Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?
How misogynistic of you, to equate a woman's worth with her ability to "find and keep a man".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?
This is a woman in a great deal of pain. I think it is unfair to judge either her or her mother...we never know the truth of what goes on behind closed doors, and even if we did, doubtless for these two, there are two different truths. Mebbe Alice Walker is the horrible person her daughter describes....mebbe there is more to it...but whatever the case, feminism ain't the problem. Sounds to me like selfishness is.
Ms. Walker's Mommy did not value and protect her daughter. She did not value her grand. (According to Ms. Walker, anyways.) That ain't feminism, Cecile.
Strong, healthy self-respecting women do not neglect their kids, Cecilie.
What else is there for a chick to be, Luissa? Anti-woman?
No more misogynistic than CON$ equating a woman's intelligence with whether she has a "smart guy around to keep 'em in line."Did you have a point, other than that you can't find and keep a man?
How misogynistic of you, to equate a woman's worth with her ability to "find and keep a man".
1. I certainly can't argue with your experiences, they are reality. I appreciate your sharing.
2. I must have missed the turn here: "But what of the children of unhappy families? Or families that need both incomes? Isn't it rather late in the day to be arguing they are doomed?"
Not sure where the discussion of the radical form of feminism suggests that women should not have careers?
The point is that the protaganists of same wish enforced careers, as the quote that I presented earlier states.
How do 'unhappy families' fit into this discussion?
As far as 'needing two incomes,' the calculus is purely subjective; it is based on choices.
And who is doomed? And how so?
3." But what of the children of unhappy families? Or families that need both incomes? Isn't it rather late in the day to be arguing they are doomed?"
You seem to imply that I am doing this, or agreeing with this concept....I don't know where you are finding this implication. Bogus.
Nor am I attacking your generation...
4. I am only too happy to attack any 'feminists' who:
a. insist that women must have a career at the expense of the choice of having a family. The OP and related article bear witness to this path to "manufacture misery."
b. find that, commensurate with the positive changes brought about by feminism, the distruction of the family unit, and opposition to interdependance with male members thereof, and of morality is necessary.
This has been exhilarating!
I'm truely unaware of any pressure ever applied to young women to keep them from having families. Much of the work that went on was about valuing a stay at home mom's work, as well as sharing the housework and childcare duties between two working parents.
In this vein, yes I know of some extremists who "opposed relationships with men" but IRL, I don't know a single woman who found this appealing, nevermind persuasive. This "branch" of feminism came and went in a few years, and did little other than marginalize "Ms magazine".
Unhappy families fit in because in the 1950's, a single woman and her kids had very little hope. No child support, possibly no divorce, no career options, no child care.....I think things are better now, overall.
It is interesting stuff to discuss, Political Chic....your Ops always are.
1. Ubiquitous in the writing of Second Wave Feminists, let me repeat, with emphasis:
"Logical as it seems that women should be prepared for events such as divorce and widowhood, marriage and family may reduce opportunities for outside work or education. But the solution, according to Simone de Beauvoir in an interview with Betty Friedan is 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.
a. Like all totalitarian movements, the goal is not to give more freedom, but to take away choice.
2. "...some extremists who "opposed relationships with men" but IRL, I don't know a single woman who found this appealing, nevermind persuasive."
a. From Robin Morgan (current editor of MS magazine) "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan
b. "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"
c. "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
d. "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
3. "...I think things are better now, overall."
That is not in dispute.
Only marginally?Feminism has ruined countless lives.
As with all ideals...there are good things and bad things - American feminism expanded the bad things and only marginally effected success in the good things.
True feminism is fighting for ALL choices women can make. Some choose motherhood, some choose carreer. THEY, as human beings, are the only ones who get to make that choice.
Shit. Curvelight and I agree.True feminism is fighting for ALL choices women can make. Some choose motherhood, some choose carreer. THEY, as human beings, are the only ones who get to make that choice.
In a nutshell, that's it. As Wittig pointed out, a matriarchy is no less oppressive than a patriarchy; it is only the sex of the oppressor that changes.
How about this. We will fight for the rights of women who want them, and you can live your life the way you want to.