- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
We are borg
Monty python reference fail.
We are borg
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
We are borg
Monty python reference fail.
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:
You can't clit around all day talking about this stuff without some espresso and getting a little sugar.
I think Tucker was saying that the penis mightier than the sword or somewhat.
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).
I'm pissed.
But it doesn't do any good to say what I really think about it.
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).
I am quite sorry you are pissed about my starting this thread, 1069.
These bad puns are nuts.
Your puns are so vulvar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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....
Of naked women
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.
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.