While helping to liberate women, has the feminist movement damaged the family unit?

Answer 1

Yes, I think so. Like it or not, children need care from their parents...both of them, if possible. Daycare or government "supervision" will NEVER be an adequate substitute for the the genuine parenting and care of a full family unit. One of the top goals the U.S.S.R. and other extremist socialist and communist movements of the past (and present) has been to destroy the family unit and replace it with government "instruction." In these locales, both parents were often working long hours at thankless jobs while their children were left almost totally at the mercy of the government's wishes.

Why? With the true family unit superseded, the children would be vulnerable to state-controlled "conditioning" (read: brainwashing). Teaching and beliefs parents might oppose would be drilled into the childrens' heads with no say from the parents involved whatsoever. The right of parents to decide what is best for their kids - rather than the government - has always been one of the cornerstones of American liberty. This has been a bulwark against the state overstepping its bounds since the beginning of the nation, and extremist socialists knew this. What better way to whittle away at individual liberty than disguise collectivism under the cover of "rights?"

Answer 2

No, the feminist movement didn't and doesn't damage the family unit.
The family unit was damaged when it required 2 people to work to afford to buy a house, feed kids and save money. Now, even 2 incomes is not enough, unless one or both of them has a college degree. The American dream of owning your own home is fading fast, thanks to greedy contractors and suppliers, and unscrupulous lenders.
I am a proud member of the feminists. I worked for several years trying to get the ERA passed in Illinois, and knew I was spitting into the wind. Farm wives didn't need to be "liberated," they were too busy working to save the family farm. I am not and never have been a lesbian althought I believe they have as much right to happiness, misery and equality as anyone.
I was also in the Navy in a time that I was "Qualified for any job in the Navy," but because I was a woman,I couldn't serve on a submarine, battle ship or carrier. I wanted to, but was not allowed, because equal rights were not available at the time.
They took a lesser qualified person onto a sub, because he had the right equipment in his pants, not in his brain.
We all lost on that one.
Greed has changed the family unit. I am shocked at how much junk people have. Everyone thinks they have to live like TV. and have a ski-doo, and boat, 3 cars, and 50 inch tv. Their kids have to have 20 pairs of shoes, and 200 movies. And outfit for everyday of the week. $200 sneakers.
Media baited us, but consumers bit.
On whether "feminism has changed things."
Women STILL don't make as much money as men. Women still don't get the educations men get. They do not have a "good ole girl" network to help them at work. There are still clubs they cannot join. They still cannot be Priests or preachers in a lot of religions.
You will never hear a little boy say, he wants to grow up to be a "daddy." and very few little girls want to grow up to be engineers or truck drivers. There is still a thing called a "tomboy" which is merely a little girl who likes to play outside and get dirty. This is a good thing.
The lesbians in the "movement" helped because for the most part they were educated and vocal. They had already violated the social code by coming out, so why not shake things even further.
Even 30 years later, it is easier to be a lesbian than a feminist.

Answer 3

Whats damaged the family unit is a cost of living so high that both members of a family have to work. Men haven't kept up with that idea and they still want to be taken care of the same way mom took care of dad, meals cooked, laundry washed, folded and put away, dishes done, house cleaned, kids cared for and a Playboy bunny in the bedroom. Its not the liberation of women its the endless work in and out of the home with men who seem to think they don't need to contribute anything but a paycheck. Women are exhausted, physically and emotionally. A truly feminist movement right now would tell women they don't need to kill themselves with two full time jobs, that having one spouse stay at home is fine, that achieving equal status in the workplace means achieving equal working at home. Feminism once meant getting the vote and being able to have access to birth control and her own inheritance and money without needing her husbands permission...time passes, and feminism means something different now.
Calling women who believe in Feminism lesbians is just plain ignorant, its like calling men who believe they have a right to high paying jobs homosexuals.
Forget the nonsense about fancy toys and huge cars, and big houses, waitresses, teachers, admin assistance, nurses and other pink collar jobs don't make that kind of money, and that's where the majority of women still work.

Answer 4

In the 1950-1960's only one working spouse was needed to support a family. Now two people must work. Thanks in part to the feminist movement. It does put added strain on the entire family.
The way that it was successful is that now women who want to work outside of the home have many more opportunities.
The feminist movement has evolved into a Democrat mouth piece who are there for the money and could care less about women's rights. It is an organization of mostly lesbian women.

Answer 5

The movement of feminism has many different sects, but many modern interpetations put women on a slope in which they aim to be the 'man' role.

It's not necessarily wrong that a women has outside goals from the former norm, it's the overall effect on the paradigm, and I'll explore that.

'The pill' was a huge step for women in the 50's, and liberated women from the fear of pregnancy in the contraversal 'sexual revolution'. It was really the beginning of the end...of the era of 'family values'. Along with many other cultural changes coming around, women were more transfixed on their goals and means forward.

Because of the new culture that demanded more government, and was still invested a war...there was havoc on the spending of the American dollar....primarily by government. In order to avoid paying off debt, Nixon took the gold standard away.

This directly effected the economy, and inflation roared it's ugly head in. Now with the combination of legalized abortions across the nation, women decide to forgo formerly high fertility rates. Inflation previous post-gold standard was very low, and cost of living was fairly steady. Raising many children was feasible and appropriate to the times.

Now that the culture changed, the currency changed, and the pill and abortions (gave 'choice'), the fertility went from 4 babies per woman (in the 50's) to less than 2 per woman (in the 80's).

Along with this change came a rise in women's employement and consequentially a rise in child obesity.

Programs such as SS and medicare (which make up half of the government budget) were put into doom....

See the needs of such programs are that we have a productive class to fund the numbers. The baby-boomers are of a larger number, because fertility was higher, the circumstance of the currency was different, and the culture had different values. Now that the circumstance is different, we'll have many old people that will live longer, but will not get government aid. Medicare/medicaid will suffer extremely...and truthfully, not much can be done to prevent those government programs from failing.

So I would say many things have led to this. I'd say this is a world phenomena, and industrialized nations tend to get more inclined towards selfishness and convience (without consequence).

I'd say that women and men have to weight their values with the long-term conditions in which they leave this country. Afterall, there children will have to deal with their mess; but to some point I don't think the masses are quite aware, and that's primarily due to the ignorance of leadership.

But I would say certain aspects of the feminist movement were negative, and women most importantly should not put more stock in themselves then there children. I realize a man has a part in their childrens life, but a woman currently has the chose to keep or abort a child...in so she has the chose to care for it, both in a personal sense and long-term political sense.

I would also favor the return of the gold-standard, and tighter monetary policy...ie less government spending.

Simply: Women should weight their goals and realistically approach them with an even view of selflessness and self-fullfillment. Being only selfish will destroy society, but being selfless may be completely unfullfilling. Hard way forward, but it's necessary.

Answer 6

I agree with Mail Cheerleader. The desire to have the big house, big car and bigger SUV, and a garage full of toys like motor cycles, boats, 4-wheelers, PWC, going out to dinner all the time, expensive vacations, etc. To feel the need to have those things as a sign of success has created the 2 income family and ruined the family unit. Too often the second income isn't for necessities such as rent, food, and electricity but to be able to afford of the other stuff that just does not add to the well being of a family.

Answer 7

what were women liberated from, the women's movement was a farse created by the liberals to make women ashamed of their role in the house. It has demolished the family unit

Answer 8

Yes. The problem is the subsequent generations of women who are taught they can do anything. Now myself and every other woman I know, feels guitlty when they AREN'T doing everything. It is a terrible cycle of stressed, guilt ridden and self sabotaging mothers out there who keep heaping more on to their already busy schedules. Children pay the price.

There is nothing wrong with a woman doing anything she wants to do. The problem is when they all try to be supermoms and do everything. The "super" is what dilutes the mom.

Answer 9

Only for those religions or cultures that have a particular view of the "family unit" that requires women to stay at home.

Not all cultures define the "family unit" the same. So, for those who have a different definition, no -- gender equality does not damage the concept of family.

Answer 10

no, the family unit has evolved. the the unit you are probably most familiar with wasn't the paradigm of families, it was only around for hundred (or so) years.

at one point in time children had nannies and wet nurses from birth, went to boarding school, and didn't live at home until they were teenagers. and then the female went to parties and social events to find a husband and left home within a year or two. the boys went to finishing school or joined the military and later came back home to marry and inherit the family property.
that's doesn't sound like a family to most people today, but for many generations that was the norm

things change. mostly things improve. right now I think their isn't a set family unit, I think its still evolving and hasn't quite reached the point of maturity where there is a prototype. we're in transition.