Feminism: Just Another Fad

[PoliticalChic]

P.Chic -

Perhaps try and stay with the topic. You started it, after all.

Quite why is it that you feel annointed in the role of telling women what they should and should not do with their bodies and their lives?

You fool....you're so backwards, I'd have to be dyslexic just to understand your posts!!


Feminism demanded that women eschew the biological role, and, in fact, reverse it!


Learn some political history, dope!!


a. Communist Revolution is based on the idea of transforming human nature. “The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082, as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's long-standing cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


b. Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution [2] :
"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


c. “Culture is a stubborn opponent. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


d. Progressives have a similar view: human nature is plastic; politics is a means of perfecting man! Enter feminism, stage Left.
Conservatism accepts variation, and that there will be differences of every variety.


e. In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html_________________________________________________________________




I keep seeking educated opposition.....it sure ain't you.

 

[MHunterB]

"The POINT of true feminism was and is the CHOICE being the woman's,..."

It seems that careful reading isn't one of your skills.

From the OP:

And Simone de Beauvoir in an interview with Betty Friedan said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
“Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.

Sinks your ship, doesn't it.

That's the voice of feminism.

Just one more version of totalitarianism.

Seems that PC has some reading comprehension issues herself. I never elected Simone de Beauvoir nor Betty Freidan to define 'feminism' for me. They don't speak for every feminist, which IS exactly the point. TRUE femininism is NOT dictated by some 'name' or other in a sound bite. It's really not so difficult: those are extreme POV's which don't necessarily represent the reality of most women.

Lookin' for a little truth here!

Don't give me your revisionism of 'true feminism.'

Simone de Beauvoir speaks for and of feminism....not you.

What you are speaking of is the conservatism that is suddenly being re-branded as feminism.


Now.....don't be a fraud: simply admit that you've washed your hands of feminism, as it was originally sold....

....and realized the truth.

I've never just handed over the right to either speak for me or define meanings to anyone else: not Simone de Beauvoir, and certainly not you. I haven't 'washed my hands' regarding what I meant and still mean by 'feminism'. I don't give a rodent's round rump whether it was 'conservative' or 'radical' for a teen in the '60's to make the decisions I did. What I decided, I did so because it was best for me. I am not an ideologue: I do not look at some 'party platform' while making decisions regarding my personal life.

Yes, I have principles: I make decisions based on those. But the principles do not derive from some 'party line'.

One of those principles is that I do not EVER give away the right to speak for me or define terms. I will accord that right to those who prove to me they're better informed on some specific topic. I'll let you know if you ever qualify IMO.

 

[MHunterB]

Feminism was a illogical and immoral movement from the start. Betty Friedan said that marriage was like concentration camp for women. Yet women have traditionally been the ones fantasizing about getting married and having kids. So either women were so stupid that they fantasized about concentration camp like settings or the feminist movement exaggerated disadvantages women had like being "second class citizens." Cleary its the latter. Feminism, like a lot of immoral political movements, started off with many false premises and then demonized anyone who dared to point out the inconsistencies and hate that the movement engendered. To say "all men are rapists" as a prominent feminist did, or that, "all men should be beaten to a bloody pulp" really cannot be considered to be the expressions of an equality movement...

This and the OP make remind me of my contention that male and female is not the proper point of cleavage between good homemaker/child-raisers and runners of the country. There exists a bell shaped curve amongst females relating to their suitability in either role. There is also a similar curve that applies to males in relation to their suitability in the same two roles. Some men make good stay-at-home dads...some women make great CEOs. The whole thing about male superiority is total bullshit. Feminism is nothing more than a long delayed realization of this fact. The human brain exhibits bell shaped curves that we have yet to discover.

That sounds suspiciously like the real world to me. I don't assume those two bell curves you've mentioned will look identical - but that doesn't matter, does it?

What matters is that the society which allows individuals of whichever gender to CHOOSE the life which best suits their skills and inclinations, is going to be the most productive AND the happiest.

And yes, for every woman who felt stifled being a SAHM (stay at home Mom), there was another who felt abused working in a 'profession' where the men in the workplace slighted her. And all kinds of combinations in between.

All other things being equal, species, individuals, and societies which are flexible and adapt ALWAYS do better than those which are rigid.

 

[Oddball]

Here's what womanly women want...

The Renegade Hypnotist Project | Mark Cunningham

 

[MHunterB]

Here's what womanly women want...

The Renegade Hypnotist Project | Mark Cunningham

Seems more like the fantasy of an insecure immature male to me.........

 

[Oddball]

ORLY?

Care to tell us why romance novels in general, and 50 Shades of Gray in particular, have flown off the shelves?

 

[Katzndogz]

In the beginning feminists wanted to be considered equals, but in very defined ways. We did not deserve the degradation nor humiliation that we got in the workplace. Nor did we deserve the way the legal system dismissed the crimes committed against us. We wanted access to education. Women never wanted not to be women. We just never wanted to be defined by bra size.

What happened was these ideals were never passed along to the next generation of women. When women protest today, they strip. They rip of their tops and demand to be defined by bra size. If that's not enough, women are quite happy to have implants to emphasize their definition. Rather than embrace an equality of thoughts and ideas, women threw ideas and thoughts out the window and demanded to be treated like honored sluts. The chief concubine in the harem. Men completely realized how destructive women had become and encouraged them, took them at their word. You wanna be a man, then fuck like a man, fuck everyone. And women bought it, hook line and sinker.

Years ago there were a few women who could be high achievers. The rest weren't worth it. Aren't worth it. Today there are still the same few women who could be high achievers. Years ago the high achieving women were impeded by men. Today they are impeded by women. Women went from "I am woman hear me roar" to "I am woman hear me whine".

The entire feminist movement was a mistake. It did no good. Women are still largely the simpering fools they always were. Instead of college courses on where to place the salad forks in a formal dining table, we got equally useless courses on how to have a greater orgasm. The placement of salad forks is more beneficial.

What an embarrassment women of today are, what a shame they are. Why did we even bother?

 

[Connery]

2. Now Kelly is 33, and if dreams were winds, you might say that hers have shifted. She believes that every household needs one primary caretaker, that women are, broadly speaking, better at that job than men,

Try again Kelly and who ever else believes this baloney. There is no one better suited to be the primary caretaker than me for my son or my household, male or female. The idea that sex is determinative of such a vital and important role in a child's life is nonsense.

I closed my business, shut the doors and made a choice to do what came naturally and did not want someone else raising my boy at some day care or even an "au pair". BTW no woman can do a better job than what I am doing with him.

 

[Katzndogz]

The roles of men and women have nothing to do with the failure of feminisim. It might be that American women are just incapable of leadership.

 

[Flopper]

Feminism was a illogical and immoral movement from the start. Betty Friedan said that marriage was like concentration camp for women. Yet women have traditionally been the ones fantasizing about getting married and having kids. So either women were so stupid that they fantasized about concentration camp like settings or the feminist movement exaggerated disadvantages women had like being "second class citizens." Cleary its the latter. Feminism, like a lot of immoral political movements, started off with many false premises and then demonized anyone who dared to point out the inconsistencies and hate that the movement engendered. To say "all men are rapists" as a prominent feminist did, or that, "all men should be beaten to a bloody pulp" really cannot be considered to be the expressions of an equality movement...

This and the OP make remind me of my contention that male and female is not the proper point of cleavage between good homemaker/child-raisers and runners of the country. There exists a bell shaped curve amongst females relating to their suitability in either role. There is also a similar curve that applies to males in relation to their suitability in the same two roles. Some men make good stay-at-home dads...some women make great CEOs. The whole thing about male superiority is total bullshit. Feminism is nothing more than a long delayed realization of this fact. The human brain exhibits bell shaped curves that we have yet to discover.

That sounds suspiciously like the real world to me. I don't assume those two bell curves you've mentioned will look identical - but that doesn't matter, does it?

What matters is that the society which allows individuals of whichever gender to CHOOSE the life which best suits their skills and inclinations, is going to be the most productive AND the happiest.

And yes, for every woman who felt stifled being a SAHM (stay at home Mom), there was another who felt abused working in a 'profession' where the men in the workplace slighted her. And all kinds of combinations in between.

All other things being equal, species, individuals, and societies which are flexible and adapt ALWAYS do better than those which are rigid.

The women's movement was about choice and equality which has been at the heart of all social movements. Gradually people are becoming aware that no one should be pushed to play a role in society because of their of gender or race.

Just like men, some women are cut out to be good parents, spouses, and providers and some are not. When societies push people into playing roles they are not equipped to play, everyone loses. For centuries we have pushed women into playing the role of mother, wife, and housekeeper. God knows, how many brilliant minds have been wasted scrubbing floors and changing diapers. Likewise, there are many men who are utter failures in the work place, but are wonder dads and homemakers.

As a society, we would be so much happier and productive, if we just encouraged our sons and daughters to do what they can do best and reject the social molds laid down by our parents.

 

[Truthmatters]

How about doing what they want to do with their lives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The POINT of true feminism was and is the CHOICE being the woman's,..."

It seems that careful reading isn't one of your skills.

From the OP:

And Simone de Beauvoir in an interview with Betty Friedan said “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
“Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p. 18.

Sinks your ship, doesn't it.

That's the voice of feminism.

Just one more version of totalitarianism.

Seems that PC has some reading comprehension issues herself. I never elected Simone de Beauvoir nor Betty Freidan to define 'feminism' for me. They don't speak for every feminist, which IS exactly the point. TRUE femininism is NOT dictated by some 'name' or other in a sound bite. It's really not so difficult: those are extreme POV's which don't necessarily represent the reality of most women.

Lookin' for a little truth here!

Don't give me your revisionism of 'true feminism.'

Simone de Beauvoir speaks for and of feminism....not you.

What you are speaking of is the conservatism that is suddenly being re-branded as feminism.


Now.....don't be a fraud: simply admit that you've washed your hands of feminism, as it was originally sold....

....and realized the truth.

I've never just handed over the right to either speak for me or define meanings to anyone else: not Simone de Beauvoir, and certainly not you. I haven't 'washed my hands' regarding what I meant and still mean by 'feminism'. I don't give a rodent's round rump whether it was 'conservative' or 'radical' for a teen in the '60's to make the decisions I did. What I decided, I did so because it was best for me. I am not an ideologue: I do not look at some 'party platform' while making decisions regarding my personal life.

Yes, I have principles: I make decisions based on those. But the principles do not derive from some 'party line'.

One of those principles is that I do not EVER give away the right to speak for me or define terms. I will accord that right to those who prove to me they're better informed on some specific topic. I'll let you know if you ever qualify IMO.

1. "I've never just handed over the right to either speak for me or define meanings to anyone else..."
When one enters a discussion based on commonly held definitions, one has no business attempting to re-define the terms.
Or...you could have used some other term, but not 'feminism.'


2. "I do not EVER give away the right to speak for me or define terms...."
Sure do.
You've used a term that I clearly defined in the opening of the OP, with examples of the meaning.
If you have some other term in mind, you might open a new OP....it might be interesting.


3. "What I decided, I did so because it was best for me."
Don't we all.
But that has nothing to do with feminism.



4. " I don't give a rodent's round rump whether it was 'conservative' or 'radical'..."
Well, then....if you are claiming relationship with the heroine of the OP....

...I'd like to be the first to welcome you to the conservative perspective.



Oh...and one more thing: If you found my responses to your posts a bit abrasive....they were meant to be.

If you ever open a conversation with the phrase "What a total crock," then you can bet you'll get what you deserve.

Had you been respectful...you'd find me the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Feminism was a illogical and immoral movement from the start. Betty Friedan said that marriage was like concentration camp for women. Yet women have traditionally been the ones fantasizing about getting married and having kids. So either women were so stupid that they fantasized about concentration camp like settings or the feminist movement exaggerated disadvantages women had like being "second class citizens." Cleary its the latter. Feminism, like a lot of immoral political movements, started off with many false premises and then demonized anyone who dared to point out the inconsistencies and hate that the movement engendered. To say "all men are rapists" as a prominent feminist did, or that, "all men should be beaten to a bloody pulp" really cannot be considered to be the expressions of an equality movement...

This and the OP make remind me of my contention that male and female is not the proper point of cleavage between good homemaker/child-raisers and runners of the country. There exists a bell shaped curve amongst females relating to their suitability in either role. There is also a similar curve that applies to males in relation to their suitability in the same two roles. Some men make good stay-at-home dads...some women make great CEOs. The whole thing about male superiority is total bullshit. Feminism is nothing more than a long delayed realization of this fact. The human brain exhibits bell shaped curves that we have yet to discover.

While, of course, there is much truth in your post, it is a mistake if you're suggesting that the two bell curves would look the same.

They would not.

Each would be skewed in a different direction.
Nature cannot be denied.



1. "The notion that females are more highly invested in their children than males is being confirmed by findings in biochemistry and neuroscience, as these disciplines clarify the role of hormones—particularly testosterone and oxytocin—in sexual and reproductive behavior. Like the male sex hormone testosterone, oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus. But in most other respects, it is the anti-testosterone. Instead of fueling aggression, it promotes attachment, reduces fear, and leads to feelings of pleasure and well-being. Testosterone appears in males at far higher levels than in females; oxytocin, on the other hand, is more prevalent in females. Women have many more oxytocin receptors in their brains than men do, and those receptors rev up during orgasm, childbirth, and breast-feeding—signaling that at a biological level, the boundaries most of us take as axiomatic between sexual pleasure, reproduction, and mothering are not all that clear.

2. Oxytocin may explain what one woman, a journalism professor at New York University, meant when, in a recent essay, she described an
“addiction” to her newborn baby that left her indifferent to work. Many [feminist] readers were perturbed: [this] was feeding the cult of motherhood, they said; maternal love is neither an interesting nor a useful subject for women today.

3. But surely it’s worth understanding the natural forces at work in our everyday experience. Evolution selected for women who wanted to hold and nurse their infants. There may or may not be a “maternal instinct”— but there is a hormone that amounts to almost the same thing. It inclines females to feed, cuddle, and fuss over their young, and leaves men at peace.

4. If that were evolutionary psychology’s whole story about women, then its experts would be proclaiming patriarchy as our destiny, which they don’t tend to do. In fact, as neuroscientists and geneticists piece together the human brain’s evolution, it’s becoming clear that, if it’s natural for a woman to go crazy over her babies, it’s also natural for a woman to run the State Department. The same human female brain that’s primed with oxytocin is, like the male brain, a fantastically complex machine, capable of reasoning, innovative problem solving, and maneuvering through hugely varied social environments—whether the PTA, a corporate headquarters, or Congress.


5. While biology may suggest that the human male can’t be expected to remain around for long, scientists are apt to describe the brain as chemically and neurologically predisposed to certain behaviors, and, in humans, it is a mistake to underestimate the environmental pressure of social norms. The human record suggests that social norms, especially the universal one of marriage, can reinforce fathers’ ties to their children, which in turn might even become part of the male neural architecture. Recently, neuroscientists have even discovered evidence that married men’s testosterone levels fall at the birth of their baby."
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Autumn 2009

 

[asaratis]

Feminism was a illogical and immoral movement from the start. Betty Friedan said that marriage was like concentration camp for women. Yet women have traditionally been the ones fantasizing about getting married and having kids. So either women were so stupid that they fantasized about concentration camp like settings or the feminist movement exaggerated disadvantages women had like being "second class citizens." Cleary its the latter. Feminism, like a lot of immoral political movements, started off with many false premises and then demonized anyone who dared to point out the inconsistencies and hate that the movement engendered. To say "all men are rapists" as a prominent feminist did, or that, "all men should be beaten to a bloody pulp" really cannot be considered to be the expressions of an equality movement...

This and the OP make remind me of my contention that male and female is not the proper point of cleavage between good homemaker/child-raisers and runners of the country. There exists a bell shaped curve amongst females relating to their suitability in either role. There is also a similar curve that applies to males in relation to their suitability in the same two roles. Some men make good stay-at-home dads...some women make great CEOs. The whole thing about male superiority is total bullshit. Feminism is nothing more than a long delayed realization of this fact. The human brain exhibits bell shaped curves that we have yet to discover.

While, of course, there is much truth in your post, it is a mistake if you're suggesting that the two bell curves would look the same.

They would not.

Each would be skewed in a different direction.
Nature cannot be denied.



1. "The notion that females are more highly invested in their children than males is being confirmed by findings in biochemistry and neuroscience, as these disciplines clarify the role of hormones—particularly testosterone and oxytocin—in sexual and reproductive behavior. Like the male sex hormone testosterone, oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus. But in most other respects, it is the anti-testosterone. Instead of fueling aggression, it promotes attachment, reduces fear, and leads to feelings of pleasure and well-being. Testosterone appears in males at far higher levels than in females; oxytocin, on the other hand, is more prevalent in females. Women have many more oxytocin receptors in their brains than men do, and those receptors rev up during orgasm, childbirth, and breast-feeding—signaling that at a biological level, the boundaries most of us take as axiomatic between sexual pleasure, reproduction, and mothering are not all that clear.

2. Oxytocin may explain what one woman, a journalism professor at New York University, meant when, in a recent essay, she described an
“addiction” to her newborn baby that left her indifferent to work. Many [feminist] readers were perturbed: [this] was feeding the cult of motherhood, they said; maternal love is neither an interesting nor a useful subject for women today.

3. But surely it’s worth understanding the natural forces at work in our everyday experience. Evolution selected for women who wanted to hold and nurse their infants. There may or may not be a “maternal instinct”— but there is a hormone that amounts to almost the same thing. It inclines females to feed, cuddle, and fuss over their young, and leaves men at peace.

4. If that were evolutionary psychology’s whole story about women, then its experts would be proclaiming patriarchy as our destiny, which they don’t tend to do. In fact, as neuroscientists and geneticists piece together the human brain’s evolution, it’s becoming clear that, if it’s natural for a woman to go crazy over her babies, it’s also natural for a woman to run the State Department. The same human female brain that’s primed with oxytocin is, like the male brain, a fantastically complex machine, capable of reasoning, innovative problem solving, and maneuvering through hugely varied social environments—whether the PTA, a corporate headquarters, or Congress.


5. While biology may suggest that the human male can’t be expected to remain around for long, scientists are apt to describe the brain as chemically and neurologically predisposed to certain behaviors, and, in humans, it is a mistake to underestimate the environmental pressure of social norms. The human record suggests that social norms, especially the universal one of marriage, can reinforce fathers’ ties to their children, which in turn might even become part of the male neural architecture. Recently, neuroscientists have even discovered evidence that married men’s testosterone levels fall at the birth of their baby."
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Autumn 2009

Not intended to imply identical curves. They would be similar in that each tapers to a point on each end and has a hump somewhere between the two ends. They would certainly be skewed differently. The point is that there are men who are more suited for housekeeping than factory work...and there are women more suited for corporate climbing than making cookies and fixing dinner for the family.

The suitability of a person for a particular role in life is not predetermined by gender. I think that men like to think they have superior capabilities in regard to "running things" and that their wives (mates) should be expected to take subordinate positions with gratitude toward the men for "bringing home the bacon". It's a male arrogance thingy!...a hold-over from the days of the cavemen and their grunting.



Lysistrata

 

[Grandma]

Your façile-minded conclusion jumping is quite amusing.

A woman as a pilot, engineer, plumber or CEO is still a woman.

Who says such women expect their men to be mere satyrs?

I do. I'm a woman, so the decision is mine to make, not yours. Get it, little man? I'm gonna go pull the engine on the Pontiac and change the rear seal. You can trot your little behind out to the kitchen and make me a sammich and a pot of coffee.

 

[Grandma]

In the beginning feminists wanted to be considered equals, but in very defined ways. We did not deserve the degradation nor humiliation that we got in the workplace. Nor did we deserve the way the legal system dismissed the crimes committed against us. We wanted access to education. Women never wanted not to be women. We just never wanted to be defined by bra size.

What happened was these ideals were never passed along to the next generation of women. When women protest today, they strip. They rip of their tops and demand to be defined by bra size. If that's not enough, women are quite happy to have implants to emphasize their definition. Rather than embrace an equality of thoughts and ideas, women threw ideas and thoughts out the window and demanded to be treated like honored sluts. The chief concubine in the harem. Men completely realized how destructive women had become and encouraged them, took them at their word. You wanna be a man, then fuck like a man, fuck everyone. And women bought it, hook line and sinker.

Years ago there were a few women who could be high achievers. The rest weren't worth it. Aren't worth it. Today there are still the same few women who could be high achievers. Years ago the high achieving women were impeded by men. Today they are impeded by women. Women went from "I am woman hear me roar" to "I am woman hear me whine".

The entire feminist movement was a mistake. It did no good. Women are still largely the simpering fools they always were. Instead of college courses on where to place the salad forks in a formal dining table, we got equally useless courses on how to have a greater orgasm. The placement of salad forks is more beneficial.

What an embarrassment women of today are, what a shame they are. Why did we even bother?

Jesus High-stepping Christ.

What a stupid post. Stereotype much?



I don't personally know any women that have had boob jobs. I know hundreds that have college and tech school degrees and are quite happy working in their profession - and to this day there are losers that think because the women aren't men then they are less than. Fortunately that is changing. The younger generation doesn't so much subscribe to phony gender roles.

 

[editec]

Feminism has so transformed society in the last 40 years that most of you who were not around BEFORE that happened, you cannot even begin to imagine what society was really like.

For the MOST part, the changes have been liberating for ALL of us.

 

[Oddball]

Your façile-minded conclusion jumping is quite amusing.

A woman as a pilot, engineer, plumber or CEO is still a woman.

Who says such women expect their men to be mere satyrs?

I do. I'm a woman, so the decision is mine to make, not yours. Get it, little man? I'm gonna go pull the engine on the Pontiac and change the rear seal. You can trot your little behind out to the kitchen and make me a sammich and a pot of coffee.

That still doesn't make you a man.

 

[asaratis]

Your façile-minded conclusion jumping is quite amusing.

A woman as a pilot, engineer, plumber or CEO is still a woman.

Who says such women expect their men to be mere satyrs?

I do. I'm a woman, so the decision is mine to make, not yours. Get it, little man? I'm gonna go pull the engine on the Pontiac and change the rear seal. You can trot your little behind out to the kitchen and make me a sammich and a pot of coffee.

That still doesn't make you a man.

That is correct. She is still a woman...a woman that is suited to do what has been traditionally considered to be "man's work". That is one of the major points here.

 

[Oddball]

Her choices are hers to make.....That still doesn't maker her a guy.