Overall, was feminism bad for America?

Good for women but bad for America?

Click to expand...

In the US, there are 97 men for each 100 women. ([ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio]see?[/ame]). What's good for women is good for America, unless men lose out by a greater amount than women gain. I don't think that's happened.

EDIT: Also, a lot of what you lay at the feet of feminism is unlikely to be caused by it. Divorce rate in the US is much higher than in many of the more 'liberal' EU countries, where I'd say feminism is probably just as well founded/supported, if not more so.

EDIT2: What \/they\/ said, only they said it betterer than me.

NoJingoLingo said:

Yes equality is a good thing. Are the bad things part of our current struggles, economic and societal?

More women in the market place:
Displaced men which forced more families to need 2 incomes.
Increased the standard of living for a short period but then the increased competition eventually depressed wages.
More and more Children ended up in the hands of babysitters or worse, home alone.
Decline of the nuclear family.
Divorce rate increase.
Single parent increase.
Birth rate:

Click to expand...

You blame all of these things on feminism, when in reality, many social changes occurred over the time time period that played a role. Major economic changes, a shift from a blue collar economy to an information/technology economy, and no-fault divorce laws.

There is zero data that suggests that children raised in appropriate childcare settings are less emotionally stable or do less well in school than children who are parented at home. As long as that environment is stable, emotionally warm and supportive, and intellectually stimulating, children do equally well in the home or in a childcare setting.

The increased standard of living has benefitted more children, to be frank.

NoJingoLingo said:

So you're more for conformity than individual freedom?

I'm not sure. Over all it seems like it might weight more heavily on being bad for America.

Yes equality is a good thing. Are the bad things part of our current struggles, economic and societal?

More women in the market place:
Displaced men which forced more families to need 2 incomes.
Increased the standard of living for a short period but then the increased competition eventually depressed wages.
More and more Children ended up in the hands of babysitters or worse, home alone.
Decline of the nuclear family.
Divorce rate increase.
Single parent increase.
Birth rate lowered.

The Pros:
Women found more freedom.

Result? Good for women but bad for America?

Click to expand...

Why do you blame all these things ON Women's Lib? There are many other factors that go into the reason for them being there.

PART of the reason why Women's Lib as we know it was able to take root in it's finality was WWI - and it was furthered during WWII. Men weren't HERE to do all those jobs, women had to fill the role. The men, not only were they sent to fight the war for a few years - many never came back.

We could keep going with that ball down the hill - cause and effect, cause and effect - it's an endless loop and if we were desperate enough we could trace the sociological norms all the way back to Ancient Greece if you so like.

And what pipe is everyone smoking when they REALLY think that a MAN working in a factory was able to bring home enough of an income so his wife didn't HAVE to work in, say, 1850? The fact is that men working in a factory brought in more money than a working woman but it often wasn't enough to sustain a solid family with modern amenities.
One fault HERE is that the modernization of the world brought more COST to the basics of living.

(example) instead of a single person's working income just paying for: food, clothing, shelter. . . it had to, also, covered more taxes. It also covered more refined foods that were imported as people (men and women alike) developed more of an interest in eating beyond the garden or farm. Along with modernization came: cleaning products (essential for a clean home!), health and beauty products. Clothing started to cost more - education became more costly . . .and so on.

The Industrial Revolution preceded our modern view of Women's Lib . . . and that can be traced back to when families *use* to live in homes that they built for themselves on the home front. Everything was done by HAND - hard labor for your family (men AND women shared the work on this) - the slow modernization of the world made it easier and easier to survive but it spiked the COST of living - you had to bring in FAR more money than someone 1,000 years ago could have dared to dream of ever SEEING.

Corporate greed took over, they produced 50 and sold it for profit at a higher cost than what a single person might have been willing to sell the same handmade product for just 10 years earlier.

Someone could live a satisfactory life 500 years ago - farming a field and selling that for a menial income, buy some seed - do it again. Could anyone do that NOW? YES!
BUT people in the US would never DARE dream of doing that, now. That's "3rd world living" or even "redneck."

Is this altered thought on how to live life, raise a family and the basic ideal of "having a home" purely because Women demanded that they be treated equally in the workforce? Of course not, don't be silly. Women's Lib finalized in our country LONG after the slow industrialization of the world altered the basic way in which we survive and exist.

This isn't even related to "Women's Lib" - this is the snobery of a '1st class country' IMHO and almost everyone is guilty of it.

Come on - I know a lot of you are smarter than *that* thinking.

Catz Part Deux said:

See? No handcuffs necessary. You put the ring in your nose yourselves for a little white meat.

Click to expand...

Pink was the color I had in mind. But I didn't unzip my fly yet. Just a little tease to build up yer false confidence.

I'm not claiming causation and in fact if you look at my post again, without your panties all bunched up, you might see that I'm merely questioning correlation. I think I pretty clearly stated that I'm unsure of my position. So let's discuss it.

Catz Part Deux said:

You blame all of these things on feminism, when in reality, many social changes occurred over the time time period that played a role. Major economic changes, a shift from a blue collar economy to an information/technology economy, and no-fault divorce laws.

Click to expand...

What are those many social changes and what time period are you referring to?

There is zero data that suggests that children raised in appropriate childcare settings are less emotionally stable or do less well in school than children who are parented at home. As long as that environment is stable, emotionally warm and supportive, and intellectually stimulating, children do equally well in the home or in a childcare setting.

Click to expand...

A couple of well placed caveats and the specious nature of your paragraph could almost go unnoticed.

The increased standard of living has benefitted more children, to be frank.

Click to expand...

But the standard of living has been declining since the 80's, excluding the short lived tech bubble from 1996-1999

NoJingoLingo said:

I'm not claiming causation and in fact if you look at my post again, without your panties all bunched up, you might see that I'm merely questioning correlation. I think I pretty clearly stated that I'm unsure of my position. So let's discuss it.

Click to expand...

You actually stated:

. . . I'm not sure. Over all it seems like it might weight more heavily on being bad for America.
. . .
More women in the market place:
Displaced men which forced more families to need 2 incomes.
Increased the standard of living for a short period but then the increased competition eventually depressed wages.
More and more Children ended up in the hands of babysitters or worse, home alone.
Decline of the nuclear family.
Divorce rate increase.
Single parent increase.
Birth rate lowered.

The Pros:
Women found more freedom.

Result? Good for women but bad for America?

Click to expand...

So, forgive both of us for noticing that you state that you're unsure but seem to come to some resolve after listing out the pros and cons: good for women but bad for America.

But the standard of living has been declining since the 80's, excluding the short lived tech bubble from 1996-1999

Click to expand...

The standard of living has been declining? It depends on who you talk to and what you're talking about.

My standard of living has only improved greatly.

The tech bubble - sure, it had it's highest peak (job wise). But now the 'new' technology of that day has actually just become so readily available it's almost considered a 'right' by many, now.

(The following isn't in direct response to you
Why isn't the good-side being mentioned? Men aren't being cast with the harsh burden of being the sole breadwinner or support for a family. Isn't that a relief or a weight off the average man's shoulders?

I'm not claiming causation and in fact if you look at my post again, without your panties all bunched up, you might see that I'm merely questioning correlation. I think I pretty clearly stated that I'm unsure of my position. So let's discuss it.

Aunt Spiker said:

Why do you blame all these things ON Women's Lib? There are many other factors that go into the reason for them being there.

PART of the reason why Women's Lib as we know it was able to take root in it's finality was WWI - and it was furthered during WWII. Men weren't HERE to do all those jobs, women had to fill the role. The men, not only were they sent to fight the war for a few years - many never came back.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to what has happened since the ERA.
The vast majority of those women went back to being home makers after the war. So again, irrelevant.

We could keep going with that ball down the hill - cause and effect, cause and effect - it's an endless loop and if we were desperate enough we could trace the sociological norms all the way back to Ancient Greece if you so like.

Click to expand...

Fallacious. Try and stay with the topic.

And what pipe is everyone smoking when they REALLY think that a MAN working in a factory was able to bring home enough of an income so his wife didn't HAVE to work in, say, 1850? The fact is that men working in a factory brought in more money than a working woman but it often wasn't enough to sustain a solid family with modern amenities.

One fault HERE is that the modernization of the world brought more COST to the basics of living.

(example) instead of a single person's working income just paying for: food, clothing, shelter. . . it had to, also, covered more taxes. It also covered more refined foods that were imported as people (men and women alike) developed more of an interest in eating beyond the garden or farm. Along with modernization came: cleaning products (essential for a clean home!), health and beauty products. Clothing started to cost more - education became more costly . . .and so on.

Click to expand...

The correct question is WTF are you smoking? You seem to be woefully unaware of the society that I grew up in.

The Industrial Revolution preceded our modern view of Women's Lib . . . and that can be traced back to when families *use* to live in homes that they built for themselves on the home front. Everything was done by HAND - hard labor for your family (men AND women shared the work on this) - the slow modernization of the world made it easier and easier to survive but it spiked the COST of living - you had to bring in FAR more money than someone 1,000 years ago could have dared to dream of ever SEEING.

Click to expand...

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Corporate greed took over, they produced 50 and sold it for profit at a higher cost than what a single person might have been willing to sell the same handmade product for just 10 years earlier.

Click to expand...

The invention of the assembly line reduced the cost of goods. Corporate greed took over, this is true, but mass production isn't what raised prices. Simple Greed is what raised prices in most cases.

Someone could live a satisfactory life 500 years ago - farming a field and selling that for a menial income, buy some seed - do it again. Could anyone do that NOW? YES!
BUT people in the US would never DARE dream of doing that, now. That's "3rd world living" or even "redneck."

Click to expand...

Your time line is a bit off. The industrial revolution which started in the early 1800's didn't end our countries agrarian lifestyle until after WWI.

Is this altered thought on how to live life, raise a family and the basic ideal of "having a home" purely because Women demanded that they be treated equally in the workforce? Of course not, don't be silly. Women's Lib finalized in our country LONG after the slow industrialization of the world altered the basic way in which we survive and exist.

Click to expand...

What altered thought are you referring to?

This isn't even related to "Women's Lib" - this is the snobery of a '1st class country' IMHO and almost everyone is guilty of it.

Come on - I know a lot of you are smarter than *that* thinking.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I seem perplexed by your post but it's really quite confusing.

NoJingoLingo said:

I'm not sure. Over all it seems like it might weight more heavily on being bad for America.

Yes equality is a good thing. Are the bad things part of our current struggles, economic and societal?

More women in the market place:
Displaced men which forced more families to need 2 incomes.
Increased the standard of living for a short period but then the increased competition eventually depressed wages.
More and more Children ended up in the hands of babysitters or worse, home alone.
Decline of the nuclear family.
Divorce rate increase.
Single parent increase.
Birth rate lowered.

The Pros:
Women found more freedom.

Result? Good for women but bad for America?

Click to expand...

D*mn, I think the world may be coming to an end when you and I agree on something.:shock:

Aunt Spiker said:

You actually stated:

So, forgive both of us for noticing that you state that you're unsure but seem to come to some resolve after listing out the pros and cons: good for women but bad for America.

Click to expand...

Question marks indicate a question, not a statement.

The standard of living has been declining? It depends on who you talk to and what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

You're right, if you ask the top 10% they will probably tell you their standard of living has been increasing. Try asking the other 90%.

My standard of living has only improved greatly.

Click to expand...

Bully for you, I don't believe you represent the majority of the country.

The tech bubble - sure, it had it's highest peak (job wise). But now the 'new' technology of that day has actually just become so readily available it's almost considered a 'right' by many, now.

Click to expand...

Meaning what?

(The following isn't in direct response to you
Why isn't the good-side being mentioned? Men aren't being cast with the harsh burden of being the sole breadwinner or support for a family. Isn't that a relief or a weight off the average man's shoulders?

Click to expand...

I understand.

That might actually be a positive... if it weren't for the fact that the change in social order has changed faster than our social identities. Meaning, the pathology has occurred faster than our idea of our roles in society. Remember how there was a significant stigma surrounding "stay at home dads" for a long time (still persisting to a degree).

lizzie said:

D*mn, I think the world may be coming to an end when you and I agree on something.:shock:

Click to expand...

Like most of us here at DP, we probably agree on more than we think. We just don't normally talk about all of those things.

Besides, I'm not so sure if I'm right.

NoJingoLingo said:

Question marks indicate a question, not a statement.

Click to expand...

*edit to restate*

Then why'd you choose "Yes, it was bad for America" in the poll if you're unsure or if you were on the fence?

Obviously you believe it was bad for America and are backpedaling on being called on it.

I'd say sexism has been bad for America, and all other countries. It is afterall what caused the need for feminism, and ultimately the crisis many are going through these days. The after shocks of oppression don't instantly go away with the installation of protective legislation.

Aunt Spiker said:

*edit to restate*

Then why'd you choose "Yes, it was bad for America" in the poll if you're unsure or if you were on the fence?

Obviously you believe it was bad for America and are backpedaling on being called on it.

Click to expand...

*face palm*

Because my initial thought was that it may be bad for America and then I went on to discuss it. Never mind, it's not like you've made any sense in this thread so far so why stop now.

NoJingoLingo said:

*face palm*

Because my initial thought was that it may be bad for America and then I went on to discuss it. Never mind, it's not like you've made any sense in this thread so far so why stop now.

Click to expand...

I've made perfect sense - to the point that some of your statements seemed to mirror my statements. . . thus confusing me on your actual stance.

Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone's really changing their mind on an issue and when they're not.

NoJingoLingo said:

What are those many social changes and what time period are you referring to?

Click to expand...

They were in my post, directly above your response. :roll:

Catz Part Deux said:

They were in my post, directly above your response. :roll:

Click to expand...

you mean:?

You blame all of these things on feminism, when in reality, many social changes occurred over the time time period that played a role. Major economic changes, a shift from a blue collar economy to an information/technology economy, and no-fault divorce laws.

Click to expand...

What time period are you referring to.

What were the major economic changes that occurred during that time (whatever that time is).
The info/tech economy didn't hit until 1997. Did you mean that you think our society has been in decline only since 1997?

No fault divorce laws have had an impact but the evidence I've seen so far concludes correlation and not causation. For instance, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida and Georgia have the most relaxed divorce laws and have the highest divorce rates in the country, is that because of "no fault" divorce or do people simply get divorced without being asked for the cause? Just because you get a divorce and don't tell the state that your husband beats you doesn't mean he didn't.

Wimen do things out of emotion. "save the snails, the poor dears." Guys, on the other hand, get the job done, and say "screw the snails", if they are in the way.

Skateguy said:

Wimen do things out of emotion. "save the snails, the poor dears." Guys, on the other hand, get the job done, and say "screw the snails", if they are in the way.

Click to expand...

Cause we'll screw anything! :mrgreen:

Those who say the feminists have nothing to do with the worlds economic problems etc are right. Despite increasing womens rights, women have not yet had enough influence to create problems on this scale.



So, we have a number of critics demanding that feminists justify and explain the validity of their methods. As Roosavelt put it ''it is not the citics who count...'' . So, the conclusion stands that the feminists, like everything else are not perfect, but there is no doubt that they have been effective, when we consider the advances in the womens rights situation in many countries. Critics should maybe put some of their energy into suggesting effective methods to move even further forward with the womens rights situation, or put a shoulder against the situation themselves by activating for womens rights. Assuming you agree that women should have rights that is.



The knuckle draggers who don't agree that women should have rights are simply born on the wrong side of history. I don't suppose you will do the favour of piping down though...



Yes, there are women who are also against the feminists, who they believe have ruined the romance that men would have showered on them, if it wasnt for the feminists... Well, there were always a majority of women who hide under the kitchen table, while others stand up for their rights, and then come out to accept those rights once those rights become normal. Not many women in the western world would step back to the types of rights they would have been entitled to, 200 years ago.

Why? : In some times and places it has been/is dangerous for repressed groups to stand up for their righs, and sometimes these women have childrens welfare as well at their own to condider. This is the same for all oppressed groups, and not just women.

In other cases, it is safe to stand up for their rights, but they can get a lot of mileage out of martyrdom, when they can blame either men or the feminists who they believe to be putting upon them. It is a weak position to take, but it is a sure and instant winner, because the simple goal of getting attention and sympathy for their plight is easy.

Skateguy said:

Wimen do things out of emotion. "save the snails, the poor dears." Guys, on the other hand, get the job done, and say "screw the snails", if they are in the way.

Click to expand...

For those who have not got my 10 years of gender phschology reading behind them, there is no gender link to how emotional an individual is.

It is about time that certain people stopped talking crap. These types of threads tend to have pages of it.

Here is the real deal as far as gender and emotions is concerned. Further reseach is advisable, as the below is just a very brief summary.
There is no gender link to how emotional an individual is. The gender difference is in how women and men process emotions. Since, power systems are out of balance in favour of men, it would be wise for women who want to get ahead to be aware of this, because the ways in which they process their emotions will be greatly misunderstood in the work place by male managers.

NoJingoLingo said:

What were the major economic changes that occurred during that time (whatever that time is).

Click to expand...

World War 2.
The growth of industry and wealth in the 1950s.
The shift from manufacturing to technology/information from the 1960s to present.

The info/tech economy didn't hit until 1997. Did you mean that you think our society has been in decline only since 1997?

Click to expand...

This is such a stupid response that I have difficulty responding. The women's movement actually began in the late 1880s. Since that time, the U.S. has had MULTIPLE economic shifts lasting for decades.

No fault divorce laws have had an impact but the evidence I've seen so far concludes correlation and not causation. For instance, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida and Georgia have the most relaxed divorce laws and have the highest divorce rates in the country.

Click to expand...

I don't think you know what those terms mean.

is that because of "no fault" divorce or do people simply get divorced without being asked for the cause? Just because you get a divorce and don't tell the state that your husband beats you doesn't mean he didn't.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/04/currentstate.pdf


And, as a general response to your woefully uninformed posts:

This isn't school. It's not the job of other posters to provide you with basic background information that you should know before addressing a subject.

You have a responsibility to stop posting on subjects about which you clearly don't have the faintest idea. Instead of using big words that you can't even define, I'd advise that you spend some time reading and researching before posting.

Mell said:

Those who say the feminists have nothing to do with the worlds economic problems etc are right. Despite increasing womens rights, women have not yet had enough influence to create problems on this scale.



So, we have a number of critics demanding that feminists justify and explain the validity of their methods. As Roosavelt put it ''it is not the citics who count...'' . So, the conclusion stands that the feminists, like everything else are not perfect, but there is no doubt that they have been effective, when we consider the advances in the womens rights situation in many countries. Critics should maybe put some of their energy into suggesting effective methods to move even further forward with the womens rights situation, or put a shoulder against the situation themselves by activating for womens rights. Assuming you agree that women should have rights that is.



The knuckle draggers who don't agree that women should have rights are simply born on the wrong side of history. I don't suppose you will do the favour of piping down though...



Yes, there are women who are also against the feminists, who they believe have ruined the romance that men would have showered on them, if it wasnt for the feminists... Well, there were always a majority of women who hide under the kitchen table, while others stand up for their rights, and then come out to accept those rights once those rights become normal. Not many women in the western world would step back to the types of rights they would have been entitled to, 200 years ago.

Why? : In some times and places it has been/is dangerous for repressed groups to stand up for their righs, and sometimes these women have childrens welfare as well at their own to condider. This is the same for all oppressed groups, and not just women.

In other cases, it is safe to stand up for their rights, but they can get a lot of mileage out of martyrdom, when they can blame either men or the feminists who they believe to be putting upon them. It is a weak position to take, but it is a sure and instant winner, because the simple goal of getting attention and sympathy for their plight is easy.

Click to expand...

I think the topic is "Overall, was feminism bad for America?"
Not globally.

Mell said:

Those who say the feminists have nothing to do with the worlds economic problems etc are right. Despite increasing womens rights, women have not yet had enough influence to create problems on this scale.



So, we have a number of critics demanding that feminists justify and explain the validity of their methods. As Roosavelt put it ''it is not the citics who count...'' . So, the conclusion stands that the feminists, like everything else are not perfect, but there is no doubt that they have been effective, when we consider the advances in the womens rights situation in many countries. Critics should maybe put some of their energy into suggesting effective methods to move even further forward with the womens rights situation, or put a shoulder against the situation themselves by activating for womens rights. Assuming you agree that women should have rights that is.



The knuckle draggers who don't agree that women should have rights are simply born on the wrong side of history. I don't suppose you will do the favour of piping down though...



Yes, there are women who are also against the feminists, who they believe have ruined the romance that men would have showered on them, if it wasnt for the feminists... Well, there were always a majority of women who hide under the kitchen table, while others stand up for their rights, and then come out to accept those rights once those rights become normal. Not many women in the western world would step back to the types of rights they would have been entitled to, 200 years ago.

Why? : In some times and places it has been/is dangerous for repressed groups to stand up for their righs, and sometimes these women have childrens welfare as well at their own to condider. This is the same for all oppressed groups, and not just women.

In other cases, it is safe to stand up for their rights, but they can get a lot of mileage out of martyrdom, when they can blame either men or the feminists who they believe to be putting upon them. It is a weak position to take, but it is a sure and instant winner, because the simple goal of getting attention and sympathy for their plight is easy.

Click to expand...

You underestimate the power of sex.

Mell said:

For those who have not got my 10 years of gender phschology reading behind them, there is no gender link to how emotional an individual is.

It is about time that certain people stopped talking crap. These types of threads tend to have pages of it.

Here is the real deal as far as gender and emotions is concerned. Further reseach is advisable, as the below is just a very brief summary.
There is no gender link to how emotional an individual is. The gender difference is in how women and men process emotions. Since, power systems are out of balance in favour of men, it would be wise for women who want to get ahead to be aware of this, because the ways in which they process their emotions will be greatly misunderstood in the work place by male managers.

Click to expand...

You're right in that there is currently no gender link on how emotional someone is however, you missed an aspect. It's not just how we process emotions differently but also how we express (or don't) them. Women more readily express their emotions openly giving the impression of being more emotional.

reefedjib said:

Cause we'll screw anything! :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

The crack of dawn gives me wood these days. :2wave: