Are women feminists?

@Aedes,

pacifist or even utilitarian

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Nice try. Spoken with the flair of one who received straight A's in feminism 101. I am not going to comment on how conveniently you ignored everthing I had to offer and substituted it with the programmed rhetoric of feminism. So let's just let bygones be bygones and totally ignore oll the horrific repercussions radical feminism has wrought. Very rarely do I use support material for how I think, but in this instance I will and there is a lot more where this came from. Please read:

:::THC-WCF::: World Congress of Families III: Mexico 2004: The Howard Center

Thank You,
William

@VideCorSpoon,

I think the bulk of your comments were for the most part addressed. If I missed any, you are welcome to reiterate if you wish. this thread is as much a conversation than an argument, so put down your concerns. To tell the truth, in some respects I agree that some aspects of radical feminism goes too far. The question is what aspects? But I would seriously like to see what exact "horrific repercussions" feminism has brought. "Radical" feminism is merely a branch of a bigger tree which deals with the same issues in another context and does not necessarily hold for any other branch of feminism.

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

:::THC-WCF::: World Congress of Families III: Mexico 2004: The Howard Center

INTRODUCTION

To lead off and juxtapose feminism with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao seems a little biased to say the least. If this organization were objective, it would be looking at the facts rather than the associations they intend to link and demonize feminism.

THE MYTHS OF FEMINISM
THE FEMINIST LEADERS

Among all the misquoted feminists, take Betty Freidan for example. Crouse calls Freidan the "mother of the feminist movement." Not Simone de Beauvoir or anyone like that, just Freidan. Crouse's summation of Feminine Mystique is ridiculous to say the least. As far as people who have read the book objectively, Freidan suggests in The Feminine Mystique that women were trapped within a system which defined femininity as simply domestic fulfillment. Women were essentially passive and set apart from men in terms of educational and social goals which were in many respects substandard and unequal compared to the opposite sex. Freidan also asserts that women were influenced by a barrage of media and repressive images which extolled the virtues of proper femininity and in turn influenced women to accept the ideals of the "happy homemaker" above any other desire. Now is this in anyway different from what Crouse is implying? YES! Freidan does not say "we are victims" but rather "we are unequal." Is that so wrong, so heinous that it would destroy the fabric of society. On an amusing note, Freidan's child rearing issues stem from a male normative framework. The man who got her pregnant soon left her and as an indirect result she experienced very hard times because she was in a sense "damaged goods." Is the fact that she was demonized within her society and the subsequent hardships she faced as a result any reason to fault her for those resulting actions imposed upon her by a male normative framework? Hardly.

FEMINIST OUTCOMES OF THE FAMILY

The statistics would as expected cover the demonizing propaganda of the feminist movement. But really? Do you really think sexual promiscuity and STDS are a direct result of feminism? Are women's rights to blame if women are suddenly let off the leash in her opinion. Is it so wrong that women between the ages of 15 and 44 don't want to get married? And further, is it so negative that 50 million women live alone? Is it not a personal choice? Are they supposed to be joined to the hip of a male to be considered a valid part of society?

ANTIFEMINIST MOVEMENTSEXUAL PROMISCUITY AND CULTURAL IMPLOSION

So in what way does feminism play a part in this? Is it merely because women are let of the leash that society goes to hell? It's ridiculous. Not to mention the off topic remark about the fall of Babylonian, the Greeks, and the Persians in conjunction with of all things sexual normatives. Those dirty heathens.

HARDWIRED TO CONNECT

So it's not a matter of equality, but the way women are "hardwired" which relegates them to the family. Not the choice or the inclination, but the stone cold biology of the matter. So by all means women should be soft and men hard, women meek and men strong. This is exactly what the feminist movement is confronting. Women should not be judged on what they are supposed to do, but what they want to do within an equal society.

ANY WOMAN FOR MOM;ANY MAN FOR DAD

So what better way to see the results of the broad range of the feminist movement and the hundreds if not thousands of books written about the subject by advanced academics then Crouse herself in her 78-page report "Gaining Ground: A profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century. Indeed the definitive work on feminism and women's rights. Because of the absence of men, women bring society down into the nether regions of a corrupt society.

CONCLUSION

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon,
In all due respect what I have recognize here in our brief dialog, is one does not have to be a woman to be feminist. Had the woman's movement adhered to the inequity in the work place, no one would have questioned that and most would have been for it. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. The relationship between man and woman are, I will agree, confused especially since the advent of women's so called liberation. It is an essential relationship that should be strengthened rather than destroyed which is exactly what the aim of the radical feminist is. I know you will disagree with this because you have blinders on resulting, for whatever reason, in your zealous defense of one of the most damaging occurrences ever to invade the yet flawed, but essential biological family structure. You have your reasons and you are entitled to those, "dude".

Every day that passes, I become more thankful for not having pursued an academic education. I was in my late teens in the late sixties when I heard the term "women's liberation". Immediately, I ask, "Liberation from what"? Then I heard the phrase, ".....it is a woman's right to destroy her unborn child if she wants to", coming from a group of women who never, ever had to worry about getting pregnant. I swear to God, I wanted to throw up.

Let's hope our stalemate here, will not dampen our relationship on the forum. But on this particular subject we are eon's apart especially since you have no clue as the repercussions of "the feminist movement" since all you have is what academia forces down your throat. Please forgive the edge in my communication with you. I can't help it in that I am as zealous about my stance as you are convince of yours. I hear what you are saying as plain as day and it is absolutely textbook rhetoric choreographed to maintain a very flawed and failing status quo.

Now to answer you question as to what are those repercussions. Prior to 1967 before feminism became a integral part of our vocabulary, abortions didn't exist with the exception of those resulting from miscarriages. The ploy of claiming thousands of women were dying as a result of back alley abortions is an out and out lie. Just one would have made headline news. I will agree there were illegal abortions, but to claim thousands died is beyond the absurd.

I will whole heartily agree single Mother's have to be in the workplace to survive in this world, along with the feminist who would never conceive a child in the conventional way. They have no choice and by all means they should be compensated fairly and equitably not only to make ends meets, plus the Mother needs the money it takes for the warehousing of her children. Isn't it ironic when a woman choose to kill her unborn, it's "her" baby and her body; but when she conceives, it's "we" are pregnant.
I truly regret that you choose to debated me over this issue. As far as I am concerned it is not debatable. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly say that will alter my opinion. It's one thing for women to be treated fairly in the workplace. How destroying the family and convincing women to kill their unborn fit into that agenda never made sense to me. It sadden's me that it does to you. :brickwall:

William

@William,

William wrote:

VideCorSpoon,
In all due respect what I have recognize here in our brief dialog, is one does not have to be a woman to be feminist. Had the woman's movement adhered to the inequity in the work place, no one would have questioned that and most would have been for it. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. The relationship between man and woman are, I will agree, confused especially since the advent of women's so called liberation. It is an essential relationship that should be strengthened rather than destroyed which is exactly what the aim of the radical feminist is. I know you will disagree with this because you have blinders on resulting, for whatever reason, in your zealous defense of one of the most damaging occurrences ever to invade the yet flawed, but essential biological family structure. You have your reasons and you are entitled to those, "dude".

Well, I disagree with the conception that you have such a limited scope on women. The "essential relationship" you speak of isn't really a relationship, it's a male configured society. That is not equal. I know you will disagree with me because it's hard to think of society in general like that. It's only natural and I don't expect the subject to be considered on too abstract a level, just in a general sense. In a way though, the blinders I wear are not really blinders but sunglasses you have been informed are blinders. Feminism like almost everything in the world is a relative issue. There are two sides to every coin. But interesting how that fact is somehow ignored in the case of feminism here "dude." See, I can do that too, yet not in a condescending way but more in an ironic you said it because I said it and I feel that an ironic twist of saying it again puts us in this witty cycle of euphemisms.

William wrote:

Every day that passes, I become more thankful for not having pursued an academic education. I was in my late teens in the late sixties when I heard the term "women's liberation". Immediately, I ask, "Liberation from what"? Then I heard the phrase, ".....it is a woman's right to destroy her unborn child if she wants to", coming from a group of women who never, ever had to worry about getting pregnant. I swear to God, I wanted to throw up.

William wrote:

Let's hope our stalemate here, will not dampen our relationship on the forum. But on this particular subject we are eon's apart especially since you have no clue as the repercussions of "the feminist movement" since all you have is what academia forces down your throat. Please forgive the edge in my communication with you. I can't help it in that I am as zealous about my stance as you are convince of yours. I hear what you are saying as plain as day and it is absolutely textbook rhetoric choreographed to maintain a very flawed and failing status quo.

William wrote:

Now to answer you question as to what are those repercussions. Prior to 1967 before feminism became a integral part of our vocabulary, abortions didn't exist with the exception of those resulting from miscarriages. The ploy of claiming thousands of women were dying as a result of back alley abortions is an out and out lie. Just one would have made headline news. I will agree there were illegal abortions, but to claim thousands died is beyond the absurd.

officially in 1547, to clearly denote the difference between miscarriage and abortion. Online Etymology Dictionary

William wrote:

I will whole heartily agree single Mother's have to be in the workplace to survive in this world, along with the feminist who would never conceive a child in the conventional way. They have no choice and by all means they should be compensated fairly and equitably not only to make ends meets, plus the Mother needs the money it takes for the warehousing of her children. Isn't it ironic when a woman choose to kill her unborn, it's "her" baby and her body; but when she conceives, it's "we" are pregnant.

William wrote:

I truly regret that you choose to debated me over this issue. As far as I am concerned it is not debatable. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly say that will alter my opinion. It's one thing for women to be treated fairly in the workplace. How destroying the family and convincing women to kill their unborn fit into that agenda never made sense to me. It sadden's me that it does to you.

If it wasn't debatable, was there any reason for a "debate" in the first place? If the essence of philosophy is the rational investigation of abstract doctrines under the rubric of reason and equanimity, then this was nothing less than a misfired discussion rather than a purposeful debate for mutual knowledge. But I'm glad you say you feel that way, it clears up a lot of questions I wanted to ask, or really, it keeps me from asking them because there is essentially no use asking them. Also, It does not sadden me that you think the way you do (the way you are saddened by the way I think about the issue) because it is those types of opinions which fuel the very doctrines I study and provide more insightful theories into the way our society operates. It is the source of my education. Simply, without your particular base of beliefs, I wouldn't be able to examine the flaws of society and how to correct them. Your views are a necessary part of the world we live which in due course lead to meaningful discoveries in every aspect of all of our lives.

@VideCorSpoon,

The problem with feminism is that its opening premise is in contradiction to its conclusion.

Women have an inferior place in society.
Therefore do something to make it otherwise.

Which is not initself illogical, its just I do not believe women actually do have an inferior place in society. In essence personalities are mostly formed in the first 6 years of life, and gender roles are formed in the age group called 'phallic', age 3-6 years. During this phase, it is women that have an overwelming influence on gender role construction. The hand that rocks the cradle...

So what I am saying is that women have created an inferior role for themselves.
But its not completely inferior at all. Women are physically weaker than men, but they are emotionally stronger than men. So their role is different.

The vast majority of casualties in war are men. (Evidence of male emotional weakness, but also of female's not being physically strong enough to fight)

So talk of equality can actually be counter-productive. How many feminists would be happy with the idea that they have to fight for themselves? How many feminists would be happy if the military was 50% female? How effective would such a military be?

Many women do not realise that, as a man, if I cannot stand my ground when threatened, I am a corpse. Most feminists want feminism when it suits them (they want equal pay), but quickly revert to 'chivalry required' when that pay-check is threatened by a tsotsi.

I probably am considered old-fashioned, but I believe in equality for those who are equal, and also that the strong should protect the weak.

How many feminists volunteer to take out the garbage 50% of the time?
I have never met a woman of any political persuasion that does this.

The way I see it, feminism is the antithesis to chauvinism

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon,
Please re-read the statement I made in which your above comment was addressing with particular interest in the last line of that statement.
Thanks,
William

@William,

Poseidon,

I'm not sure Freudian psychoanalytics can be applied easily to feminism, but you do have a good point though. But under the Freudian rubric, those gender roles which are formed earlier in life (including as you had mentioned the "phallic" stage and so on) are part of a wider influential framework of psychological disorder. Genderization emerges from conflicts in id impulses (unconscious sexual impulses seeking to discharge), ego defense, and the inevitable superego restrictions, etc. etc. etc. But keep in mind that all of this is part of the influence of the family on human development, namely that of the mother and the father. If the issue is that the male in the family maintains a restrictive framework on the female, does this not imply that the problems stem from this male normative framework, not the natural tendency of a woman to be the way she is? That begs the question too, do women possess femininity a-priori or is it imprinted on them as they grow (which Freud would probably assert.) So with all that being said and using Freud as a basis for the conversation, women don't create the inferiority themselves, it is the result of human development in which the family nuclear structure imprints norms on its young.

On war, an issue that could be raised is the fact that men do not permit women to fight. Can we make judgments on that if we do not let women even compete in the same arena? Also, would feminists be happy with the idea of fighting for themselves? Sure, why not. They want equality, so why not. How effective would the military be? I would think just the same.

And on the matter of standing ones ground, many a woman have had to stand their ground and at times die in the process. It is prevalent even today. Do women lack that fundamental understanding of danger and possible death? No. So are they so different from men?

But I believe in equality in general, because there cannot be distinctions of equality for those who are equal. That would require me to gauge another before assuming equality. Is that so equal? No. I personally don't believe that people are equal in all respects. There are people with a wide range in education, capacity, and strengths which drastically differ from one another. But in matters of sexism it is certainly not fair.

William,

The statement has been reread. I quote again.

William wrote:

Now to answer you question as to what are those repercussions. Prior to 1967 before feminism became a integral part of our vocabulary, abortions didn't exist with the exception of those resulting from miscarriages. The ploy of claiming thousands of women were dying as a result of back alley abortions is an out and out lie. Just one would have made headline news. I will agree there were illegal abortions, but to claim thousands died is beyond the absurd.
William

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

William,

VideCoSpoon, your comment:
"So let's digest the statement. The first part of your response refers to the negative repercussions of feminism. Nothing wrong with this, this is your personal opinion. The next part is the interesting declarative statement that before 1967 abortions did not exist with the "exception" of miscarriages."

You are correct, and I apologize. I should had added, "for the most part" which would have been more accurate. Culturally, it didn't exist as a part of vocabulary and even the word itself was considered taboo and unthinkable. The crux of the statement was to emphasize the great lie that was the supporting foundation in that abortions would save "thousands" of women from the horrors of back alley abortions, when factually, for the most part, those fatalities were extremely few in number nationwide.

"As to the back-alley abortion thing, this is a sort of red herring which I would actually like to know where that information comes from? Is this supposed to be a common understanding? And whose ploy is that anyway? Feminists? And who is exactly lying about it? It would seem to me that this would be an argument for the conservative camp rather than the feminist camp because it causes loss of life in general."

No it's not a red herring. My friend, it has been my experience, once one has an erroneous opinion, they will only search for material that supports that opinion and the annals of our history are rift with such false and malignant knowledge to support anything you choose to believe. They will not hear any counter-argument. Which is what is happening here. I have read all the support material for abortions and none of it makes any sense to me whatsoever. Please read: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/century/aahxpt2prn.htm

As for as "who". IMO, the only thing that makes sense that would call for such an outlandish ploy would be the elderly affluent who have the resources that control the machinery that represents our reality who will do anything to live forever. I know it sounds a bit like paranoia, but I know they exist. Exactly who they are, I will leave for you to figure out for yourself for there is no supporting proof, for they control that too. One just needs to connect the dots. The truth is the underlying impetus behind abortions, IMO, is to provide more test material in the less than popular research that has been going on since the mid-50's in fetal tissue research for it was that research, in part, that was instrumental in developing a cure for polio. Have you ever even thought to consider why they "suck out the brains" of legally aborted fetuses? Surely you don't believe that is done so these babies can be delivered easier by "shrinking the head", do you? Of course to blatantly come out and say we need more aborted babies would have been "un-cool". Now, I can connect the dots, but considering there is no, none, nada support material that would validate such an outlandish manipulation and ploy it would be futile to do so.

My conclusions come from a very, well tuned common sense and the ability to use deductive reasoning that can only come from the clarity of mind. You don't get that from academia. Interpret that as you will. I will tell you the media, especially television, was an instrumental tool in the overall process. So to give you a clue as to "who" they are, they control that too. Television went from an entertainment source to most affective tool of brainwashing ever devised by man and still is. They don't call it the "vast wasteland" for no nothing.

Vide, if you choose to know the truth, there is information out there and it takes guts to look for it. Yes a lot of it will definitely counter what you have been conditioned to think. My entire life has been devoted to it.

The truth behind abortion is not only the in-human reality of it, but what it suggests are those measures the powers that be will resort to, to determine who is "viable" and who is not as it relates to that greed we have to sustain our existence. In short we have sacrificed our unborn to cure the ills of man so we will be able to live longer. God&%$# it. In doing so, we have ripped the lid off of pandora's box.

Do you own research and if you can put blinders on the knowledge you have been forced to learn that have formed those erroneous opinions you so brilliantly espouse. Perhaps you did make straight A's. Wonderful. Do a little critical thinking on your own, outside the box. You ego will protest, I assure you, but you will be amazed at what you will discover.

William

@William,

William wrote:

You are correct, and I apologize. I should had added, "for the most part" which would have been more accurate. Culturally, it didn't exist as a part of vocabulary and even the word itself was considered taboo and unthinkable. The crux of the statement was to emphasize the great lie that was the supporting foundation in that abortions would save "thousands" of women from the horrors of back alley abortions, when factually, for the most part, those fatalities were extremely few in number nationwide.

Well, suffice to say that the historicity of abortion is somewhat irrelevant. Abortion itself has never been illegal, but the question has always been when an abortion could be done. The median rage has always been around four months. It is around the time when debates on the constituency of personhood becomes an issue that you get into the volatility of the specific time. Abortion has always been around, the only thing that changes are the ups and downs of morals and information. But perhaps a big question to ask is why abortion is linked with feminists? Abortion is not as much a factor as the right to choose, which is a fundamental right for both sexes. Is this not inequity.

William wrote:

No it's not a red herring. My friend, it has been my experience, once one has an erroneous opinion, they will only search for material that supports that opinion and the annals of our history are rift with such false and malignant knowledge to support anything you choose to believe. They will not hear any counter-argument. Which is what is happening here. I have read all the support material for abortions and none of it makes any sense to me whatsoever. Please read: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/century/aahxpt2prn.htm

That has been my experience as well. This perhaps the old adage "people will, no matter the facts, believe what they want." But the tricky business in an informed discussion are those "facts." Have you read "all the support material for abortions?" Most likely not. Nor would I presume to suggest that I have read all material that encompasses the broad range of feminism or conservatism. wisdom comes not come from the fact that I may know everything, because it is impossible to know everything about a given subject. A Vedanta Hindu saying goes one is truly wise who professes himself truly ignorant, because ignorance implies the fact that there is always something else to learn. So, if we understand the fact that we cannot know everything, we must rely on informed discussion to relieve ourselves of true ignorance. Thus we enter philosophical discussion whose information lends support to one perspective or the other and a general conclusion can then be reached.

On the matter of the material you are being informed on the subject of abortion such as the link you posted, I can say this. There is a huge reason why academic accreditation is essential when conferring on any subject. It is a sort of "freshness" stamp which says "for as much as we can verify knowledge, this comes the closest." The article you post has no proper citation nor does it utilize proper analytical statistics (statistical regressions... which oddly enough given the simple averages don't add up). The article is rudimentary at best and wouldn't pass a freshmen stat 101 class homework assignment. This also emphasizes the point that because something is published, it does not make it fact... especially on the internet.

William wrote:

As for as "who". IMO, the only thing that makes sense that would call for such an outlandish ploy would be the elderly affluent who have the resources that control the machinery that represents our reality who will do anything to live forever. I know it sounds a bit like paranoia, but I know they exist. Exactly who they are, I will leave for you to figure out for yourself for there is no supporting proof, for they control that too. One just needs to connect the dots. The truth is the underlying impetus behind abortions, IMO, is to provide more test material in the less than popular research that has been going on since the mid-50's in fetal tissue research for it was that research, in part, that was instrumental in developing a cure for polio. Have you ever even thought to consider why they "suck out the brains" of legally aborted fetuses? Surely you don't believe that is done so these babies can be delivered easier by "shrinking the head", do you? Of course to blatantly come out and say we need more aborted babies would have been "un-cool". Now, I can connect the dots, but considering there is no, none, nada support material that would validate such an outlandish manipulation and ploy it would be futile to do so.

Well, i'm not really one for conspiracy theories, so I'll leave that to others to figure out. Besides, I did not care for the movie... though Mel Gibson plays a good crazy when he puts his mind to it, both on and off the screen. The rest of the information you have provided here is... well... original to say the least.

William wrote:

My conclusions come from a very, well tuned common sense and the ability to use deductive reasoning that can only come from the clarity of mind. You don't get that from academia. Interpret that as you will. I will tell you the media, especially television, was an instrumental tool in the overall process. So to give you a clue as to "who" they are, they control that too. Television went from an entertainment source to most affective tool of brainwashing ever devised by man and still is. They don't call it the "vast wasteland" for no nothing.

Are you sure you are not confusing deductive with inductive? I have not really heard any real deductive arguments in the essence of the word in this thread. But that does not matter because your opinion is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it. But I wouldn't give academia such a bad wrap though... you are utilizing it when you write your thoughts down on this forum in the form of english syntactical structure and ironically, deduction which though you claim to treasure but was a result of academic study. These concepts do not appear out the blue. As for the rest, I'm not really much for conspiracy theories.

William wrote:

Vide, if you choose to know the truth, there is information out there and it takes guts to look for it. Yes a lot of it will definitely counter what you have been conditioned to think. My entire life has been devoted to it.

This reminds me of an old vedanta hindu saying...

William wrote:

The truth behind abortion is not only the in-human reality of it, but what it suggests are those measures the powers that be will resort to, to determine who is "viable" and who is not as it relates to that greed we have to sustain our existence. In short we have sacrificed our unborn to cure the ills of man so we will be able to live longer. God&%$# it. In doing so, we have ripped the lid off of pandora's box.

The truth behind abortion is not cut and clear on either side. But I would seriously urge more of an objective approach to issues like these compared to a heavily subjective one. Not only in this issue, but in general.

William wrote:

Do you own research and if you can put blinders on the knowledge you have been forced to learn that have formed those erroneous opinions you so brilliantly espouse. Perhaps you did make straight A's. Wonderful. Do a little critical thinking on your own, outside the box. You ego will protest, I assure you, but you will be amazed at what you will discover.

interesting though how you have been the only one to suggest these "blinders." I cannot bring myself to suggest the same thing becuase it would mean that I am narrowing my point of view. I cannot willfully do that. Different perspectives are what make this world so interesting to begin with and closing off a portion of that world seems horribly wrong. On the issues of A's and education... proper education does not matter as much as the drive to be educated. There are many people with half of what I or any other person have in the way of proper accreditation but are simply brilliant and well informed in their own right regardless of the absence of those all important A's. This, i think, is equality. The common realization rather than the biased view point.

So is it fair for you then to assert that I lack this critical thinking, the definiteness in my own personal opinion and disregard for others, and the scruples of my own ego? I'm not concerned about your judgment, only the exploration of the issue. Darnedest thing about that ego though that the accuser usually suffers from their own substantiations as much as the accused. On a side note, there is nothing outside the box... only more boxes. LOL!

@VideCorSpoon,

Thanks for the interesting dialog. I do appreciate the manner in which you present your opinions with a respect and grace that is applaudable. I am relatively new at this and thanks to those like you I can smooth out the rough edges that sometimes squeak through. Oh, and for the record, you were the first one to use the word "dude". Ha. I hate it when someone call's me that. I used it only as a retaliation, sorry. I don't like to do that either. I'm getting better though. Not bad for a kid who barely got through high school with a C average.

You are a valuable asset to the forum and I personally do appreciate the finesse with which you conduct yourself. Bear with me, mine is gettingbetter. You should have seen me a year ago on another forum. Whew!:whistling:

Oh, and by the way, when are going to present us with another court decision to discuss. Smile

William

@VideCorSpoon,

Surely one can see from what I am saying that women when raising children realise their physical weakness and so construct a physical protector role for men.

To say men do not allow women to serve in the military surely shows that men's physical strength actually determines their ability to do this. If women had that equal capacity, then what men wanted would not matter, as women would simply force their way into the military.

But women are smarter than this for the most part. They know that men are natural protectors. So when raising children, they construct the appropriate roles for the most part.

Men play a minor role in raising children in the first 6 years when most personality is formed. So what I am saying is that the old-fashioned roles are enforced by both men and women (for the most part) because these roles fit with the physical and emotional attributes of both men and women.

But, women play the bigger role in personality formation. So their (perceived) position of weakness, is actually their own doing. But its not a total weakness at all. That women play the larger role in personality formation shows them to be emotionally stronger than men.

So why all the fuss over equality by many young women?

Well, the ego wants it all. She wants to maintain her position of emotional strength, whilst taking over the position of males as well.

Consider the notion of sirnames.
When a woman insists on NOT taking a mans sirname she is doing nothing for women at all. She is actually giving the name of her father to the child. Not her mother.

And, a sirname is actually a SIREname. That is, it denotes the male lineage.
So what on earth is she achieving by subverting the sirname of her husband?
All she is achieving is a an illogical attempt at ego domination.

Now if women wanted to record their female lineage through name, that would be great. All boys and girls could have another name which stems from female lineage; in addition to the sirname. We could call this the 'Damename'.

But placing the girl's father's SIRname in an illogical place is astonishingly obstructive.

@VideCorSpoon,

(no sexism is intended in this comment)

There could never be a world where one gender alone thrives. The genders are two halves of the whole that we call humankind. Man needs woman to exist. Woman needs man to exist. Therefore, men and women are equal. Neither can be more important than another, and though each plays their own societal roles, these roles are only due to biological factors. Women can read people, have better peripheral vision, and have better linguistic and common knowledge. Men can solve problems quickly, have more tunnel vision, and grow muscle mass more quickly. Women get men out of trouble, and men protect women from trouble. So what would be the use of the other if one was greater than the other? If one had more power, the other wouldn't have to exist!
In conclusion, women and men may have their view of which one is more powerful, but they are both wrong-they have an equal purpose in life.

I'm sorry if I kept rambling on in poetic nonsense and confusing phrases; I'm not exactly the best at explaining my ideas.

Philosophy Forum

Are women feminists?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know