Overall, was feminism bad for America?

Catz Part Deux said:

I agree, and I am frustrated that so many women still cling to out-dated ideas such as expecting an expensive engagement ring that is equal to 2 months of a guy's salary (seriously? How stupid) and expecting guys to always pay.

Click to expand...

QFT

This brings back memories of when I got engaged to my ex. We'd gone and picked out our rings together. I have small hands and a huge rock would just look gaudy, so I chose a small, but elegant, ring with a 1/10 carat diamond. In fact, all three rings together didn't come close to even one month of his salary at the time. When one of his relatives saw it for the first time, she actually asked me if I was disappointed. :shock:

I just stared at her for a minute and said, "I picked it out. Should I be disappointed?"

I thought it sad that she can only measure a man's love by how much he spends on her. I never respected her after that.

I think the feminist movement started out great, and then became corrupted by the hard left who transformed it into a crazy PETA type of group. Honestly, I don't think they stand for real feminist values, they push for Democrat policies with partisan blinders on. Honestly I think it's a major problem when during the 2008 election they didn't support Sarah Palin and blatantly attacked her. Feminism in it's core beliefs is wonderful and I support it 100%. However, I am strongly against feminism as the hard left partisan dogma that it has evolved to become for many.

hiswoman said:

QFT

This brings back memories of when I got engaged to my ex. We'd gone and picked out our rings together. I have small hands and a huge rock would just look gaudy, so I chose a small, but elegant, ring with a 1/10 carat diamond. In fact, all three rings together didn't come close to even one month of his salary at the time. When one of his relatives saw it for the first time, she actually asked me if I was disappointed. :shock:

I just stared at her for a minute and said, "I picked it out. Should I be disappointed?"

I thought it sad that she can only measure a man's love by how much he spends on her. I never respected her after that.

Click to expand...

If J and I get married at some point, I hope we both go with tasteful gold or silver bands that match, and call it even. His will probably cost more than mine because his fingers are twice as big as mine.

I would be perfectly happy with a claddagh or fede ring with no stone.

I work primarily in inner city areas, so having a big rock would just be a reason for someone to rob me.

p.s.

The price for an engagement ring can vary considerably depending on the materials used, the design of the ring, whether it includes a gemstone, the value of any gemstone, and the seller. The idea that a man should spend two to three months' personal wages for an engagement ring originated from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[4] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry is $2100.[5]

Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring]Engagement ring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Now is my chance to completely capitulate my ill informed arguments...

Catz Part Deux said:

There is zero evidence that they wouldn't have felt that way already due to my ex's flagrant affairs. Kids who grow up in a family where dad is cheating and mistreating mom are likely to repeat those behaviors, as well. Which is worse?

Click to expand...

Very good point.

I had little choice in the matter. When I was 8 months pregnant with my daughter, my ex quit his job. That was a pattern that continued during the life of our marriage. He had over 20 different jobs in 10 years. He usually could only hold a job down for a year or less.

You can blame me for a lot, but had I been financially dependent on him, as a family, we'd have been screwed. I'd have liked to stay at home and take care of my kids, but that was never an option for me.

I never cared how much money he made, I cared that he was responsible and steady. He wasn't. I didn't beat him up about it, but it caused significant stress in our marriage.

I didn't start out as a ball-busting feminist, I was forced to work by necessity, and ended up being good at it. I didn't set out to emasculate him, if he felt unsuccessful professionally, that was largely a result of his own actions and choices.

I still believe that he has untreated mental illness. However, he refuses to seek help, so there was very little I could do.

My parents raised me that being a mother means doing what your family needs you to do. In my case, that meant earning a steady paycheck and ensuring we had groceries, a house to live in, clothes to wear, and health insurance coverage.

However, the assumption that I'm somehow responsible is typical. He didn't fulfill his commmitments to the marriage, so that must have been my fault, somehow. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've heard that, especially from religious leaders.

During this time period, I should note that he never expressed any resentment of my professional success, in fact, he told me that he was proud of me. And he happily spent the money I earned.

The idea that you would use my story to attempt to cast aspersions on feminism in order to bolster your own paradigms is duly noted.

Click to expand...

Yikes! Glad you were able to get out of a bad situation. Your story underlines the good that came from feminism and the growth of female participation in the workforce. I fully believe that that is the case and I honor feminism for doing so. However, there are unintended consequences. Feminism may be the wrong place to lay blame, but if not feminism then feminism is a corollary effect.

I am not saying the traditional family structure was perfect - far from it as women were trapped by their inability to survive independently. Single parent households carry their own damaging baggage. A new stable family structure has failed to appear. I believe that new family structure is the clan marriage.

These decisions are as often initiated by men as by women. This has little to do with feminism and everything to do with no-fault divorce laws. Please stop blaming the one on the other. The fact is that before feminism, men did this sort of thing to women routinely, and women had little recourse.

Now you want to blame us for having options. I find that disingenous.

Click to expand...

True enough. Personally, I will never get married so that I will never get divorced.

One stable single parent beats the hell out of kids growing up in a home with high levels of conflict and instability between the parents. Look it up.

Click to expand...

Natch.

Teen pregnancies are at their lowest levels since the 1950s. It's funny how your claims here have very little substantiation. :roll:

Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. babies born out of wedlock - Pregnancy- msnbc.com

Click to expand...

Wow! This I did not know! Thanks.

American said:

Feminism created two earner household which led to the housing bubble.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Outsourcing of American jobs causing stagnating wages driven by multinational corporate greed caused the need for two income households.

reefedjib said:

Very good point.

Click to expand...

This was a very difficult decision for me to make. One of the final straws was watching my ex start to talk to my adolescent daughter in the same way he did to me...demeaning and disrespectful.

When she started to grow up and have a mind of her own, he became completely alienated from her. They now have very little contact (she's 16), largely by his choice. But also by hers. He has been emotionally abusive to her.

You have no idea how sad this makes me. My kids deserved to have a father that loved and protected them. I made a bad choice, and my kids have suffered because of it.

Yikes! Glad you were able to get out of a bad situation. Your story underlines the good that came from feminism and the growth of female participation in the workforce. I fully believe that that is the case and I honor feminism for doing so. However, there are unintended consequences. Feminism may be the wrong place to lay blame, but if not feminism then feminism is a corollary effect.

Click to expand...

I would say that feminism, in some ways, has allowed men to feel less attached maritally. Women ARE capable of handling things, and men seem to feel little remorse or guilt for abandoning their families, as a consequence.

I have only to look at my own situation. My ex went from being a full-time dad to a 30% dad. These days, that seems to be about as much as he's willing to invest. He rarely goes beyond 30%. He built a life around himself, and that's what he does.

His daughter went with him to a family reunion, and reported that he said, in a group of family members..."I have 3 priorities...tennis, sex, and beer." My daughter, who is 16, picked up on the fact that his kids weren't even on the list of priorities.

I am not saying the traditional family structure was perfect - far from it as women were trapped by their inability to survive independently. Single parent households carry their own damaging baggage. A new stable family structure has failed to appear. I believe that new family structure is the clan marriage.

Click to expand...

In our case, my brother and sister in law, and their kids, and my close friends serve as a surrogate family structure with us. We pitch in and help each other and spend a lot of time together. Most of the families I know don't have much family nearby, so we've formed our own. We socialize together, tote kids around, and take care of each other.

True enough. Personally, I will never get married so that I will never get divorced.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that a lot of couples that I know these days, with kids, aren't married. They don't seem any less stable than my marriage was. In fact, they seem more stable.

I would say that at least half of the marriages on my street are miserable.

Catz Part Deux said:

I agree, and I am frustrated that so many women still cling to out-dated ideas such as expecting an expensive engagement ring that is equal to 2 months of a guy's salary (seriously? How stupid) and expecting guys to always pay.

Click to expand...

hiswoman said:

QFT

This brings back memories of when I got engaged to my ex. We'd gone and picked out our rings together. I have small hands and a huge rock would just look gaudy, so I chose a small, but elegant, ring with a 1/10 carat diamond. In fact, all three rings together didn't come close to even one month of his salary at the time. When one of his relatives saw it for the first time, she actually asked me if I was disappointed. :shock:

I just stared at her for a minute and said, "I picked it out. Should I be disappointed?"

I thought it sad that she can only measure a man's love by how much he spends on her. I never respected her after that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Every serious BF I've ever had has known that if he bought me an expensive, white diamond ring I would likely be pissed. Because it would indicate he didn't know me very well. :lol: First off, I think diamonds are boring - they're clear for ****s sake. Secondly, I don't want big and gaudy. Third, I don't want expensive. I told my ex-fiance that he could have gotten my engagement ring out of gum ball machine and I would have been okay with it. LOL Fact is, I'll take cut glass or crystal over some expensive diamond any day of the week. I would 100x rather the money be spent on something other than a piece of jewelry that I wouldn't be wearing often. I mean hell... spend that damn money on the honeymoon if it's so necessary to spend it! Geez.

Catz Part Deux said:

Why is there this ridiculous assumption that it is somehow the woman's responsibility to stay at home and raise kids, and be primarily focused on raising kids? Do we have an equivalent expectation for men? Oh, yeah. No. Of course not.

So, basically, we have a societal expectation, primarily in the middle and upper classes (because lower class women have ALWAYS WORKED, mostly outside the home), that women are caregivers to children and men.

Click to expand...

Well, it's basically that women are physically and emotionally designed to nurture and take care of. There's nothing shameful in that, and is (imo) an essential part of raising children. I don't expect, nor desire men to be like women. I also don't expect women to raise their own children anymore, as it appears that many don't really desire to, but it's certainly better for children to have a physically and psychologically present and devoted mother to raise them.

lizzie said:

Well, it's basically that women are physically and emotionally designed to nurture and take care of.

Click to expand...

That's simply ridiculous. We have breasts, that doesn't make us more emotionally capable of nurturing than men. But of course, espousing this perspective is a handy con that allows someone to be a kept woman who doesn't have to work for a living.

Catz Part Deux said:

For the record, it has always been my contention, here and elsewhere, that women should pay an equal share of the dating costs. I also find the tradition of the man buying an engagement ring (a costly and stupid tradition) to be equally out-dated.

Click to expand...

I get you, and I'm glad there are a growing number of women that think like that. However there's a LOT that don't. I'd say every date prior to my current girlfriend that I had gone on I was expected to pay.

Given that this seems to come from within the male peer culture, it isn't something that women can control, per se. I certainly have never cared how much money the guys I date make, all I've ever cared about was that they lived responsibly within their means.

Click to expand...

I think largely it does come from the male population, but not completely. Not just from the peer culture either. This is something that society has basically instilled in young males even as they grow up. I just think as a culture we are FAR more accepting of a women in traditionally male roles than we are the other way around at this point, which leads in part to men's frustrations at being pushed into the other role and womens frustration with the male stubbornness to it. What seems more natural to females now, the ambiguous gender roles, is not a reality to males at this point.

My boyfriend has been working on starting his own business during the past 2.5 years that we've dated. He's never made as much money as I have, and is currently contemplating going back to school to get a Ph.D. I'm 100% supportive of his choices, as long as they make him happy.

Click to expand...

And its great that this is happening more and more these days, but is the exception far more than the rule. And many times that this exception is happening its because subconsiously, or even consiously, the man is striving to reach that point where rather than being taken care of THEY are now being the providers.


I agree, and I am frustrated that so many women still cling to out-dated

I understand that. I get tired of such men attacking us because we dared to have freedoms that they haven't dared to attain.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing. You have to look at the root of the feminist movement. It's initial goal or purpose was not to make gender roles ambiguous or provide for women entering more into the work force, it was primarily about the right to vote. There was a legitimate, unquestionable, wrong that was being faught against.

There is not one of those present for males, which is why there is no great coilition formed. There was no original rallying point. Feminism as it is now and in recent decades is the left over of a movement that a legitimate wrong that needed righting, and after that was completed, did was all movements do....tries to maintain by finding a new issue to slam their already established membership against. I'm leery in part of any movement, even the Tea Party movement, because movements by their very nature never have a final point because those in power realize that to keep that power, to keep that influence, and to USE that influence, once you "succeed" once you need a new goal.

Feminism would've likely never taken off to the extent it did if it was not for the Womans Suffrage movement. It was through that movement that the foundation was laid for everything after it. Without it the move forward would've been much more unsteady and much more slow going. A Large majority of women may not want to go into the work force. A large majority of women may not want ambigous gender roles. A large majority of women may not want men to stop being the providers. But without question a large majority of women wanted the right to vote, and that uniting ideal is what let the foundation be put in place.

Its not that men don't want to dare to attain it. Its that there's not a big enough singular issue that can get the majority of males on board to create such a coilition as would be necessary for such a thing.

Catz Part Deux said:

ideas such as expecting an expensive engagement ring that is equal to 2 months of a guy's salary (seriously? How stupid) and expecting guys to always pay.

My boyfriend and I split the check on our first date and have continued to do so. To do otherwise would be completely hypocritical.

Click to expand...

hiswoman said:

QFT

This brings back memories of when I got engaged to my ex. We'd gone and picked out our rings together. I have small hands and a huge rock would just look gaudy, so I chose a small, but elegant, ring with a 1/10 carat diamond. In fact, all three rings together didn't come close to even one month of his salary at the time. When one of his relatives saw it for the first time, she actually asked me if I was disappointed. :shock:

I just stared at her for a minute and said, "I picked it out. Should I be disappointed?"

Click to expand...

This is actually the case with me and my fiance. She doesn't normally wear rings, finding she always would catch them on something and end up taking them off and leaving them somewhere. She wanted something small, and saw a little heart shaped promise ring with 1/10 of a carat worth of diamonds lining around the edge. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and wanted a middle stone and ended up finding a really pretty ring that was a similar style to what she had liked, but also had a stone in the middle (and up to 1/6th of a carat). The ring was only $149 but it was the one she wanted, without question. There was definitely that twinge of "This is wrong" when I purchased it, and whne I got it, because despite it being a very pretty ring and exactly what she wanted there's that standard that males are given from an early age of what they're supposed to do for an engagement ring and the whole "big rock" stereotype. But she loved it and wears it daily without the need to keep taking it off all the time, and ultimately that's what matters.

And yeah Catz, my gf let me pay for the first date and then when I tried to do it the next time she said "Nope, my turn". We've taken turns ever since.

Catz Part Deux said:

That's simply ridiculous. We have breasts, that doesn't make us more emotionally capable of nurturing than men. But of course, espousing this perspective is a handy con that allows someone to be a kept woman who doesn't have to work for a living.

Click to expand...

You also carry the baby inside you for 9 months. This allows women to bond with the children long before the men. It makes a huge difference.

A man can never know child birth, feeding from the bosom etc.

Females are wired very differently from men chemically, and this does make a huge difference.

Look at the nature of violent crime statistics between men and women. Men are much more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than a female. Women tend to be aggressive in very different ways then men. We are not the same, and designed by nature for very different roles.

Its really neither here nor there. There are some raised with healthy traditional values regarding roles, respect, family, etc. Those people typically find partners with those same ideals and values and raise families in a fairly traditional way and everything is pretty much just fine. Others dont really have a great appreciation for 'traditional roles' and choose differently. And there are an awful lot of people that are just plain ol ****ed up and they tend to hook up with other plain ol ****ed up people and create ****ed up children...and those people are often looked at as the result of the offshoot of the feminism movement...

I think what we have more often is probably more healthily defined as societal evolution. The 'feminist' movement was more a gathering of malcontented people pissed off about something (many of em not even sure what) who ended up burning their bras as rebellion against some form of opression. I suspect because of their more militant nature it brought the day to day injustices (traditional work-place roles, pay, etc) more rapidly to the forefront, but I also would bet those roles would have changed without a 'movement'.

Maybe it would help if you more clearly defined what you mean. Do you mean "is having women NOT barefoot and pregnant a BAD thing"? Do you mean "because of the feminist movement men have abandoned 'traditional roles' roles"?

I think anything followed by a 'movement' eventually leaves something you have to clean up...

Catz Part Deux said:

That's simply ridiculous. We have breasts, that doesn't make us more emotionally capable of nurturing than men. But of course, espousing this perspective is a handy con that allows someone to be a kept woman who doesn't have to work for a living.

Click to expand...

Take away the human tendencies...we see the same phenomenon in most of the animal world...the mothers (females) are more inclined to care and nurture than the males. I dont think the notion that females are better equipped to nurture is all that far fetched. I also dont believe it absolves men of the responsibility to bond and learn to nurture.

VanceMack said:

Take away the human tendencies...we see the same phenomenon in most of the animal world...the mothers (females) are more inclined to care and nurture than the males. I dont think the notion that females are better equipped to nurture is all that far fetched. I also dont believe it absolves men of the responsibility to bond and learn to nurture.

Click to expand...

Penguins. Men also have breasts that can lactate, given the right combination of hormones.

I think there is a societal expectation that women SHOULD feel immediately bonded to their offspring. I would say that a lot of us don't, and wonder what in the hell is wrong with us, but we don't usually talk about it, because it ends up with us being labeled as frigid bitches.

I love my kids. But, I like them a lot more as teenagers than I did when they were babies. I'm not a baby person, NOT AT ALL. I did not enjoy their baby years. In fact, I'd say that my ex was better with the kids when they were babies/toddlers than he is now. He has no idea how to parent teens.

Zyphlin said:

Here's the thing. You have to look at the root of the feminist movement. It's initial goal or purpose was not to make gender roles ambiguous or provide for women entering more into the work force, it was primarily about the right to vote. There was a legitimate, unquestionable, wrong that was being faught against.

There is not one of those present for males, which is why there is no great coilition formed. There was no original rallying point. Feminism as it is now and in recent decades is the left over of a movement that a legitimate wrong that needed righting, and after that was completed, did was all movements do....tries to maintain by finding a new issue to slam their already established membership against. I'm leery in part of any movement, even the Tea Party movement, because movements by their very nature never have a final point because those in power realize that to keep that power, to keep that influence, and to USE that influence, once you "succeed" once you need a new goal.

Feminism would've likely never taken off to the extent it did if it was not for the Womans Suffrage movement. It was through that movement that the foundation was laid for everything after it. Without it the move forward would've been much more unsteady and much more slow going. A Large majority of women may not want to go into the work force. A large majority of women may not want ambigous gender roles. A large majority of women may not want men to stop being the providers. But without question a large majority of women wanted the right to vote, and that uniting ideal is what let the foundation be put in place.

Its not that men don't want to dare to attain it. Its that there's not a big enough singular issue that can get the majority of males on board to create such a coilition as would be necessary for such a thing.

Click to expand...

I actually have a lot of sympathy for men. It's rough to be living in this era when all of the roles are in flux and what you should do varies from woman to woman. I don't envy y'all, at all. In fact, these days, i think women have considerably more freedom from societal expectations than men do.

Zyphlin said:

The ring was only $149 but it was the one she wanted, without question. There was definitely that twinge of "This is wrong" when I purchased it, and whne I got it, because despite it being a very pretty ring and exactly what she wanted there's that standard that males are given from an early age of what they're supposed to do for an engagement ring and the whole "big rock" stereotype. But she loved it and wears it daily without the need to keep taking it off all the time, and ultimately that's what matters.

Click to expand...

It's stupid how a de beers marketing campaign has gotten both genders all twisted. I'll be perfectly happy with a gold/silver band, because what matters to me is WHO I marry, not HOW we get married.

Catz Part Deux said:

Penguins. Men also have breasts that can lactate, given the right combination of hormones.

I think there is a societal expectation that women SHOULD feel immediately bonded to their offspring. I would say that a lot of us don't, and wonder what in the hell is wrong with us, but we don't usually talk about it, because it ends up with us being labeled as frigid bitches.

I love my kids. But, I like them a lot more as teenagers than I did when they were babies. I'm not a baby person, NOT AT ALL. I did not enjoy their baby years. In fact, I'd say that my ex was better with the kids when they were babies/toddlers than he is now. He has no idea how to parent teens.

Click to expand...

I dont think there are ever 'absolutes' but one or two examples (and you will note...I said MOST animal species) doesnt negate the broader realities.

Ive known lost of women who were more driven to succeed in business then their partners. Ive also known lots of nurturing males. But if I were to put an actual PERCENTAGE to the numbers? I'd guess less than 1% buck the 'norm'.

VanceMack said:

Ive known lost of women who were more driven to succeed in business then their partners. Ive also known lots of nurturing males. But if I were to put an actual PERCENTAGE to the numbers? I'd guess less than 1% buck the 'norm'.

Click to expand...

I'd put it as a lot higher than that, but then, I work in a male-dominated field to start with, so the women who succeed in it tend to not be delicate little flowers.

Catz Part Deux said:

That's simply ridiculous. We have breasts, that doesn't make us more emotionally capable of nurturing than men. But of course, espousing this perspective is a handy con that allows someone to be a kept woman who doesn't have to work for a living.

Click to expand...

It's not breasts that make us emotionally distinct, it's sexual and other hormones, which in turn contribute to development of breasts and other sexual characteristics, and emotional/psychological makeup.

It's not a con for keeping women out of the workforce. Women are perfectly capable of entering the workforce any time they want. It still doesn't make them the same as men. It's sort of an equal but separate thing. I have equal rights to a man. I am not equal to a man because I am a woman. I enjoy being a woman and I don't feel cheated about what I am.

I voted yes because I think most of us men are dickheads.

Yes, feminism is a good thing, as in it is a political orientated force that pressures for political rights for women.

All human beings need and should have political rights. This should be common knowledge, and something which is readily accepted rather than something that people ask for opinions on, and have lengthy discussions on whether it should be the case or not.

Whether women are making good, balanced... choices with their new found freedom could be a lenghty discussion. And, what is the role of men in modern society is also a lengthy discussion.

Some argue that things have got worse in western society and feminism is to blame. And the solution is to step back 200 years? No, it is not. The solution is to move forward in the trial an error way that humans have always moved forward in.

Having said all that, one thing I am heartily sick and tired of hearing is the stream of complaints that some have about feminism. It is blamed for everything from the economy, to the emasculation of men(if such a thing really exists). Almost everytime the accusations are illogical and unfounded, but the the 'evidence' against the good of feminism still has to be churned again and again. :roll: Is it really a valid part of political discussion, or just dirty sexism? If I look through all the posts on this thread, will I see the usual old rubbish on the subject.

I'm having a completly different attitude to feminism, because for me feminism mens something else than it does in the US.

Feminism in my homecountry (Norway) was good in the begining, but after a while it went from removing discrimination to improsing governmental discrimination (Affirmative action) against men to empower women. Even though boys does worse at school and only 40% of the students are men, there is still a lot of affirmative action to make it easier for girls to attend college, while pretty much none the other way.

Also, I disliked the way they talk about wages. In Norway, people will regually talk about wages. "If women looked like men, then they would get 15% higher wages", which is completly bull**** because the reason women earn less is because they take low wage jobs, they work less, get "sick" more often and they take less risks. If this was true, why don't we see more firms only employing women, because they are cheaper but produce the same value. To even question if the wage gap is due to discrimination or not, is politically incorrect and very few ever question what was programmed into them in school. (school books in Norway are not neutral like in the US, they are quited biased to the left and state their opinions as facts) Because of this wage gap, feminists demand that the government should make sure (communist style) that men don't get a raise, while women does.

If you had to deal with this for 20 years of your life, then you would also dislike feminists.

I think a lot of people draw conclusions from A) problem to B) cause - without really thinking through all possible causes to a problem - which could be numerous.

Things I've read (by men and women - this isn't a one-way street of opinion) that are at fault of Equality movements (but, note, they all have alternative faults):

Problem: Obesity on the rise

Women's Lib Default)
*Women working more, thus not cooking in-home meals as often.

Alternative Faults)
*The growing Fast Food industry - dining can be a quick and simple action, now - a few bucks for a burger - in and out in 5 minutes - the drive through (stemming from revolutions in the auto-industry)
*The growing snack and soda industry: people want more sodas and want more snack foods whether they get a homecooked dinner or not, whether the mother is a stay at home mother or not. Overall - a lack of interest in eating healthy.
*The growing economy and personal wealth. 50 years ago fast food was more unaffordable in comparison to one's overall income (it was a larger % to pay) Now it's a smaller % to pay in comparison to overall income. Likewise - there are hundreds of thousands of fast food chains within easy-reach.
*Lack of exercise - "Sports Jocks" and "Cheerleader bimbos" (just two examples of how being sports-minded has taken a bad rap and thus discourages youths from participating).
*Lack of exercise also stems from a growth in the technology fields: TV, video gaming units starting with atari, personal computers - and from the growth in the auto-industry which discourages walking and biking as a means of transportation. Also - these tech-means of entertainment aren't just for fun, they're a keen way to make a living (computer tech support, etc)

Problem: Drop in education

Women's Lib Default:)
*More teachers becoming women = less strict teaching methods (not using red pens, overly concerned with child's psyche - these 'mushy girly' things).
*More women working = more children in daycare = more childhood development problems

Alternative Faults)
*Economy boosts - making it more difficult to raise a family on one average income, two is more 'needed'
*Educational standards climbing - the lessons taught to the average 2nd grader 50 years ago is now the lessons taught to Kindergartners, today. Children are learning to read, write and do math problems in Kindergarten. - overall education standards have risen accordingly. (Fault? Or product of expanding our horizons?)
*Expanding our horizons as far as the standard thoughts behind psychology and how people work, how they should be treated - men fronted this field and made significant discoveries, not women, yet somehow it's penned onto women.

These are just two categories, but you get the idea.

So, when penning problems *to* Feminism - it's really showing that people are narrow minded in the sense that they are not willing/cannot think of more than one reason for certain things to happen - while at the same time failing to realize the benefits of feminism. Also, failing to overall understand *why* things were different before and after Women's Lib really came into play.

Women's Lib didn't happen over night, it was a slow process.

Example: People think "Womens' Lib" and think "1920" or "19th Amendment" - when steps towards overall women's lib started much earlier. The right to vote was almost the last issue tackled by women on a large scale. One good example is a women's right to patent an invention.

It was Mary Kies in 1809 who was granted the first patent after a lengthy fight to earn the right to do so. Before that, women couldn't patent anything - it was expressly reserved for men-alone.

Some important patents held by women - and most of these things were purely invented by women alone:

Kevlar, windshield wipers, non-glare glass, various medicines like Imuran, Geobond, Petroleum refining process, Home diabetes test, electric food mixer, dishwasher, shelves in a fridge door, pop-lid trash can (with foot pedal), whiteout. (to name just a few things)

Further note - some of these inventions were also by black women.

Other things that women couldn't do: own property (land/home), work in a variety of jobs (physical labor, etc) or, if they did work these jobs, were limited to the amount of pay or amount of hours (thus - no overtime allowed, etc).

When women started to be able to work corporate greed really played up to their needs - business started and focused on marketing *to* women, not *just* to men (Toyota did their big female-sales study in 1980 - long after Women's Lib came with it's fervor and became an accepted norm)

I could go on . . . but you get the point.

The whole engagement ring ritual is sexist as all hell. It implies that women are materialistic AND it forces a man to symbolically bribe (with the ring) and beg (by getting on one knee) for his mates affection.

I absolutely despise the ritual on all fronts.