• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Overall, was feminism bad for America?

Overall, was feminism bad for America?

  • Yes, it was bad for America

    Votes: 12 17.9%

  • No, it was good for America

    Votes: 39 58.2%

  • A little bad and a little good. Overall it was neutral

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • A little bad and a little good. It changed a lot but not one way or the other.

    Votes: 9 13.4%

  • Other...

    Votes: 5 7.5%
  • Total voters
    67
Tucker Case said:
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:
We are borg
Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:
Monty python reference fail. :(
Click to expand...

ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!


EDIT: Even better:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI"]YouTube- Monty Python and the Holy Grail[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:
You can't clit around all day talking about this stuff without some espresso and getting a little sugar.
 
Tucker Case said:
WTF is a uteru? Uteri've never heard of such a thing.


Edit: I see you cocked it up the first time and changed it to breast you can do. :lol:
Click to expand...

I was trying to make uterus sound like whatisstuff or something. Pun overreach.
 
You know, I couldn't help but think this:

It seems acceptable debate material to actually ask "Overall, was feminism bad for America?" - no one is really pissed that this was proposed and heavily debated.

But what if the kin were asked: "Overall, was the emancipation of slaves bad for America?" - people would not take it too well and a sound debate would not be had.

In essence slavery and pre-women's lib era beliefs and values were the same: catagorizing someone based on a natural born fact (woman/black), forcing this person to submit to a lifestyle that was unwanted (not for everyone, but for most) and treating the person differently/lesser than the average white male.
In these ways - though the directive and plights much different - it is similar.

However, the slaves were emancipated in the late 1800's - given the right to vote much later. So - why doesn't anyone try to connect lines from the emancipation to a lot of problems that have been penned to feminism in some fashion? (like the economical impacts and so forth).
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
You know, I couldn't help but think this:

It seems acceptable debate material to actually ask "Overall, was feminism bad for America?" - no one is really pissed that this was proposed and heavily debated.

But what if the kin were asked: "Overall, was the emancipation of slaves bad for America?" - people would not take it too well and a sound debate would not be had.

In essence slavery and pre-women's lib era beliefs and values were the same: catagorizing someone based on a natural born fact (woman/black), forcing this person to submit to a lifestyle that was unwanted (not for everyone, but for most) and treating the person differently/lesser than the average white male.
In these ways - though the directive and plights much different - it is similar.

However, the slaves were emancipated in the late 1800's - given the right to vote much later. So - why doesn't anyone try to connect lines from the emancipation to a lot of problems that have been penned to feminism in some fashion? (like the economical impacts and so forth).
Click to expand...

I'm pissed.
But it doesn't do any good to say what I really think about it.
Years ago, there was a series of threads started by Bodhisattva, castigating women's liberation and blaming it for all sorts of social ills, and espousing the notion that society would be better if all women left the work force, stayed home, kept house for their husbands, and raised a bunch of children.

I was banned from each of those threads (and each eventually ended up locked and archived).
Of course I find it outrageous, but I am one of those members who is rapidly silenced and removed when I allow my outrage to show.
It's too much, I suppose. Too disruptive.

At the time those threads were going on, there were a number of housewives on the forum; one was a moderator. Most have since been banned.
The threads degenerated into The Mommy Wars*, while a few misogynistic males sat by nodding approvingly, pleased with the chaos they had wrought.
There is no better way to oppress a group of people than to divide them, turn them against one another, and cause them to fall into fighting among themselves.
Meanwhile, the real enemy- patriarchy and male privilege- smirks while slinking off stage left, content that the status quo has and will continue to be maintained.


(The Mommy Wars:

"Daycare is child abuse! Women who selfishly put their careers ahead of their families by working outside the home don't love their children and never should've had them. Their children will grow up to be serial killers and crack fiends."

"Housewifes are fat-arsed lazy pigs little better than prostitutes, who contribute nothing to society and lay around on the couch eating Twinkies and watching soap operas all day. They're an embarrassment to women. Their children will grow up to need lifelong therapy.")
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
I'm pissed.
But it doesn't do any good to say what I really think about it.
Click to expand...

I am quite sorry you are pissed about my starting this thread, 1069. I was intentionally provocative to start debate and it worked - it has been an excellent discussion which you seriously contributed to. Thank you.

Aunt Spiker said:
You know, I couldn't help but think this:

It seems acceptable debate material to actually ask "Overall, was feminism bad for America?" - no one is really pissed that this was proposed and heavily debated.

But what if the kin were asked: "Overall, was the emancipation of slaves bad for America?" - people would not take it too well and a sound debate would not be had.

In essence slavery and pre-women's lib era beliefs and values were the same: catagorizing someone based on a natural born fact (woman/black), forcing this person to submit to a lifestyle that was unwanted (not for everyone, but for most) and treating the person differently/lesser than the average white male.
In these ways - though the directive and plights much different - it is similar.

However, the slaves were emancipated in the late 1800's - given the right to vote much later. So - why doesn't anyone try to connect lines from the emancipation to a lot of problems that have been penned to feminism in some fashion? (like the economical impacts and so forth).
Click to expand...

IMHO, there is an important difference between the emancipation of blacks and the emancipation of women. That is the impact on families.

Women's liberation is something to be proud of. Extending the vote and enabling the economic prospects have been positive developments in our history.

However, this has dramatically changed families in America. The typical family of today is very different than the typical family of the 1950s. Women work and so you have 2 earner households. There is also an increase in single parent families (mixed: pos - out of bad marriages, neg - missing role models for children). Other changes have occurred as well, which may or may not be due to women's liberation: increased education (positive - for men and women), increased urbanization (mixed), increased drug use (mixed), increased crime (negative), surely others I am missing. I don't know how much can be laid at the feet of women's liberation but surely some of it is related.

I am glad we could discuss it.
 
I am quite sorry you are pissed about my starting this thread, 1069.
Click to expand...

Feh. it doesn't matter. I still like you alright.
 
1069 said:
The threads degenerated into The Mommy Wars*, while a few misogynistic males sat by nodding approvingly, pleased with the chaos they had wrought.
There is no better way to oppress a group of people than to divide them, turn them against one another, and cause them to fall into fighting among themselves.
Meanwhile, the real enemy- patriarchy and male privilege- smirks while slinking off stage left, content that the status quo has and will continue to be maintained.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of women who benefit and prefer the status quo of men being responsible for their well-being, versus having to step up and take care of themselves. They remind me of the the Aunts in Handmaid's Tale.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
There are plenty of women who benefit and prefer the status quo of men being responsible for their well-being, versus having to step up and take care of themselves. They remind me of the the Aunts in Handmaid's Tale.
Click to expand...

Or the kapos at Auschwitz.
But I think Atwood is actually the one who made that point, in Handmaid.

Besides "divide and conquer", that is another good way to keep a group oppressed: select a few members of the group, and offer them special privileges and/or protections in exchange for their collaboration in helping you oppress the rest of the group.
 
1069 said:
Or the kapos at Auschwitz.
But I think Atwood is actually the one who made that point, in Handmaid.

Besides "divide and conquer", that is another good way to keep a group oppressed: select a few members of the group, and offer them special privileges and/or protections in exchange for their collaboration in helping you oppress the rest of the group.
Click to expand...

I almost went there, but for Godwin's Rule. And yeah, that's it, exactly. Which is why some fight so hard to keep the status quo. Otherwise, they might have to pay for half a date. :roll:
 
No, not at all.

As long as I still have a clean house and food on the table when I get home from work. :mrgreen:
 
reefedjib said:
I am quite sorry you are pissed about my starting this thread, 1069. I was intentionally provocative to start debate and it worked - it has been an excellent discussion which you seriously contributed to. Thank you.



IMHO, there is an important difference between the emancipation of blacks and the emancipation of women. That is the impact on families.

Women's liberation is something to be proud of. Extending the vote and enabling the economic prospects have been positive developments in our history.

However, this has dramatically changed families in America. The typical family of today is very different than the typical family of the 1950s. Women work and so you have 2 earner households. There is also an increase in single parent families (mixed: pos - out of bad marriages, neg - missing role models for children). Other changes have occurred as well, which may or may not be due to women's liberation: increased education (positive - for men and women), increased urbanization (mixed), increased drug use (mixed), increased crime (negative), surely others I am missing. I don't know how much can be laid at the feet of women's liberation but surely some of it is related.

I am glad we could discuss it.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are some downsides - there's a downside to every single thing.

But I don't believe for one second that families were more 'solid' before the late 1800's/early 1900's. I think our knowledge is skewed simply because we're not living it - and have few direct ties who can tell the tale.

I think a lot of men have been unstable alcoholics, abusive bastards, unfit to work and laze-about-leeches and incapable of staying faithful just as much now as were in the past. Just because the family *was* together in a home doesn't mean it *was* a good family. Just because the wife didn't work and was home 24/7 doesn't mean the home was happy and well-kept. Everyone just *thinks* that's how things were.

What really has changed was the power that women had to do something about it *and* everyone's awareness of such behavior - domestic violence is now unacceptable and women do not have to tolerate such behavior. Unlike 100 years ago when a woman had no recourse and simply had to endure it. Or the children - there was no DHS 100 years ago, the children were also abused and mistreated, starved and abandoned - and no one was there to help them, either.

If life before Women's Lib was so 'pleasant' then such strong and troublesome efforts wouldn't have been made to change it.

*edit* Ok - so I left out the opposite side of the story as I see it. I don't think an unhappy woman in an unpleasant marriage would be a good mother, either. I went through years and years of endless bitterness over our financial situation and the fact that the affordable solution was for me to be a sahm - I hated it and took my anger and unhappiness out on everyone and intentionally neglected my children, the home and all my 'duties'
I do those things now - I've let go - but when I was bitter about it this home was FAR from happy.

I imagine that's how things were back then, too.
 
Last edited:
My grandfather left home at 14 because he was being beaten within an inch of his life. He was responsible and on his own at a time when kids today can't even drive.
 
reefedjib said:
I am sure there is a variety of opinions on this. Such a social movement changed a lot about America, some good and some bad. What is your opinion about it overall?
Click to expand...

Could you perhaps include some material in your OP...maybe illustrating classical feminism with modern feminism?

...or at least a coloring section and some pop-up pictures....
 
Hell, kids as young as twelve or thirteen were running off to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars; and before that, running out West. Or running off to sea. European youths were apprenticing or indenturing themselves, running off to the New World.

In those times, leaving your town or county frequently meant that your family would never hear from you again; never even know if you were alive or dead.
Starting a new life, back then, had a literal meaning.
 
Jerry said:
Could you perhaps include some material in your OP...maybe illustrating classical feminism with modern feminism?

...or at least a coloring section and some pop-up pictures....
Click to expand...

Of naked women
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I agree that there are some downsides - there's a downside to every single thing.

But I don't believe for one second that families were more 'solid' before the late 1800's/early 1900's. I think our knowledge is skewed simply because we're not living it - and have few direct ties who can tell the tale.

I think a lot of men have been unstable alcoholics, abusive bastards, unfit to work and laze-about-leeches and incapable of staying faithful just as much now as were in the past. Just because the family *was* together in a home doesn't mean it *was* a good family. Just because the wife didn't work and was home 24/7 doesn't mean the home was happy and well-kept. Everyone just *thinks* that's how things were.

What really has changed was the power that women had to do something about it *and* everyone's awareness of such behavior - domestic violence is now unacceptable and women do not have to tolerate such behavior. Unlike 100 years ago when a woman had no recourse and simply had to endure it. Or the children - there was no DHS 100 years ago, the children were also abused and mistreated, starved and abandoned - and no one was there to help them, either.

If life before Women's Lib was so 'pleasant' then such strong and troublesome efforts wouldn't have been made to change it.

*edit* Ok - so I left out the opposite side of the story as I see it. I don't think an unhappy woman in an unpleasant marriage would be a good mother, either. I went through years and years of endless bitterness over our financial situation and the fact that the affordable solution was for me to be a sahm - I hated it and took my anger and unhappiness out on everyone and intentionally neglected my children, the home and all my 'duties'
I do those things now - I've let go - but when I was bitter about it this home was FAR from happy.

I imagine that's how things were back then, too.
Click to expand...

I have never been married so I can't relate to the ups and downs a married couple experiences - I have been told they occur. A marriage over say 40 years is a lot of time. Hopefully, you and your spouse can figure out the right roles and live happily. I think it is illuminating to hear of your unhappiness which transformed when you "let go". In the modern day, how often might that have ended in divorce?

I do think that marriages were more solid. I also think there was more abuse. Due to women's liberation we have less abuse. We also have more divorces, the majority of which have nothing to do with abuse. It seems general unhappiness may lead to infidelity and divorce. It used to be tolerated and addressed and the family stayed together.

The destruction of families is damaging to our society. And let's be honest that women equally play the role of unstable alcoholics, abusive bastards, unfit to work and laze-about-leeches.
 
1069 said:
Hell, kids as young as twelve or thirteen were running off to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars; and before that, running out West. Or running off to sea. European youths were apprenticing or indenturing themselves, running off to the New World.

In those times, leaving your town or county frequently meant that your family would never hear from you again; never even know if you were alive or dead.
Starting a new life, back then, had a literal meaning.
Click to expand...

I s'pose with a life expectancy around 40'ish inclines one to get out there and make **** happen.

Reminds me of a joke.

Wadda ya call a 13 year old virgin in Alabama?

Ugly!! :rofl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom