Any social change of significant magnitude is always stressful and requires conflict! Are you up to it, women?

Question

For women to want as significant a change in society as equality, how is that going to happen, when by nature women are not inclined to engage in real and substantial conflict. Seeking instead to avoid conflict at all costs, by denying the severity of their condition, not wanting to make enemies. Look at every significant social change that has occurred, and see the degree of conflict and anger that was manifested on all sides. And then tell us how is that social change going to happen for women, if you're not angry enough to endure the conflict, voice the anger and bear the stress of doing so.

Shingoshi Dao

I was asking if women are ready to bear the brunt force of change. I guess I was kind of annoyed with the chatter going on here about superfluous subjects. That's what this is about, nothing else.

Tera: Have you looked at the number of (virtual gossip) questions posted here by women which serve no real benefit to establishing equality? Do you believe that the majority of questions asked here serve to convince men that women are capable of strategizing for change? I mean, here we have a discussion forum for Women's Studies, that for all intentions could be held in the women's restroom.

Sometimes seeking to create humor is not appropriate, especially if that humor maintains a condition where men won't take you seriously. Too much of the time, women want to blow off steam, when in fact that steam needs to be directed into the engine of change. But then, as a man, I can't have a valid observation about any subject related to women's issues. And if you really think that, you're as much a bigot as any man you despise.

Rebel Yell: Do you really think that the majority of topics raised here are exemplary of the determination and resolve requires to make social change?

Rio Madeira: If your thirst for conflict amounts to nothing more than cat fights, how successful do you think that will be in the grand scheme of things? The issue is women's equality, not how well or much you like to fight. Where's the purpose?

Priscilla B: I see this as an opportunity to evolve my thinking about how things can be better accomplished to level the playing field. I guess it really comes down to how important it is to you. I have a daughter whom I don't want to see imprisoned in the morass of the current society. The condition of equality as it is expressed by women here must not be that big of a deal, if they are willing to trifle with the chance to do differently. I want more for my daughter, than how many places she can shop in!

Shingoshi Dao

By the way, I wasn't trying to start a fight with women. I've only been asking is this all there is those who come here?

Merrybodner: What women have done and accomplished in the past, is of little relevance to the world we live in now. Most of these women in this forum are not your age, and don't have the perspective of life that you do. I may be wrong. But I seriously doubt that you or your peers would have sat around engaging in the trite conversations that seems to predominate here. Nor would they have likely squandered the access that a resource such as this would have provided them to change or at least impact the society in which you lived at their young age. Too many see this as nothing but a gossip center, having been asked myself if I thought the Yahoo! forums should be expected to make social change.

Now, if you are as mature as I suspect you are, you know as well as I do, that change is what we make of it. The choice here is their's. I have simply been asking for and encouraging a higher level of awareness than these seem comfortable with.

Thank you for your answer,
Shingoshi Dao

The notion that equality doesn't require conflict is naive(ly ignorant). There has been NO social change in any part of the world at any time to establish equality that hasn't required (often violent) conflict. So get your head out of your cloudy @$$! Look at the original sufferrage movement to establish the right for women to vote. Look at the civil rights movement. Look at the (Caesar Chavez) farm workers movement. And all the others too numerous to count. Ghandi, for all of his nonviolent practices, didn't prevent him or his supporters from enduring extreme conflict, in the form of violence sanctioned by a supposedly civilized government. So shut up about your pie in the sky idealistic BS!

Answer 1

Just dropped by and had to reread the area I was in - I read it as women's studies, not strategizing to turn the world upside-down. Who the hell are you to dominate 'Gender & Women's Studies' by browbeating females for not preparing for battle? You want a battle? Go enlist you wuss.

Answer 2

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that chatting amongst the same group of 20 or so people on yahoo answers is going to make a significant change in the world? I would hope not. I don't think anyone comes to this forum for any other purpose than chatting. It would be hard to wager who's really involved in activism outside of here. I'm sure some people are, and some aren't.

Despite your opinion of what women are and aren't capable of, they have come a long way in the last hundred years or so, hmm?

Answer 3

There are other ways of making change than conflict. Arguing, in fact, generally goes nowhere. Doing and keeping a good attitude is truly the quickest way to prove a point without really having to speak a word (in many cases).

Points of law require debate, but heated emotional debate still tends to fall flat. A cool head and a steel spine are like gold in one's pocket.

EDIT: The question is very broad and abstract. Different issues require different approaches. I am less inclined to head straight into conflict unless I feel it is the ONLY means of attaining a goal. ...Not because I am female, but because my personallity leans toward the logical strategies rather than emotional responses.

In short...I personally prefer not to complain, cry, or yell. BETTER?

Answer 4

Shingoshi Dao,

I understand your insight for your daughter and how you want nothing but the best for her. This is commendable and should be on everyone's mind, concerning their children.

I also understand the title of this particular forum and am aware that it is Social Science/Women's Studies. I also know what it is supposed to be about and unfortunately, on Yahoo, this is mostly not the case. I can also convey query as to why it is not used for it's purpose.

However, I am not the best judge concerning this specific matter. I, myself, am not an ERA woman, to a degree. Our country has seen part of it's demise because of women's emotions being accepted as logical.

As a matter of fact, the more women became "equal", the more they have been looked upon as a whore and those supporting them, whore mongering. If you go back in history and review each and every progression as it came about, you will find that the attention given to women upon that progression was nothing but smears of whore*dom, no matter what the occasion. Taking it back to the today...If a man reveals his toned body, he is a stud. If a woman reveals her toned body, she is a whore. Several years back...If a woman wants to join an academy that only men attend, she is raped. I think you get my point. This list is very long. How many women have had to suffer grotesque and unbearable sufferings for "Women's Lib" to come about? I don't believe in barbarism from men. Men should know better and should be mature by now. How many years have we had, hm...? Is it any wonder as to why America is being called a "Whore" by other nations? Think about it?! Sadly, we've done it to ourselves.

I don't believe, as well, in a Woman becoming President of the United States. I don't believe that this country will thrive well on emotions. Yes, women can use logic. I use logic daily. But, when the stakes are raised and turmoil abounds...I do not believe a woman can handle the severity as a man would. There are places for women and we provide what is necessary for those positions quite well. However, there are places that women should not be and we do not do well.

In answer to your question, I do not believe that women can handle the stresses that men can handle. I know that when stress is high for me, I head for my husbands loving arms and allow his strength to comfort me. I look up to my husband. I do not look at him eye to eye. He is the stronger vessel and I am thankful for this. I know my place as his wife as well as all duties and nurture our children.

There is only one instance that I can say that I stand ferociously...If anyone comes against my family...I will stand in most earnestness and fight until my death to protect them.

Answer 5

It is a basic error to assume that women are not "inclined" to engage in combat, or able to handle stress. While we are not driven by certain levels of testosterone to seek out combat (as are men, apparantly), women are more than capable of handling the combativeness of change.

Men and women are different, this much is true. Men are driven to conquer, build, supply (needs), and attack obstacles. Women are usually driven to defend, define (something that has been built), refine, gather, and nurture. This difference does not imply total passissivity on the female's part, however. Just try and rob a mother bear or a lioness of their cubs, and see how "passive" they act! That defensive urge can quickly become an offensive maneuver, when enough stimulus is provided to the individual. This is true of humans as well as animals!

The women's rights movement in the US has brought about significant change. This was accomplished by the passionate zeal and sacrifice of many women, who proved themselves more than equal to the stresses involved. Many were ridiculed, some were imprisoned, some endured public humiliation, many were slandered. At least one woman was publicly accused of being a man in disguise, for "no woman" could POSSIBLY speak so powerfully and eloquently (this was Sojourner Truth, a black woman!).

Women have proved, especially in the last 100 years, that they are up to the task of affecting social change for themselves. My only problem with the woman's rights movement (at least in America) is that the leaders "aim too low". That is, they seek to make the women "just like men", without regard to whether or not the way males do things is always right. While in many instances, I feel these women have been successful, I feel they have managed to drag women down somewhat, instead of elevating them in society. I don't consider the lassaize-faire approach to marriage, divorce, and fidelity (that we have in the US) to be an improvement to our society, for example. I am horrified at the callous treatment of our children in abortion (a result of women trying to be "just like men" by being able to "walk away" from the responsibilities of pregnancy). While I appreciate the right to vote and hold property and a job, I find some of these social "inheirentnces" less than desireable.

We still have a long way to go.

BTW, in regards to your last question (Adam and Eve), I believe the Biblical record states rather plainly that Adam was with Eve at the time of her temptation. See Genesis 3. Jewish tradition holds that because Adam failed to speak up (and so prevent the tragedy of the Fall) it is now the Men's responsibility to speak up in holy gatherings. This is not seen as a "slam" on women, but a recognition of responsibility for males in the faith. THEY are supposed to get off their hind ends!

Peace.

Answer 6

Well, change has been happening for the last 20 years and nothing but good has come from it so far - women have adjusted splendidly - they don't yet 'have it all', but they are pioneers in social change. We are humans - we complain and grumble, but none of us suggest going back? You asked any women recently if they want to go back?

The men are not coping too well with it though, are they?

Answer 7

I guess I didn't realize that Yahoo Answers was designed to form revolutions and change the world. Is this not a form of entertainment? I assumed people were wasting time here rather than participating in any other numerous ways to waste time.

Just to answer your question, I say, "Bring it on!" I love conflict, overcoming it that is, and I don't mind at all being uncomfortable, for it is when I am not at ease that I realize I am changing. I embrace it and grow....Love it!

Answer 8

I am 64. I have seen social change happen and women at the forefront in civil rights, equality, etc. Progress has been made, only not enough of it. Read your history.

Answer 9

I love your use of the term, 'strategizing for change'. Like you, I see very little of it here. There is alot of mudslinging and complaining and criticizing, but I see no plan or strategy in place to change the status quo. You cannot expect change in your opponent by belittling or ridiculing him...and it reflects poorly on the movement for which you stand.

Answer 10

Ah, you're still annoyed about my cherry soda question?

LOL!

C'mon...it was supposed to be funny...it doesn't hurt to have a little humor here sometimes. Granted, my sense of humor is not as great as some, take Louis B.'s latest question, for instance...but it was an attempt, nonetheless. Why does this make you so angry?