Feminism (or movements carrying the name, at least) has helped corrode society in many ways throughout the long march for "women's rights;"
How has feminism corroded society other that changing the way one identifies a family unit? Different is not alway bad.
Does this poster think the vote should be taken from women or the right to attend university or get a divorce from an abusive mate?
2007-03-18
11:12:11
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Fiona
4
in
Social Science
➔ Gender Studies
I understand now Robinson you have always resented the fact you didn't belong to one of those happy families that are always represented as the American ideal. They really should identify the dysfunctional ones since that is what 99 percent is comprised of. Just makes people like you an I feel like outcasts why by the way we are not.
2007-03-19
13:22:18 ·
update #1
Feminism (Striving for equality) has not corroded anything of value. For many men, (Or rather boys. Men aren't so insecure with themselves that they need to opress women) and especially boys like that poster in your quote, they feel that for every victory women gain in the quest for equality a man has lost something. It's the epitome of insecurity and hostility.
You'd think they'd be glad that their mothers/sisters/wives are now considered more than chattel and by law are actually people, able to seek out their own happiness and lifegoals. You would hope that they would want the women they love to succeed and find equality...but sadly, that's not the case. It's become a competition and these boys feel very threatened.
If you want to find the cause of "societal corrosion", how about fathers who run away without taking responsibility for their children? Or parents (Of either sex) being addicted to drugs? Or the religious far right trying to impose it's views on a world that no longer needs the views of 3000 year old goat herders. I don't mean to play the blame game, but there are many reasons for this perceived societal corrosion, and none of them have anything to do with people being treated as equals. The opposite in fact.
Edit : "Of course a woman should be educated. Then she'd be of better service to her family and to others." This call for a backwards slide back into the role of chattel for women seems even more disgusting coming from a proclaimed female. If that's what you want for yourself, that's your choice. But it shouldn't be inflicted on thinking women.
2007-03-18 11:29:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
Lord, that was MY statement!
I'm flattered.
I have never insinuated that the vote should be taken away from women, that they should be barred from universities, or that they should not be able to divorce an abusive husband.
Far from it.
I am annoyed and disgusted by supposed "feminism" that has ignored boys and injustices against men. I am annoyed and disgusted when women benefit from affirmative action in colleges while they are STILL graduating more from both high school and college (and attending college more often than males), and I am annoyed and disgusted when women divorce husbands just to get money while screwing over their children. (Just to name a few; I could rail on for a while but I'll restrict myself.)
A family unit is not a lesbian couple and two cats, if you assume such; at least, not from a cultural standpoint. Different is not always bad, but sometimes it is. A son does better with a mother AND a father. I know; I grew up WITHOUT a father, and when I compare my experiences to those of others, I was disadvantaged growing up. I'm not particularly bitter about it, but it's a fact. Males need the input of a male figure, just like females need the input of a female figure. Women don't understand a lot of things boys go through; men don't understand a lot of things girls go through. That's why a family unit generally includes a mother, a father, and children (hopefully an extended family factors in; my mother is something of a recluse so I don't have [or at least contact] one of those either).
Misrepresenting another's views though use of straw man arguments is fun, I'm sure, but try to avoid doing it in the future, especially when it really boils down to nothing more than lies.
Thanks.
2007-03-18 13:39:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Robinson0120 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
When man could not enslave each other they turned to women and some gals just would not accept this. Corroded would be a society like today where the men have all the wealth and control the political power. Until this changes you can bet that we will be at a constant state of war and disarray and no chance for diplomacy. Men have wasted human and material resources for thousands of years. So what if a woman makes a few mistakes along the way. The path is littered with the gross misconduct and misdirection of males.
2007-03-18 13:38:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by whrldpz 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Pam M, nowhere in that statement did it say anything about not letting women attend universities or getting divorces. You wrote that to get people to side with you and disagree with the statement you posted.
I for one agree with that statement.
Feminism HAS done good, but it has also helped "corrode society" just as they stated. In so many ways.
I agree with true feminism in its purist form -- we should all be equal. However, today, feminism has been hijacked by sexist women, misandrists, and female chauvinist pigs in the exact same fashion Islam has been hijacked by sociopathic terrorists.
2007-03-18 21:25:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
women can be strong without conforming with such a crazy philosophy such as feminism. if feminism ideas were adopted by all family units the children would be a mess, because they would not have a masculine nor a feminine figure in there lives. because both women and men would end up being both. the child would hvae to structure. and in this case the female ends up an over bearing metophorical male and the father becomes an emascluted broken man which can no longer teach his son to be a man. the family unit would self desctruct. since feminism divorce rate has trippled and all due to female ideology. and on top of that the women cripple the men finacialy and emotionaly.
2007-03-18 11:30:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
Face it, feminism would not exist if it werent for kind men deciding to let their wives go out and march. If the men had decided not to tolerate their women doing that, they could have easily thrown those women out on the streets without food or money, and they would have been unemployable, and unable to start their own businesses without male intervention. I think its pretty crappy to pretend for a moment that the suffrage movement could have ever succeeded if it werent for kind men who actually wanted to help women have the right to vote and be independant.
2007-03-18 18:47:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
feminism has indeed corroded our society. I'm not ashamed to say that I miss the days when men were men and women were women. There used to be a clear definite line between the two. But not anymore. I'm not ashamed to say that women should (if they have children) concentrate on being a mother first and foremost. And if she is a single parent thats fine but there are alot of women out there who work just for the sake of having a career which is just plain stupid. I'm all for giving women the right to vote and go to school and be educated and all that but seriously what more do they want. They say they're looking for equality and we already have it. So what, I ask, are they still looking for?
2007-03-18 12:46:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Becky 5
·
3⤊
5⤋
Wouldn't feminists be thrilled to know that they're being USED by the establishment to destroy society? That's right--USED. And they're looked upon by the establishment as "useful idiots."
Of course a woman should be educated. Then she'd be of better service to her family and to others.
Of course a woman should not stay with an abusive husband. Divorce should always be a last option, but there's no reason she can't separate...marriages should be saved if they can be.
2007-03-18 11:21:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
4⤊
8⤋