pretty sure "they" hate her because she's a moron. Playing dress up and wielding the role of the positions you mentioned like a child does not afford her support.

Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[ConHog]

Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.

Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.

She is the ideal role model of the lib/fem super woman who has it all.

Yet, they hate her because she doesn't believe exactly like they do.

What a bunch of hypocrites

All that and you would beat her ass nightly.

 

[Samson]

Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.

I find that they are way too biased and cannot grasp the value of the bigger picture - protection of rights and promotion of equal rights through fairness, no matter how painful being fair may be.

Their marginalizing others, men and women, because they do not practice their form of feminism is distasteful, at best. And, their refusing to call out blatant sexism, even abuse, because of some political agenda disgusts me, as selling out usually does.

I think what you're saying is that it won't matter how many beaded necklaces I throw you at Mardi Gras, you won't SHOW US YOUR BOOBS?

 

[Si modo]

Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.

I find that they are way too biased and cannot grasp the value of the bigger picture - protection of rights and promotion of equal rights through fairness, no matter how painful being fair may be.

Their marginalizing others, men and women, because they do not practice their form of feminism is distasteful, at best. And, their refusing to call out blatant sexism, even abuse, because of some political agenda disgusts me, as selling out usually does.

I think what you're saying is that it won't matter how many beaded necklaces I throw you at Mardi Gras, you won't SHOW US YOUR BOOBS?

First things first. That's moot until I burn my bra.

 

[Samson]

Oh, I've not only met some biased (won't call them radical, though...it doesn't sit well with me as I view them as political hacks) feminists, I know some pretty well.

I find that they are way too biased and cannot grasp the value of the bigger picture - protection of rights and promotion of equal rights through fairness, no matter how painful being fair may be.

Their marginalizing others, men and women, because they do not practice their form of feminism is distasteful, at best. And, their refusing to call out blatant sexism, even abuse, because of some political agenda disgusts me, as selling out usually does.

I think what you're saying is that it won't matter how many beaded necklaces I throw you at Mardi Gras, you won't SHOW US YOUR BOOBS?

First things first. That's moot until I burn my burka.

You voted for Obama because you're a Muslim.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/133305-ap-si-modo-is-a-muslim.html#post2739478

 

[Si modo]

I think what you're saying is that it won't matter how many beaded necklaces I throw you at Mardi Gras, you won't SHOW US YOUR BOOBS?

First things first. That's moot until I burn my burka.

You voted for Obama because you're a Muslim.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/133305-ap-si-modo-is-a-muslim.html#post2739478

AP is biased, I tell ya!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sarah Palin is the modern day culmination of the radical 60's women's lib/feminist movement.

Wife, mother, career business woman, beauty queen, political office holder, advocate for the disabled, and now a grandmother.

She is the ideal role model of the lib/fem super woman who has it all.

Yet, they hate her because she doesn't believe exactly like they do.

What a bunch of hypocrites

I'm pretty sure "they" hate her because she's a moron. Playing dress up and wielding the role of the positions you mentioned like a child does not afford her support.

Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.

I don't take her lightly. I don't take her at all. Again there's a disconnect between the outfits she wears and the credentials she has to wearing them.

 

[Si modo]

I'm pretty sure "they" hate her because she's a moron. Playing dress up and wielding the role of the positions you mentioned like a child does not afford her support.

Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.

I don't take her lightly. I don't take her at all. Again there's a disconnect between the outfits she wears and the credentials she has to wearing them.

One has to have credentials to wear gym shorts, gym shoes, and a fleece top? Yikes, I better find out what those are. Don't want the wardrobe police to ticket me.

 

[hipeter924]

Ever since feminists started supporting Sharia law and Islamic theocracy I have stopped bothering to care about what they think, if most feminists believe that sharia law protects womens rights and gives dignity to women then their minds are too far gone to be helped.

 

[Samson]

Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.

I don't take her lightly. I don't take her at all. Again there's a disconnect between the outfits she wears and the credentials she has to wearing them.

One has to have credentials to wear gym shorts, gym shoes, and a fleece top? Yikes, I better find out what those are. Don't want the wardrobe police to ticket me.

Are you

36-24-32?

If so, then those are good creds.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sarah Palin is far from being a moron.

She is a highly intelligent woman who has accomplished many things in her life.

Politically, I disagree with her in many areas; except illegal immigration.

But, she is a woman who shouldn't be taken lightly.

I don't take her lightly. I don't take her at all. Again there's a disconnect between the outfits she wears and the credentials she has to wearing them.

One has to have credentials to wear gym shorts, gym shoes, and a fleece top? Yikes, I better find out what those are. Don't want the wardrobe police to ticket me.

haha. was going more for the theoretical "politician uniform". But yeah, I'd ticket you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. Feminism has been criticized as exhibiting a rigid intolerance which, unfortunately, has driven away women who choose motherhood over high-powered careers, women who are American patriots, many religious women, women who do not identify themselves primarily in terms of sexual preference, and women who oppose abortion, pornography and prostitution. Said outside-the-mainstream feminists hold abolitionist views about pornography, prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery; viewing males as partners rather than oppressors; in short, are conservative.

b. Support for these excluded but self-identified feminists has come from an unexpected precinct: author of ‘Third Wave Feminism,” Rebecca Walker.
Her mother is Alice Walker, Second Wave Feminist, and author of “The Color Purple.”

According to Alice, her mother’s absolutist presumptions about male oppression, and the burden of having children, alienated her, and produced the kind of atmosphere which can only be considered child abuse.

c. Read the article which includes…
“The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.
You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents…

But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution….with my mother's knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism….Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters - a happy family.”
How my mother's fanatical feminist views tore us apart, by the daughter of The Color Purple author | Mail Online

In all my travels
in all of the various paces I've worked
I don't believe I have ever met such a person as this angry strict feminist

I've worked for career women but not one of them was even remotely like this.

I'm sure even you agree, PC, that EVERY PERSON, regardless of sex or color or religious persuasion, should have the same opportunities and recieve the same rewards (for the same work)

"I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents…"

sometimes that just isn't possible.

one of the parents could die.

but barring that it can be just as bad for the children to grow up in an unhappy home.

It's a terrible thing for children to grow up with parents who argue and fight all the time because they don't love each other

I raised two daughters on my own....

both of whom went to college and have careers

both are married (they didn't get married until their mid-30s which I consider a personal victory as I believe marrying TOO YOUNG is generally a mistake)

they both have 1 child

so they did ok.....

as for women NEEDING men these days...

I would contend that things are vastly different today than they were 50 or 100 or 15o years ago.

there was certainly a time when a woman NEEDED a man
or children needed 2 parents

but these days that is no longer the case

a successful woman CAN have a child or two and raise it/them fine without a man around....

1."I don't believe I have ever met such a person as this angry strict feminist,"
I certainly wouldn't think of disputing who you have met...
But I hope you are not claiming that these folks don't exist. The point of the essay is that there is a philosophical difference between the two viewpoints expressed, even within this single family.

2. "I'm sure even you agree, PC, that EVERY PERSON, regardless of sex or color or religious persuasion, should have the same opportunities and recieve the same rewards (for the same work)."

Without a definition of terms, no, I don't.
If one has fewer years on the job, this may be a reason for a differential.
If one has a degree in 'Women's Studies,' and the other one in Nuclear Physics, and the job is of technical requirements, again, no.
If you choose to obfuscate, i.e. 'sex or color or religious persuasion' and these are the differences in question, of course.

3. "...sometimes that just isn't possible."
Let's treat each other as thinking human beings, and assume the obvious.
But I will assume that you are unaware of the tenet of radical feminism that actually sees allowing the father to be wed, to be a participant in the raising of the child, as evils, as negatives.
Would you subscribe to that...in comparison to the idea that the best situation would be two loving parents in the home?
Of course, you wouldn't.

From Coulter's "Guilty":
"Of all single mothers in America, only 6.5 percent of them are widows, 37.8 percent are divorced, and 41.3 percent gave birth out of wedlock. The 6.5 percent of single mothers whose husbands have died shouldn't be called 'single mothers' at all. We already have a word for them: 'widows.' Their children do just fine compared with the children of married parents." -- P.35

4. "I raised two daughters on my own....

both of whom went to college and have careers

both are married (they didn't get married until their mid-30s which I consider a personal victory as I believe marrying TOO YOUNG is generally a mistake)

they both have 1 child

so they did ok....."
I appreciate your sharing that. God blesss.

5. "there was certainly a time when a woman NEEDED a man
or children needed 2 parents

but these days that is no longer the case

a successful woman CAN have a child or two and raise it/them fine without a man around..."
I'm so glad we reached a disagreement, otherwise these posts become boring.

As you have snuck in that 'successful' woman part, without defining same, let me broaden the discussion a bit, too.
A woman who chooses unwisely and has children without a commitment, i.e. marriage, enrolls her children in the following statistical miasma:

a. In the 'Atlantic Monthly,' Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted that the "relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime."
Eric Holder's Chickens Come Home to Roost

b. According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor — and thus a recipient of welfare — than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable.
Studies also show a correlation between crime and broken homes. It isn’t so much the crime committed by the members of the broken home itself, says Robert Sampson, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, as it is the impact of broken homes on the community.

"A high threshold of single-parent families in a community means a low capacity for social control of kids," he said. A child is "more likely to find peers in that community who are not supervised."

Sampson said the relationship between broken homes and crimes "is large and certainly larger than many of the other factors that I looked at in the analysis."
Other research shows that not only is there a link between single-parent households and crime, but that the difference between black and white crime rates may largely be explained by the difference between their single-parent household rates.
Bestselling author Michael Fumento investigates: "Is the Great Society to Blame? If Not, Why Have Problems Worsened Since ’60s?"

c. The absent father stands alone as the most reliable predictor of social and psychological trouble. Research by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that annual household income is below $30,000 for 65 percent of children in single-mother families, compared with 15 percent of children in two-parent families. Children raised in homes without fathers are more likely to run away, commit suicide, use drugs, be arrested, and engage in a host of other unfortunate—and sometimes deadly—behaviors.
Three Proposals on the Black Family by Peter Cove, City Journal 20 November 2009

d. A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes 'are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.' Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts. Coulter, "Guilty"

Please rethink your position on single motherhood.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Please rethink yours. Your studies are valid. The populations they analyze are not, for the purposes of this discussion.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Woman A grew up in a poor neighborhood, with a crappy education system. She forwent college, getting a local job for minimum wage. She dated around, never even knowing about contraceptive options, and had an unwanted pregnancy.

Woman B was happily married with children, had a good job, and for whatever reason, divorced.

Woman C is an established college graduate with an established and growing career. She decides to adopt.

Which one is going to have the happiest household? Whose child will have the fewest psychosocial issues? Whose child will most likely commit a crime? The answers, even if stereotyped, seem almost obvious. So what is the inherent difference between the scenarios?

CHOICE.

Feminism or gender equality has little to do with "oops I just got shoved into a bad situation", and a lot about active choice on topics. It's no wonder crime is correlated with single mothers. Look what demographics comprises single mothers! In short: bad things are correlated to poorer areas.

Show me a study that corrects for class discrepancies, and then you'd have a stronger point. Even then, you'd still have a lot of convincing to do.

The Relationship Between Single-Parent Status and ... [J Pediatr Psychol. 2010] - PubMed result
Psychosocial differences related to parenting infa... [Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 2010] - PubMed result

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please rethink yours. Your studies are valid. The populations they analyze are not, for the purposes of this discussion.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Woman A grew up in a poor neighborhood, with a crappy education system. She forwent college, getting a local job for minimum wage. She dated around, never even knowing about contraceptive options, and had an unwanted pregnancy.

Woman B was happily married with children, had a good job, and for whatever reason, divorced.

Woman C is an established college graduate with an established and growing career. She decides to adopt.

Which one is going to have the happiest household? Whose child will have the fewest psychosocial issues? Whose child will most likely commit a crime? The answers, even if stereotyped, seem almost obvious. So what is the inherent difference between the scenarios?

CHOICE.

Feminism or gender equality has little to do with "oops I just got shoved into a bad situation", and a lot about active choice on topics. It's no wonder crime is correlated with single mothers. Look what demographics comprises single mothers! In short: bad things are correlated to poorer areas.

Show me a study that corrects for class discrepancies, and then you'd have a stronger point. Even then, you'd still have a lot of convincing to do.

The Relationship Between Single-Parent Status and ... [J Pediatr Psychol. 2010] - PubMed result
Psychosocial differences related to parenting infa... [Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 2010] - PubMed result

Rather than your hypothetical women, are you actually arguing that there is no difference in the outcomes for children between being raised in a two partent home, versus a single mother (not a widow)?

After you ponder the above, add to the mix the numbers in the studies that I cite, vs. the A, B, and C women that you image...

My point: society is hardly impacted by families that represent fractions of a percent, vs. the much larger populations in said studies.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There are differences in outcomes for children based on ANY difference. The question isn't "are there differences?" but rather "what specific differences are correlated with which outcomes?".

As I said in my previous post: your studies are valid, but their populations are not in the context of feminism and gender equality. To be blunt: the studies you cited don't mean a thing when it comes to "how how gender equality shaped the country?" unless you go on to prove that divorce and unwed marriages are a result of gender equality. But as I said in my last post: the outcomes you point out, which are valid and not contested, are largely based on income and psychosocial resources, as I have shown with the studies I provided. So how do you reconcile that all those poor outcomes you're bringing up have to do with low income and resources on a topic about feminism and gender equality?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are differences in outcomes for children based on ANY difference. The question isn't "are there differences?" but rather "what specific differences are correlated with which outcomes?".

As I said in my previous post: your studies are valid, but their populations are not in the context of feminism and gender equality. To be blunt: the studies you cited don't mean a thing when it comes to "how how gender equality shaped the country?" unless you go on to prove that divorce and unwed marriages are a result of gender equality. But as I said in my last post: the outcomes you point out, which are valid and not contested, are largely based on income and psychosocial resources, as I have shown with the studies I provided. So how do you reconcile that all those poor outcomes you're bringing up have to do with low income and resources on a topic about feminism and gender equality?

Here is the fatal flaw in the kinds of feminism under discussion:

""I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents…"

There is the distinction between the two views.

All studies find the two parent households are, for the most part, the successful in producing happy, well adjusted children while the stats in so many areas, societal and individual, are dismal for the children of single mothers- whatever the cause of said 'singleness' outside of widowhood.

You wish to break down the cause and distinctions between various one-parent households...that does not pertain to the feminist view of parenting.

I look forward to debates of every variety, but am puzzled by your premise that suggests that one parent is as good as two....


While peripheral to this discussion, consider the following in terms of the health and welfare of mothers:

According to the US Justice Department crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women living with their husbands. From 1993 to 2005, the number of married women victimized by their husbands ranged from 0.9 to 3.2 per 1000. Domestic violence was about 40 times more likely among divorced or separated women, ranging from 37.7 to 118.5 per 1000. Even never married women were more than twice as likely to be victims of domestic violence as married women. (see Bureau of Justice Statistics Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.)

I think one can see how this would impact children, as well.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You seem to continue missing one of the largest underlying inherent principles of feminism and gender equality, even though I have put it in bold letters in previous posts. You even highlighted the principle in the very first line of this thread:

CHOICE

Gender equality does not support the idea of women being abandoned. It is not defined by divorce, or unwanted pregnancy, or any of the other things you seem so fixated on. You're missing the point.

And as I've stated in two of my previous posts in a row now, the studies you continue to cite are valid in and of themselves, but in no way indicative of the desires or purpose of feminism or gender equality. In other words: they have little to do with this.

You wish to break down the cause and distinctions between various one-parent households...that does not pertain to the feminist view of parenting.

YES! Being blind to those distinctions and instead mass lumping ALL women into one generalized category missed the point of gender equality entirely. No one has suggested "one parent is as good as two". This is a generalization, the opposite of which YOU are making, and has little to do with the topic. The studies I showed you simply shoot down your premise. In doing so, I have not and do not support the opposite idea that one parent is better than two.

You're essentially polarizing your view into two narrow-minded possibilities, when the actual topic has nothing to do with either. Again, you're missing the point because you can only see the end result, when its the PATH that is the focus of gender equality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You seem to continue missing one of the largest underlying inherent principles of feminism and gender equality, even though I have put it in bold letters in previous posts. You even highlighted the principle in the very first line of this thread:

CHOICE

Gender equality does not support the idea of women being abandoned. It is not defined by divorce, or unwanted pregnancy, or any of the other things you seem so fixated on. You're missing the point.

And as I've stated in two of my previous posts in a row now, the studies you continue to cite are valid in and of themselves, but in no way indicative of the desires or purpose of feminism or gender equality. In other words: they have little to do with this.

You wish to break down the cause and distinctions between various one-parent households...that does not pertain to the feminist view of parenting.

YES! Being blind to those distinctions and instead mass lumping ALL women into one generalized category missed the point of gender equality entirely. No one has suggested "one parent is as good as two". This is a generalization, the opposite of which YOU are making, and has little to do with the topic. The studies I showed you simply shoot down your premise. In doing so, I have not and do not support the opposite idea that one parent is better than two.

You're essentially polarizing your view into two narrow-minded possibilities, when the actual topic has nothing to do with either. Again, you're missing the point because you can only see the end result, when its the PATH that is the focus of gender equality.

The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.

Thanks for agreeing that " No one has suggested "one parent is as good as two".

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.

Unfortunately, you have yet to show in any way the EFFECT of radical feminism on parenting. No, your studies do not show that. Once again: divorce, female abandonment, domestic abuse, etc etc etc has nothing to do with radical feminism.

I think I see the problem here though. This link may help clarify. Just replace "fanatic" with "radical". Same principle.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The debate is about radical feminism and its effect on parenting.

Unfortunately, you have yet to show in any way the EFFECT of radical feminism on parenting. No, your studies do not show that. Once again: divorce, female abandonment, domestic abuse, etc etc etc has nothing to do with radical feminism.

I think I see the problem here though. This link may help clarify. Just replace "fanatic" with "radical". Same principle.

Try reading the article in the OP.