Do you think women's lib has destoyed the family?

Question

I believe that women's lib has made life worse for women. They are no longer respected by men because they are just like men. They have made casual sex more available which is a single guy's dream come true, no more having to marry and care for a wife when he can play the field all his life. Children are out of control and are given material things to fill in for the time mom isn't there. Women no longer have time to take care of their families, husbands, and homes like they once did. They spend their day at work and come home exhausted and too tired to cook a healthy meal, thus obese children. I just believe the world was better when I was a child and mom's picked up their children afterschool instead of daycare vans and families were intact.

Answer 1

i never asked for equal rights. now i'm expected to live out some crap that someone else wanted.
what happened to free will?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

I don't think it has done the family any good that's for sure. It has given the West a larger work force and more expendable income...more flush consumers to keep the capitalist ball rolling.

It has confused traditional rolls in a relationship to a point where it is difficult to actually define what one is supposed to do in a relationship...be they either male or female.

I dislike the situation so much between the sexes in the West that I moved to the East where things are more like what they once were in the West. The downside to this Eastern culture is that women do not have the employment options that women in the West have...it is still a very rough road for a woman to become a hireable engineer. On the other hand they seem immanently happier than the average Western woman and familys are still very tight groups that stay together or at least support each other for entire lifetimes.

Answer 3

With out them I would be just a women. I would not have had the option to become an engineer. I would not be outspoken and loved for it. There are two parents in a home. Why not the man cook? Do not blame America's lack of morals and lazy children on the women's lib. Children are sitting in front of the computer and TV. Not outside playing. It is not all the women lib's fault. It is the American population in generals fault.

Answer 4

Family life started changing with industrialization and the birth of the modern era. You'd have to go way back, to a time before that, in order to find true family values, back when survival of the family was the most impotent thing. Currently the family role is still being redefined as no generation in more then a hundred years, has been able to live in the same manor as their parents. Family values were always passed down from generation to generation. But what worked for our parents, doesn't work for us. Now we are all just stumbling around in the dark, trying to find our way and our roles in this modern world with our modern families.

Answer 5

I've noticed this to be quite a discreet problem in today's society. The women's lib movement would claim men should stay home and fulfill the role you are speaking about. But how many men want to be stay at home dads? At the same time, how many women want to be stay at home moms? Quite a predicament. Even read the book "A Brave New World", its kind of screwy, but I am starting to think the state should start to take care of children since mothers and fathers are failing miserably. And to touch on your last point, appeasement does nothing but spoil a child. But what easier? Yelling at your child to be quiet and civil, or giving him anything he wants. The latter works the best, but your child will grow up worthless.

Answer 6

A lot of things have destroyed the family, woman liberation & vanity has to a certain degree eroded the traditional values/roles. What happened to Mother Theresas? ^_^

People pass tradition on for a reason. Because it worked........why did you fix something that was working? That is the perversness of this generation, thinking what happened before doesn't apply towards today.

No one is pointing the finger to woman. But there is one major difference between man and woman. Good man can admit when he is dead wrong. But a woman may just excuse herself from blame, instead using the term two parties...... There are two major differences between "traditional" man and woman. Man has ambition, discipline, and loyalty. Woman has emotions, concerns, and convictions. A good team with balanced power. I find the gay/lesbian/porn/lust communities attributing with direct diluting of these traditions.

But if the president of this country is ever a woman, I will immigrate away from this corruption & shame. It is not that I do not respect a woman's perspective, but somethings are never meant for a woman. And some woman's roles are never meant for a man. Do you think our military would be loyal/strong if the head of it was a woman?

Thanks Bill Clinton. You contributed to the stock bubble, China's rising, Osama, & complete disregard for a nation's future by having sexual irresponsibility. Maybe you can become the first lady man of the whitehouse.

Answer 7

Don't you hold men accountable for anything? Women always had the right to go out and sleep with whomever she chooses, it's just that now our society's morals are so loose, it doesn't have to be a secret anymore. Women weren't asking for the right to have sex with everybody, they wanted to vote, have educations, and careers. And yes, traditionally a woman does take care of house, husband, children and I think that's great, but there's nothing that says it has to be that way. I don't think it's womens' lib that has destroyed the family as much as just a general disintegration in our general ethical and moral values. You seem so quick to point the finger at women for all their short-comings but I don't think our problems are gender-specific. We are ALL at fault for the disaster we call our society.

Answer 8

Destroyed is a strong word. It's definitely changed it, perhaps for the worse. In the "old days" women kept the home. They cleaned, cooked and took care of the kids. The family was a strong unit because of this. Nowadays, with women working, the family unit has weakened. Dinner consists of crap, the house isn't as clean, and mom's too tired to give kids the attention they crave. If you look at traditional societies around the globe (Latin America, Asia, etc) you'll find strong family units because of strong women who are spending their energy keeping the family unit strong rather than spending it for a company.

Answer 9

Womens liberation, as it started out, was good for women and for families. It allowed women to vote, own property, make their own financial and business decisions and transactions. Been to Ottawa? There are statues of women libbers, with a newspaper heading saying "Women are considered persons!" thats a good thing. I like being able to vote.
I definitely want to be there to raise my children, when I have them, and I know how spoiled my husband feels when I bake fresh bread or pie.
And I know the effects of mothers in the working place, since I was a live in nanny twice. Kids were given whatever they wanted, there was no discipline, I had to make up house rules for the one family. And I made rules for when the children were in my care for the other family, because they wanted me to be comfortable in my position, but they didn't want it to infringe on their childrens "freedoms" Because a 2 and 4 year old know whats best for them. sheesh!
I agree to a certain extent that the family unit is under attack.
But I also want to have the choice to work when my children are all school age, maybe something parttime, because I get satisfaction from having a job, and my husband supports me in this. The big factor in this, really, is do adults have enough self-discipline to live unpromiscously, and do they have enough self-discipline to actually raise their children with rules and a "no means no and yes means yes" keeping your word is the biggest thing you can do for a child, and giving into whining and tantrums is one of the worst things you can do.

Answer 10

That is an over-genralization.

For me, it meant a sharing of all taksks and a mutual respect for the caliber of work the other does.

A real man would not be afraid of a liberated woman. And what makes a man incapable of cooking dinner or handling the laundry or picking up after himself?

And, as always, raising the children is a combination of both parents.

Am I detecting a hint of sexism in your comments?

Answer 11

I believe the family began to disintegrate in the 70's when divorce was so rampant (compared to the 60's- not today). And why was it? Because of the MEN who abandoned their families, did not pay child support and forced the wives to go outside of the home for work. This resulted in children having to raise themselves. I did not even look to see if you are a man or a woman, but either way, you are sadly mistaken in my opinion.