National Organization for Women?

Question

How much of today's family dynamics have been adversely effected by the feminist movement of the late 60's? What is better?

Answer 1

Sorry, but I can't decide what's negatively impacted family dynamics more: the feminist movement or its backlash. On the one hand, women have more choice and freedom now to do and be whatever, but on the other, we can't win staying home or working - either way, we're demonized by someone - we can't win being glam or being butch, being intelligent and self-sufficient or ignorant and needy. It seems any way you slice it, our choices of what and/or how to be are not o.k. Traits that are considered "feminine" by the prevailing wisdom are still not valued - just look at how effeminate men are treated (but "masculine" women are not particularly valued, either)! When it comes to sex and gender, Americans tend to speak out of both sides of their respective mouths.

As far as family, obviously two career-focused, and, thus, less available, parents are going to raise different children. I certainly think this has contributed to a sort of hyper-individualism. I also think kids seem more likely to hold up celebrities and athletes as role models, which is particularly dangerous (although I just read about a survey that said teenagers still look up to their parents most, or so they say). The last people I want my daughter to emulate are the likes of the Hilton girls, LiLo, the Duff sisters, Ms. Spears, and so on. I think young women like these have rolled back female progress at least a decade, maybe two.

As I sit and think about it, I think an erosion of family values has more to do with economics than with the Women's Movement. I mean, after WWII, when all those soldiers were coming back to the GI Bill and suburban development and myriad household appliances... that was when the US, I think, got a real taste of and for consumption and, I hate to keep using Dr. Seuss's Lorax, but America felt compelled toward "biggering and biggering and biggering and biggering... to make the thneeds that everyone needs." Maybe the Women's Movement was, in fact, an outgrowth of economic need. The economy was growing so fast, as families grew (during the Baby Boom), that there was an abundance of work and a shortage of labor. Women had to go to work in greater numbers, not only as producers, but also in order to increase the family's purchasing power, which was now perceived as a necessity because of all of these fantastically useful new products. Shift women from home to work but frame that shift in terms of "liberation" so as to make everyone look and feel good, right? But what a sad testimony to our cultural values, when our children ask, and I've heard this a hundred times from kids I've worked with, as well as, my own, "Mommy, why do you go to work?" and the answer is more often than I think a lot of women would like to admit, "Well, sweetheart, because I have to. We have this [fill in the blank with whatever property is important to the family - house, car, heat, toys, clothing, etc.], and we need money to pay for it. I'd love to play with you, but I have to go to work to make money to pay for all of the nice things we have." Occasionally, a woman will say, "I go to work because I was blessed with these certain skills and I want to share them with our community," but those women are rare.

So, ultimately, perhaps family dynamics are more adversely affected by Americans' misplaced values and penchant for conspicuous consumption than by women's liberation. I don't know... just a fleeting idea.

Again, great question... you've got me thinking... which is amazing considering I haven't slept tonight.

Answer 2

Sir, your question is rather vague.

I believe that today's family dynamics are markedly effected by the failure of this nation to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. This amendment to the US Constitution was defeated by the Mormons and other religious conservatives who believe that men have God given rights that women do not have. Had that amendment been made part of the constitution, America would be a much stronger, more unified nation by giving economic and financial equality to both men and women. NOW was a supporter of the amendment, and continues to support both "the cause" and individual women who have been discriminated against simply because they are women. Our families are weaker and less able to sustain themselves because of the failure of honest, hard working Americans to pass the equality amendment.

Answer 3

I think that many families/couples approach has been changed to a more team based philosophy. Both share the various roles associated with running a family, i.e. many husbands will do some or all of the house work, wives often are the primary bread winners etc.

Answer 4

Democrat Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman a "Whore" and decrease than 24 hrs afterwards the nationwide employer for females individuals (NOW) counseled him. Why?? because of the fact Jerry Brown is a "liberal" Democrat. i presumed they stood up for females individuals? or do they only upward push up for Liberal women individuals? NOW "The nationwide employer of Whores" oh, i'm sorry, is that offensive? in ordinary terms helps the rights of "liberal women individuals" who accept as true with NOW. Had Jerry Brown been an Conservative-Republican and Meg Whitman a Liberal-Democrat, NOW, alongside with something of the leftist hordes alongside with the media, could be more suitable a lynch mob against him and his human beings for what became mentioned. it is totally obvious that NOW in ordinary terms cares with regards to the project of sexism and ladies individuals's rights, as long as they are the main suitable form of girls individuals being attacked.. Being an Conservative "woman " isn't the main suitable form of woman that NOW desires to take care of from sexism and discrimination. merely shows what phonies they are.