• 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
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...
Your emotional response proves my point.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
World War 2.
The growth of industry and wealth in the 1950s.
The shift from manufacturing to technology/information from the 1960s to present.
Click to expand...
WWII - "When the United States entered the war, 12 million women (one quarter of the workforce) were already working and by the end of the war, the number was up to 18 million (one third of the workforce). While ultimately 3 million women worked in war plants, the majority of women who worked during World War II worked in traditionally female occupations, like the service sector. The number of women in skilled jobs was actually few. Most women worked in tedious and poorly paid jobs in order to free men to take better paying jobs or to join the service. The only area that there was a true mixing of the sexes was in semiskilled and unskilled blue-collar work in factories (Campbell 100). Traditionally female clerical positions were able to maintain their numbers and recruit new women. These jobs were attractive because the hours were shorter, were white-collar, had better job security, had competitive wages, and were less physically strenuous and dirty. The demand for clerical workers was so great that it exceeded the supply (Anderson 32)."

"After the war, the cultural division of labor by sex reasserted itself. Many women remained in the workforce but employers forced them back into lower-paying female jobs. Most women were laid off and told to go back to their homes."

So, no sea change in women worker after WWII. So let's continue the timeline, basically unchanged. Then bring up the 1950s.

1950s - "In 1950 about one in three women participated in the labor force. By 1998, nearly three of every five women of working age were in the labor force. Among women age 16 and over, the labor force participation rate was 33.9 percent in 1950, compared with 59.8 percent in 1998.

63.3 percent of women age 16 to 24 worked in 1998 versus 43.9 percent in 1950.

76.3 percent of women age 25 to 34 worked in 1998 versus 34.0 percent in 1950.

77.1 percent of women age 35 to 44 worked in 1998 versus 39.1 percent in 1950.

76.2 percent of women age 45 to 54 worked in 1998 versus 37.9 percent in 1950.

51.2 percent of women age 55 to 64 worked in 1998 versus 27 percent in 1950.

8.6 percent of women age 65+ worked in 1998 versus 9.7 percent in 1950.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Changes in Women's Work Participation"

So no sea change in women in the workforce in the 1950s. So, moving on...

"In the third phase, labeled the "roots of the revolution" encompassing the time from 1950- mid to late 1970s, the movement began to approach the warning signs of a revolution. Women's expectations of future employment changed. Women began to see themselves going on to college and working through their marriages and even attending graduate school. Many however still had brief and intermittent work force participation. Women were still not looking for a 'career'. Although more women attended college, many attended merely because it was a good place to find a spouse. Nevertheless, Labor force participation by women still grew significantly.

In the fourth phase, known as The Quiet Revolution began in the late 1970s and continues on today. Beginning in the 1970s women began to flood the colleges and grad schools. They began to enter profession like Medicine, Law, Dental and Business. More women were going to college and expected to be employed at the age of 35, as opposed to past generations that only worked intermittently due to marriage and childbirth. This increase in expectations of long-term gainful employment is reflected in the change of majors adopted by women from the 1970s on."

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.
Click to expand...
This is your response to my factual notation that the info/tech economy didn't start until 1997? And you call my response stupid? :doh
I don't think you know what those terms mean.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, which terms in that quote are you referring to specifically?

*sigh*

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/98/04/currentstate.pdf
Click to expand...
So California law wipes out my commentary about no fault divorce stats for southern states?
What specifically am I supposed glean from that PDF, this?

"Three years after Governor Brown urged reforming California’s fault-based divorce law,
Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act of 1969 into law, making California
the first no-fault divorce state in the nation. Or, looked at by some in another way, “On
September 5, 1969, with a stroke of his pen, California governor Ronald Reagan wiped
out the moral basis for marriage in America.”
OK, I'll agree with that! :rofl

Seriously, I don't understand your rebuttal because it's so thin on the substance of your disagreement.

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.
Click to expand...
You probably need to go check your blood pressure now because your response is entirely emotional. This is a debate forum so yes, it is sorta like "school", except we attempt to teach each other. I realize women are defensive about this subject but as I stated in my original post, I'm not sure of my position. You however are not enlightening me in the least and are in fact harming your position.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This is an ingrained stereotype. I call it volkswagen theory. You look for it, so you see it.

People express emotions not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of personality type.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Wrong. This is an ingrained stereotype. I call it volkswagen theory. You look for it, so you see it.

People express emotions not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of personality type.
Click to expand...
both, i think. society plays a huge role in how men express their emotions.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Wrong. This is an ingrained stereotype. I call it volkswagen theory. You look for it, so you see it.

People express emotions not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of personality type.
Click to expand...

One note of contention here.
Women, in general, make decisions more on the basis of short term safety and security than men do.
Men do make use a similar decision making process but it is, usually, based on long term safety and security choices.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
One note of contention here.
Women, in general, make decisions more on the basis of short term safety and security than men do.
Men do make use a similar decision making process but it is, usually, based on long term safety and security choices.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that what you've described is a function of personality type, as well.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I disagree. I think that what you've described is a function of personality type, as well.
Click to expand...

I know but looking at the bigger picture, you can see this based on jobs women and men take.
Men being more long term will take jobs with risk based salaries in order to capture higher long term positive gains.
Women, on the other hand, tend to choose jobs with lower pay but steady employment.

Neither is wrong and there are exceptions but I think that illustrates the general women/men difference in thought.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
One note of contention here.
Women, in general, make decisions more on the basis of short term safety and security than men do.
Men do make use a similar decision making process but it is, usually, based on long term safety and security choices.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand this at all. Can you give an example of what you mean?
 
rivrrat said:
I don't really understand this at all. Can you give an example of what you mean?
Click to expand...

Women, in general, make choices based on now, instead of potential future.
In general, women are more risk averse.

For example, women are more likely to want a Social Security type retirement system, even though the rate of return is low, because it is a guaranteed payment system.

While men would take private investment over it because of the potential for higher, long term results.

You can see this with participation rates in investing.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Women, in general, make choices based on now, instead of potential future.
In general, women are more risk averse.

For example, women are more likely to want a Social Security type retirement system, even though the rate of return is low, because it is a guaranteed payment system.

While men would take private investment over it because of the potential for higher, long term results.

You can see this with participation rates in investing.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with personality, education, and relationship status combined with whether or not children are involved.
 
rivrrat said:
I think it has more to do with personality, education, and relationship status combined with whether or not children are involved.
Click to expand...

It's holdover programing from the hunter gatherer humans.

It is what it is, there is nothing necessarily wrong with either.
It is why I don't buy this women and men are equal nonsense.
We are made different by nature.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's holdover programing from the hunter gatherer humans.

It is what it is, there is nothing necessarily wrong with either.
It is why I don't buy this women and men are equal nonsense.
We are made different by nature.
Click to expand...

No two people are equal, regardless of gender. It's preposterous to say they are. Except in the eyes of our government, which is what most people are referring to when they speak of equality.

Men and women should have equal opportunity and choices. That is what is meant by equality.
 
rivrrat said:
No two people are equal, regardless of gender. It's preposterous to say they are. Except in the eyes of our government, which is what most people are referring to when they speak of equality.

Men and women should have equal opportunity and choices. That is what is meant by equality.
Click to expand...

I agree with that but you and I both know that idea is perverted to mean equality of outcome.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree with that but you and I both know that idea is perverted to mean equality of outcome.
Click to expand...

You know what...screw that noise. I've heard this b.s. about "men and women are different" for my entire life. Guess what? Men and men are different. Women and women are different.

My personality type is ENFP. Only 3% of the world's population type is the same as mine. I have about 136% more in common witha male ENFP than I do with a woman of another personality type.

I'm really sick of how people use their engrained prejudices, on both sides, about male/female roles to justify stupidity.

We're all different. Judging people on the basis of gender, and believing that you can draw any meaningful conclusions about their personalities or psychologies is stupid.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You know what...screw that noise. I've heard this b.s. about "men and women are different" for my entire life. Guess what? Men and men are different. Women and women are different.

My personality type is ENFP. Only 3% of the world's population type is the same as mine. I have about 136% more in common witha male ENFP than I do with a woman of another personality type.

I'm really sick of how people use their engrained prejudices, on both sides, about male/female roles to justify stupidity.

We're all different. Judging people on the basis of gender, and believing that you can draw any meaningful conclusions about their personalities or psychologies is stupid.
Click to expand...

What you said is true, but there are general trends based on gender.
You'll always have exceptions but the trends exist because we evolved that way.

Why do you consider it as bad?
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
What you said is true, but there are general trends based on gender.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think that those so-called "trends" largely exist in people's imaginations and in the reinforced cultural norms you were raised in. You see those trends because you WANT or EXPECT to see those trends.

Notes on gender distributions � Within the historic data collected from the MBTI, the functions of thinking vs. feeling is the only variable that has shown a gender trend. About 60% of men reported they are Thinkers, while %60 of women reported they are Feelers. These percentages fall into cultural stereotypes about males emphasizing thinking, and women feeling. However, as we move into a new century as gender lines and roles are becoming blurred, and gender roles less definitive in modern cultures it will be interesting to see if these statistics change.
Click to expand...

MBTI descriptions

When I've taken the MBTI test, I fall right on the 50% mark between being emotional and being rational. Some men may be more rational than some women, but some men are also far LESS rational than some women.

I look forward to the day when we outrgow these tired notions that our personalities and brains are shaped by our genitalia.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You'll always have exceptions but the trends exist because we evolved that way.
Click to expand...

The trend you're talking about dates primarily to the Victorian era, when the upper class decided that women were delicate little flowers.

Feel free to post evidence that supports your claims that women are less risk-taking than men.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You know what...screw that noise. I've heard this b.s. about "men and women are different" for my entire life. Guess what? Men and men are different. Women and women are different.

My personality type is ENFP. Only 3% of the world's population type is the same as mine. I have about 136% more in common witha male ENFP than I do with a woman of another personality type.

I'm really sick of how people use their engrained prejudices, on both sides, about male/female roles to justify stupidity.

We're all different. Judging people on the basis of gender, and believing that you can draw any meaningful conclusions about their personalities or psychologies is stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, from life experiences I believe in the old adage that "hell has no fury like a woman scorned."
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The trend you're talking about dates primarily to the Victorian era, when the upper class decided that women were delicate little flowers.

Feel free to post evidence that supports your claims that women are less risk-taking than men.
Click to expand...

It just ain't true.
I'm sorry but I don't tow the politically correct way of thinking.
There are observable differences between women and men when it comes to personality and behavior.

"Stressed men take more risks, while stressed women play it safe, according to research published in the Journal PLoS One this week."

"Evolutionarily speaking, it's perhaps more beneficial for men to be aggressive in stressful, high-arousal situations when risk and reward are involved," said Dr Lighthall. "Applied to financial risk taking, it's akin to competition for territory or other valuable resources."

So men may have evolved to respond to stress with a flight or flight response – taking bigger risks, while women evolved a more conservative response, which could be beneficial as taking risks in pursuit of resources could “endanger the lives of dependent offspring.”

Stressed Men Take More Risks - The Naked Scientists

"Women with more testosterone tend to behave more like men when taking financial risks, according to a new study. "Women with higher levels of testosterone turn out to be less risk averse, more willing to take risks," Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago said in a telephone interview."

"Known as the male sex hormone, testosterone occurs in both men and women, but at higher levels in men. It has long been associated with competitiveness and dominance, reduction of fear, and with risky behaviors like gambling and alcohol use."

Testosterone-Heavy Women Take More Risks : Discovery News
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
"Women with more testosterone tend to behave more like men when taking financial risks, according to a new study. "Women with higher levels of testosterone turn out to be less risk averse, more willing to take risks," Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago said in a telephone interview."

"Known as the male sex hormone, testosterone occurs in both men and women, but at higher levels in men. It has long been associated with competitiveness and dominance, reduction of fear, and with risky behaviors like gambling and alcohol use."

Testosterone-Heavy Women Take More Risks : Discovery News
Click to expand...

A lot of women (including me) have high levels of testosterone. It's not GENDER, per se, but it is the level of testosterone that determines risk-taking, aggression, and competitiveness.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
A lot of women (including me) have high levels of testosterone. It's not GENDER, per se, but it is the level of testosterone that determines risk-taking, aggression, and competitiveness.
Click to expand...

You and I know that the distribution of hormones is, usually, gender related.
There are always anomalies in this world.

So it is a generality.

Edit: No where am I saying that women should scoot there asses to the kitchen.
I'm just saying that, in general, the personality and behavior of a man or women is largely determined by evolutionary gender roles.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
i disagree with him too, generally, men don't think:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Although you meant this to be funny, there is some truth in what you say. Men react to events, and problems. And use their basic instincts to get through situations. Where as women fret every little detail. "Does this purse match my shoes?" They tend to over think things, and get ups set when things don't just happen.
"Men are from Mars, Wimens should stay in the Kitchen" :rofl
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
And men scored might stalk and kill you.
Click to expand...

It's not as bad as it used to be, though. Women are getting wise to that stuff. It's funny but more people are killed among family members than by someone committing a crime.

I do think that women are mentally tougher then men in most cases, now days.

It used to be that a battered woman did not have a chance against an abusive spouse.

In Virginia any man convicted of spousal abuse can not buy a gun, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom