• 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?


  • Total voters
    67

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
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?
 
Was it good for America?....Yes.
 
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?

Treating women and men equally under the law, that is good.
Automatically assuming all discrimination is wrong, that has been bad.

There are mixed results in my opinion.
 
No it wasn't. I'm not sure what else to say about it, really.
 
Bad for who? America overall? Women? Men?

The answer depends as to here one finds themselve's standing.

There will yes's and there will be no's and lot's of maybe's.

There is no absolute answer.

I have noticed the, what some might call, the accellerating moral decay happening in our society around the same time a LOT of movements to change the social structure came to be, the women's movement included.

But some of our traditional moral values were oppressive and burdensome and needed to be removed. Others? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, in my opinion, modern day social structure norms, compared to back in the Ozzy and Harriot days, suck donkey balls and the proof is in the pudding. Chaos on every corner.

But I wouldn't put this at the feet of the women's movement. Just saying, when American's embrace a movement(s) to throw the monkey wrench into the gears of society, collectively, they share responsiblity for us being wherever we are at, years later, be that good OR bad.

Or to put it simply, "We reap what we sew."
 
Last edited:
Bad for who? America overall? Women? Men?

The answer depends as to here one finds themselve's standing.

There will yes's and there will be no's and lot's of maybe's.

There is no absolute answer.

I have noticed the, what some might call, the accellerating moral decay happening in our society around the same time a LOT of movements to change the social structure came to be, the women's movement included.

But some of our traditional moral values were oppressive and burdensome and needed to be removed. Others? Maybe. Maybe not.

But, in my opinion, modern day social structure norms, compared to back in the Ozzy and Harriot days, suck donkey balls and the proof is in the pudding. Chaos on every corner.

But I wouldn't put this at the feet of the women's movement. Just saying, when American's embrace a movement(s) to throw the monkey wrench into the gears of society, collectively, they share responsiblity for us being wherever we are at, years later, be that good OR bad.

Or to put it simply, "We reap what we sew."


Cap, that may be the best post you've ever made. Best one I've ever read, anyway.

Some things are better. Me, I prefer women who are capable of taking care of themselves and don't insist on being treated like fragile china.

Some things are worse. 50% divorce rate, children committing mass murder on other children, etc.

The whole "critical thinking" movement, the idea that all traditional institutions and ways needed to be analyzed to death and thrown out if they seemed the slightest bit illogical...the "anti-tradition" movement you might say, never seemed to realize that societies' customs and institutions are part of the glue that holds it all together, even if some of them don't seem to make perfect sense. Wash all that glue away with "critical thinking" solvent, and what you have left isn't a society, its a bunch of individuals pursuing three hundred million different paths with little in common.
 
I have noticed the, what some might call, the accellerating moral decay happening in our society around the same time a LOT of movements to change the social structure came to be, the women's movement included.

What other movements to change the social structure are you referring to here?

But some of our traditional moral values were oppressive and burdensome and needed to be removed. Others? Maybe. Maybe not.

Undoubtedly.

But, in my opinion, modern day social structure norms, compared to back in the Ozzy and Harriot days, suck donkey balls and the proof is in the pudding. Chaos on every corner.

Prevalent divorce, single-parent families on the rise, high-school drop-outs, widespread drug use, teenage mothers, increased homelessness, increased foster kids.

But I wouldn't put this at the feet of the women's movement.

I think much of it can be laid at the feet of the women's movement. The simple act of increasing a woman's earning potential meant that a nuclear family was no longer inviolate.

Just saying, when American's embrace a movement(s) to throw the monkey wrench into the gears of society, collectively, they share responsiblity for us being wherever we are at, years later, be that good OR bad.

Yes. Good and Bad. What would people say is the good that came from the women's movement? I do not mean suffrage but the feminist movement.

Or to put it simply, "We reap what we sow."

Fixed it for you. We do indeed reap what we sow.
 
Thanks for fixing my spelling fart. I actually thought about it for a second or two and went with the wrong spelling. I suppose I wanted to keep the word "sow" off a thread concerning feminism. :rofl

Those three letters make me think of a big fat hog with droopy tits. :mrgreen:
 
Did feminism even take off? Other than the right to vote, there really isn't a noticeable political difference. Women can be actresses, can run for political office, although only a few choose to and half of those get elected, and can work in any field. Socially? Well...those that join are either "fighting domineering men for the right to be submissive" or if they are just "fighting domineering men", really just hate men because they are lesbians, are at least bi and over-sexual. So the effect is almost neutral in the social part.

So, the overall effect? Nothing noticeable really. Anarchists, gay-rights activists, environmentalists, have had a bigger effect socially than feminists. Feminist's only score has been politically with the 19th amendment. Socially, we just have a bigger workforce and more girls less afraid to kiss other girls to impress men.

So basically, Feminism: whoopty-****ing doo.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for fixing my spelling fart. I actually thought about it for a second or two and went with the wrong spelling. I suppose I wanted to keep the word "sow" off a thread concerning feminism. :rofl

Those three letters make me think of a big fat hog with droopy tits. :mrgreen:

:rofl Yeah, sorry for being that guy that fixes a spelling fart. It is just that I have seen that phrase spelled that way like 4 times in the past week. You caught it.
 
It's a lot like the Civil Rights movement. Both of these things started out with denands for legal equality. Women got this, basically, with the right to vote. Then they both focused on changing societal views on their groups. Thus, it became less crazy to envision women leaving the kitchen and getting a job of their own, and so women entered the work force.

But by then the movements had basically succeeded in acheiving their goals, yet didn't really want to disband. So they started coming up with new things to decide it was their job to fix. They started concentrating on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Sometimes they sought to be more than equal (affirmative action, etc.). So my answer is, it depends on what you mean by feminism. Up through the 70s, it did a lot of good. Most people who claim to be "feminists" nowadays, though, are just like the modern day "civil rights" activists, and aren't really worth listening to IMO.
 
It's a lot like the Civil Rights movement. Both of these things started out with denands for legal equality. Women got this, basically, with the right to vote. Then they both focused on changing societal views on their groups. Thus, it became less crazy to envision women leaving the kitchen and getting a job of their own, and so women entered the work force.

But by then the movements had basically succeeded in acheiving their goals, yet didn't really want to disband. So they started coming up with new things to decide it was their job to fix. They started concentrating on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Sometimes they sought to be more than equal (affirmative action, etc.). So my answer is, it depends on what you mean by feminism. Up through the 70s, it did a lot of good. Most people who claim to be "feminists" nowadays, though, are just like the modern day "civil rights" activists, and aren't really worth listening to IMO.

It's basically ended with, anytime a man is more represented, it's sexual discrimination but when women are more represented, it's empowerment.
 
We do indeed reap what we sow.

I've had second thoughts about this. It is not like we sowed bad karma with the feminist movement and now are reaping the bad outcome. It is more like:

Beware of unintended consequences.

In a complex system, a change in one dimension will likely cause changes in other dimensions.
 
It's a lot like the Civil Rights movement. Both of these things started out with denands for legal equality. Women got this, basically, with the right to vote. Then they both focused on changing societal views on their groups. Thus, it became less crazy to envision women leaving the kitchen and getting a job of their own, and so women entered the work force.

But by then the movements had basically succeeded in acheiving their goals, yet didn't really want to disband. So they started coming up with new things to decide it was their job to fix. They started concentrating on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Sometimes they sought to be more than equal (affirmative action, etc.). So my answer is, it depends on what you mean by feminism. Up through the 70s, it did a lot of good. Most people who claim to be "feminists" nowadays, though, are just like the modern day "civil rights" activists, and aren't really worth listening to IMO.

Frankly I'd say Rosie the Riveter had more to do with the advancement of women's rights than 60's style feminism did. Self-support is self-empowerment.

I remember the feminism of the 60's and 70's, I was there. It was shrill, hyperbolic, emotionally frantic, and filled with blind hate for all things traditional or male. Men were scared to offer the slightest courtesy to women under 40 for fear of getting their heads bitten off and being called "male chauvenist pigs!" (Hey lady, I just wondered if you could use a hand getting that big box outta the trunk, 'scuse the hell outta me for askin'!) I never figured out WTF burning a bra had to do with anything... you want your tatas to sag even worse as you get older??


Modern feminism has morphed in recent years into two camps. One camp is the old-school man-hatin' feminazi's. The newer camp is much more sensible, and focuses chiefly on economic issues, and actually recognizes that it's okay if a woman wants to stay at home with her kids... something the traditional feminazi's still call slavery and sneer at, even if it is entirely voluntary.

Old-school feminism is largely dead, thankfully.
 
Last edited:
Misvoted, i meant: No, it was good for America
 
What would people say is the good that came from the women's movement? I do not mean suffrage but the feminist movement.

I think that feminism is responsible for the increase in female education levels overall, for women being able to do professional work (versus menial work), and for girls being able to have the same opportunities in school that boys do. I see all these things as positives.

Let's be blunt here: lower class women always worked. It was middle and upper class women who were socially restricted by the idea that they were too delicate to soil their minds and spirits by working with men, voting, owning property, and having equal rights.

And, it was middle and upper class women who were economically trapped into bad marriages, who lost their children if they threatened to leave the marriage, and who were treated like property.

Sorry if women having equal rights has been hard on you. Deal.
 
Last edited:
Good and bad.

Good for women in that it encouraged higher education and awareness of important issues.

Bad for families in that it made it a necessity in many cases for women to work in order to maintain a decent income for the family, thus necessitating putting kids in daycare and missing out on a critically important (imo) time of their childrens' lives. Bad for familiies in that it encourages women to be a little more self-focused and less focused on the well-being of the family unit, which is one of the cornerstones of most healthy societies.

It's a double-edged sword which has had a positive impact on the quality of life for women on a personal level, but a negative one on families.
 
Good and bad.

Good for women in that it encouraged higher education and awareness of important issues.

Bad for families in that it made it a necessity in many cases for women to work in order to maintain a decent income for the family, thus necessitating putting kids in daycare and missing out on a critically important (imo) time of their childrens' lives. Bad for familiies in that it encourages women to be a little more self-focused and less focused on the well-being of the family unit, which is one of the cornerstones of most healthy societies.

It's a double-edged sword which has had a positive impact on the quality of life for women on a personal level, but a negative one on families.

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.

Nice. That's a system that works well for everyone involved. Except women.

Men...if you want someone to stay home with the kids, and it's super important, have you ever considered DOING IT YOURSELVES?

If people need to be more focused on raising kids, wouldn't that include men taking a bigger role? But of course, studies show that whether a woman works or not, the largest role in taking care of the kids and the house gets dumped on the woman. I wonder why men haven't stepped up and done this stuff that is ostensibly so damn important to them????

For me, I will be grateful, forever, that my parents helped me go to college, get a degree, and a good job. When my ex-husband ended up being an abusive prick who went around sticking his dick in other women, instead of having to stay with him, suck it up, and take it, I was able to divorce him and take care of my kids on my own without us being in poverty.

This is a bitch thread about men who just wanted to continue to abuse the previous status quo, and haven't started taking an equal share of responsibility for the well-being of the family...something that is so important that they want to dump it all on the woman in their lives.
 
Last edited:
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.

Actually, we do. The equally ridiculous assumption held by many people, both male and female, is that its the man's duty to be the provider for the family. That the man should pay, ingrained at the earliest time from the man should be paying for the dates you go on and continuing outwards from that.

Both are based on the traditional norms of yester year, where women traditionally were the ones staying at home and their "work" was tending the house and children while the father was the bread winner and provided, going to "work" to supply the finances required for said wife to tend the house and kids and to also spoil said wife.

While I understand that women may feel the sting of the first traditional stereotype more and notice them more, trust me when I say the other view point is not vanished and gone from our society as well. This is both in how many women view a relationship situation, and how what society dictates and presents to you as you grow up as a male thus creating the mental belief that this is necessary and the many hangups guys have later in life when that does not become the case.

You rail against "men" for not getting on board. The difference is while there was the whole "women's liberation" thing and has been going on for some time, there's not really been that for males. While women now grow up far more likely to understand and find it relatively socially acceptable not to be the 50's stereotyped woman, its not nearly the same for a man. The notion of the stay at home dad is ridiculed. The guy that takes home-ec instead of woodshop has his masculinity questioned. The guy that brings home less money than his wife is made to feel a lesser. As a young male grows up his worth is still often taught as being measured by the means that he can protect and provide for his.

While there has been a shift to make it more socially acceptable for females to take the male roles the same has not been true for males. So no, I'm not that surprised when males are in general less apt to up and dismiss their steroetyped and traditionally ingrained roles than women because it has not been instilled in that sex that doing such is okay. While it is not a foreign concept for women now, it still very much for men. I speak of course in generalities, and even that is begining to decline some in this age but only because what happened 40 years ago for females has started in the past 10 or 20 for males in regards to traditional social expectations.

The women coming into their 20's now are the daughters of the women that were living and breathing the movement. This is not the case with the men coming into their 20's now. Those were men still raised with that notion that they're supposed to be the provider, the protector, the bread winner, the MAN in a family. To do otherwise requires the stripping down of years upon years of possible family and societal expectations built up within their mind.
 
For me, I will be grateful, forever, that my parents helped me go to college, get a degree, and a good job. When my ex-husband ended up being an abusive prick who went around sticking his dick in other women, instead of having to stay with him, suck it up, and take it, I was able to divorce him and take care of my kids on my own without us being in poverty.

I'll take on the most emotionally charged portion of your post, Cat. It represents the good and the bad of feminism.

The good is that you are able to be financially independent and get out of a bad marriage and raise your kids on your own.

The bad is several fold.

First, you had to raise your kids on their own without a male role model and a family role model (at least you haven't mentioned one). Statistics show that your kids are more likely to divorce themselves, perpetuating the destruction of traditional families.

Secondly, your being an independent minded feminist may have contributed to the outcome of your marriage. If your husband was not able to deal with your non-traditional outlook, he may have become an abusive prick and stuck his dick in other women. These things do tend to take two to tango.

Thirdly, the combination of financial independence and non-traditional roles by women have disrupted the traditional family. Divorce for much lessor reasons than yours occurs regularly. People get tired of each other and when marriage is no longer fun and games and the real work starts, people have an easier time of ignoring their vows and quitting on each other. This destabilizes a foundation stone in our society. Secondary effects of single parent families are stark.

Lastly, the instability of the family causes women to have children out of wedlock. This perpetuates the problems.
 
Feminism created two earner household which led to the housing bubble.
 
Actually, we do. The equally ridiculous assumption held by many people, both male and female, is that its the man's duty to be the provider for the family. That the man should pay, ingrained at the earliest time from the man should be paying for the dates you go on and continuing outwards from that.

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.

While I understand that women may feel the sting of the first traditional stereotype more and notice them more, trust me when I say the other view point is not vanished and gone from our society as well. This is both in how many women view a relationship situation, and how what society dictates and presents to you as you grow up as a male thus creating the mental belief that this is necessary and the many hangups guys have later in life when that does not become the case.


I totally agree with you. I think that the pressure on men to provide financially is manifested in higher rates of heart disease and high stress levels. Feminism should have resulted in greater freedom for men and I have hopes that it ultimately will. Although, I freely admit that we haven't made as much progress, on either side, as I hoped we someday would.

You rail against "men" for not getting on board. The difference is while there was the whole "women's liberation" thing and has been going on for some time, there's not really been that for males. While women now grow up far more likely to understand and find it relatively socially acceptable not to be the 50's stereotyped woman, its not nearly the same for a man. The notion of the stay at home dad is ridiculed. The guy that takes home-ec instead of woodshop has his masculinity questioned. The guy that brings home less money than his wife is made to feel a lesser. As a young male grows up his worth is still often taught as being measured by the means that he can protect and provide for his.

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.

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.

I practice what I preach, and I preach just as much at my female peers as I do the males.

I speak of course in generalities, and even that is begining to decline some in this age but only because what happened 40 years ago for females has started in the past 10 or 20 for males in regards to traditional social expectations.

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.

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

The women coming into their 20's now are the daughters of the women that were living and breathing the movement. This is not the case with the men coming into their 20's now. Those were men still raised with that notion that they're supposed to be the provider, the protector, the bread winner, the MAN in a family. To do otherwise requires the stripping down of years upon years of possible family and societal expectations built up within their mind.

I understand that. I get tired of such men attacking us because we dared to have freedoms that they haven't dared to attain.
 
I just see feminism as an aspect of humanism, myself.

Anything that removes unnecessary societal restrictions is a good thing, IMO, as most of these are just social conventions that developed at at time when they might have served some function, but do not serve one now. Being locked into certain roles based on gender makes about as much sense as being locked into roles based on race or ethnicity to me, and what many people fail to realize is that the need for conformity affects BOTH sexes. Equality of the sexes allows both women AND men to escape some of the trappings associated with their gender.
 
First, you had to raise your kids on their own without a male role model and a family role model (at least you haven't mentioned one). Statistics show that your kids are more likely to divorce themselves, perpetuating the destruction of traditional families.

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?

Secondly, your being an independent minded feminist may have contributed to the outcome of your marriage. If your husband was not able to deal with your non-traditional outlook, he may have become an abusive prick and stuck his dick in other women. These things do tend to take two to tango.

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.

Thirdly, the combination of financial independence and non-traditional roles by women have disrupted the traditional family. Divorce for much lessor reasons than yours occurs regularly. People get tired of each other and when marriage is no longer fun and games and the real work starts, people have an easier time of ignoring their vows and quitting on each other.

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.

This destabilizes a foundation stone in our society. Secondary effects of single parent families are stark.

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.

Let me say this again...I NEVER wanted to be divorced. I tried to make it work for 12 years. It was a MISERABLE life. I put up with it FOR MY KIDS. Finally, after his third affair, I thought, "What else am I teaching my kids by staying? Am I teaching my daughter that she doesn't have a right to be happy? Am I teaching my son to mistreat and abuse his own wife someday?"

Funny how the opponents of feminism never seem to care about perpetuating THOSE lessons. It's all about trying to shame women for making choices to protect ourselves and our kids.

Lastly, the instability of the family causes women to have children out of wedlock. This perpetuates the problems.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15835429/
The birth rate among teenagers declined 2 percent in 2005, continuing a trend from the early 1990s. The rate is now about 40 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. That is the lowest level in the 65 years for which a consistent series of rates is available.

The U.S. teen birth rate is still the highest among industrialized countries.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom