Started by LSBeene, Apr 20, 2005, 03:30 PM
Hey, mine wasn't nearly as long!
Women are harmed because they depend on men as breadwinners and significant others.
P.S. post your replies here as they have to get past their censors and don't post immediately.
Um.....what exactly is meant by tactful?
Hmmm, I think what was addressed was modern feminists, not women. How nice to see accolades for women that have fallen into positions of power due to feminism, yet I rarely see the words merit, or responsibility.Judging by declining standards in education and juvenile crime,and the dependance on pharmacodynamics to 'neutralize children, I whole heartedly agree that modern feminists and single mothers should not be entrusted with all the child rearing responsabilities, including the legislation thereof.I think that the timing of Schlaflys is most appropriate just before "take back the night" what better time to promote enlistment into vicarious perpetual victimology. Special protection assumption can't work without it.In fairness to the ideals of Freedom of Speech promoted by our forefathers,I'd normally suggest a speaking invitation to a NOW chapter president. I think there'll be one available before sentancing for her "awareness raising"during the self proclaimed "awareness month".CaptDMOAdult
CaptDMO wrote:Um.....what exactly is meant by tactful?I was just saying we want to present cogent and well thought out arguments and responses and not allow them to take things out of context and start whining.Steven
Amanda,When it comes to the claim of pre-1950s women making contributions to society... and how being "upper class or bourgeois" was a requirement, you will find the same is largely true for all men throughout history also. In fact, a very interesting study by Og Mandino shows that a given employee will not (1.3% of the time) invest 10 minutes a day doing a simple task that would improve his or her salary to triple its current value (1972). I would say that generally, the people who end up in the history books were the ones most willing to work for it. And for both women and men, the reason was generally for their country, or society, or for some organization or idea. Women in history did not really seem to work for "equality" in the sense it is used now because women did not see themselves as "women" so much as Brits, Americans, members of XYZ, etc. Feminism's first steps, then, were to get women to think of themselves as "women" instead of the mother of a fmaily, a member of a church, etc. Once unified into the body of "women," the rest that feminism would accomplish would be much easier. A good example of an idea becoming powerful by creating a "group" worldview would be Fathers 4 Justice in the UK (http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/). By an agressive media campaign that called upon fathers to identify themselves as "fathers for justice," this group has siginificantly changed the political landscape in the UK in less than 5 years.To put it simply, I have found through what I have learned that the historic accomplishments of women were not for the purpose of "equality" but for the advancement of their own societies, and this is most likely because women viewed themselves more as members of society than members of womanhood. you have probably had a more throurough read of literature, but it seems in the mid to late 1800s that women take on the idea that they are moreso part of womanhood than of their families, countries, etc. I would conjecture, therefore, that any "silencing" of women was more likely due to the fact that people, both men and women, viewed their immediate family and the government that protected said family as more important than their roles as "men" and "women." I think that feminism would not be able to exist in such days simply because there wasn't enough time to pursue it. As such, feminism should thank *men* for all the hard work we did in building and inventing all of the machinery that would give women enough spare time to develop feminism.When it comes to my views of feminism, I see it acting as any other organization or ideology would; it's main objective is to grow. If growing means getting basic rights for women, it will do that. If it meens getting extra priveledges for women, despite these priveledges having to be paid for by men, it will do that too. And if it needs to genreate hysteria and systematically remove rights from both men and dissenting women, then feminism, through it's believers, will begin to take away rights and marginalize opponents. Feminism already has equality in the sense that any woman can do essetially anything she wants (I think Augusta National is still holding out, but other than that...) if qualified. So if you ask me, opportunity appears to be equal. However, it is the results that are not equal; because the girls are not choosing exactly the same things as men. But why should they? Men and women are not the same, why force them to be when their qualities should complement each other? I think that is what Schlafly was trying to argue; if women want to be mothers first, let them. If they would prefer to give motherhood up first and adopt later, then they can do that. But if a woman chooses the former, to be a mother first and working woman second, then I do not think the feminists should ostracize her or blame the ever-elusive patriarchy of corrupting her. Let the woman choose, and don't be upset if her choice isn't yours.When it comes to my college, it's primarily engineering, and is nationally ranked in most all of its programs. It is very, very math intesive, and very competitive. And for some reason, women do not choose that kind of enviornment, there are visibly fewer women than men in the science and engineering courses. They are there, and in significant numbers, but usually men outnumber women between 2 to 1 to 4 to 1, depending on the class. And in a few extreme cases men are present more than 20 to 1, such as computer science (ironically, I learned this from a female CS major). However, in majors that are based more around discussions and subjective opinion instead of defined, mathematical coursework, women are present in larger numbers, sometimes equal and sometimes in the majority even. And if you wonder what I consider to be an easy major, a major in which one's social life, extracurricular activities, etc. stay fully intact. Here we have a saying, "A list of accomplishments on a resume, a girlfriend, a social life, sleep, and good grades: you can only have 2." In other words, if you have to give up a great deal in order to stay successful in a major, it'a a hard major. If you can accomplish everything on that list, then you are taking an easy major, or you have an IQ above 160. Most people don't want to make that kind of sacrifice, and for some reason this is particularly true of the women here. But perhaps I'm not looking at it right because we engineers aren't thinking with the same part of the brain. But if thay are thinking with different parts fo the brain, and that simply means they are predispositioned toward different majors which are only easier based on my subjective opinion, then the disparity in numbers isn't a big deal. And in that case, the fact that many women still go for the MRS degree shouldn't be a big deal either. Once again, if it's her choice, then why the big deal if she chooses it? You can't have freedom of choice if certain choices aren't permitted.When it comes to your reference on "the Bachelor" and oter shows, I must say that I do not watch TV. But from talking to other men, they see their sole purpose in life as finding a woman, and they do not consider themselves complete without one. I personally have endured bad relationships with manipulative women because I defined myself by being able to please them. This one is a sword that cuts both ways; the sexes are attracted to each other, and they both stand to benefit more by joining instead of trying to stand entirely on their own. However, neither sex should think that their life is defined by a current girlfriend/boyfriend.To sum up my words, I personally have seen that men and women are different, and have different wants and needs. Also, those differences, I do believe, were meant to complement each other and provide for a good, constructive relationship for both the man and the woman. Also, every woman has the right to compete with men in the world of academics, business, etc. but like men she does not have the right to win, but instead the opportunity to try. If she makes it, congrats to her. If not, then she will be among the millions of others who don't make it. It isn't discrimination, it's simply the way life works. Laboratory MikestudentGA, USA