The legacy of woman’s rights to our society

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I am very happy with what woman’s before me has achieved so we now be able to enjoy the liberties of we enjoy now.

But. . . are we woman has come to far . . . what we have now is actually the end result that pioneer women before us wanted ?

Do we have too many liberties? Been allowed to live life and to question our role in society, demanding Religious freedom, a voice in government, be able to support our own and pay taxes is taking away from our roles as mothers, nurtures and wifely duties?

Women are not longer slaves of a household and husbands.

But is that a good thing? Single mothers are becoming the trend, but are we helping society with our freedoms or hindering society and family values.

What do you think.




posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
This is a perfect subject to discuss in Social Issues, marg, even if it is a volatile one. There is no question that we aren't going back in terms of women's rights, unless radical Islam becomes the world's religion. Clearly, freedom entails responsibilities and most adults understand that from a personal view, but from a social view, the connection is far less clear. I hope we can get some points of view regarding this topic.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
ummm...which is worse, having a few single moms in society, or having a few battered women and children in socieity forced to live with their batterer because there's no alternatives?

should a women be able to rely on herself to the point where she can at least provide her own needs, or should she be dependant (and still, in some men's eyes, beholding) to a man for what she needs, and well, unable to buy even the basics for her kids without a man's cooperation?


tell me, should a whole family unit be injured in so bad a way as they were when women didn't enjoy equal opportunites in the workforce, just because one man failed in his "responsibilities"?

I think most know where I stand on this.....

ya know what, I work 8 hours five days a week, come home and work a few more hours after work, and put in at least 6 or more hours on the weekend.... I am putting in more hours per week than my husband by a long shot. I get less than half the paycheck he does, have these men running around griping about how unfair it is for the "men to work so hard all their lives, just to have half of it taken away from them"...

ya know what, I am sick of it!!! it's so obvious that society doesn't recognize the contribution that wives and mothers give, heck their own husbands don't recognize it, they think that their wives are indebted to them for all their sacrifice, and well, still thought by some that this debt should be repaid by complete obedience.

It's time for a shift in thought patterns! women are equally responsible for the financial security of the children, don't believe me, well, what happens when the husband up and splits, or is sick or hurt, or dies, or just fails in the endeavor? doesn't that responsibility fall upon the women?

and men, they are equally responsible for the care and nuturing of those children. and ya know what, if both were to take this responsibility on in the beginning or their lives, and prepare themselves for it, well, I bet life would be easier and more enjoyable for all of them throughout their lives. women would be earning m ore, the workweek would be able to be shortened, men would have more family time, and women would have a life outside of the home.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The decline of western civilization began when women started to vote. The legacy is doom...........



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a little before this country was founded, God planted a small seed into the consciousness of enslaved men. a desire to be free from pope, free from kings. a desire to have a direct connection between him and his creator with no one in between. the Bible was printed in a language he could understand, new churches were formed that places more of the responsibility onto him to make the right decisions. ect...kings were overthrown and lost their power. men decided they didn't like their masters and replaced them with employers, elected officials, and ministers who were answerable to their congregations. but, well, then it was women's turn, and in the beginning, well, men went along with it, until they saw just what a leap of faith it entailed. and they pulled back. instead of giving women the same freedoms as men, they conned them into believing a lie. instead of equality, women were offered a much easier lord that they could chose over their husband, the welfare system was created, ect. some have managed to find true freedom, but once children come into the picture, that freedom is elusive as all hell. dependancy is servitude!! it doesn't matter if that dependency is to a husband, or the government.

our decline began once it was obvious that men had no intention of extending that freedom God granted them to women. those who seek to enslave, will eventually be enslaved themselves.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
our decline began once it was obvious that men had no intention of extending that freedom God granted them to women. those who seek to enslave, will eventually be enslaved themselves.


I'm a little confused by this, dawnstar. Could you elaborate a little on the dynamics of this process? Male-dominated legislatures and courts have paved the way for women in our society to the point that we now send our women to war. What more freedoms do you desire?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
As a sociologist, I have spent some time studying this very thing. (My major research areas are gender issues and deviant behaviour.) Thermopolis, I feel fairly certain that the reason you didn’t post any statistics or actual data to back up your theory is because none exists.

To answer the question posted by marg6043, “Do we have too many liberties?”
The answer is no, absolutely not. To be able to live life, question our roles, have religious freedom, etc should not be looked upon as special privileges or as obstacles to our “real” purposes (motherhood and slavery to men).

First, we are not inferior to men. Any right that a man enjoys, women should expect as well.
Second, who defined those “real” purposes? Women are socialized into patriarchy and it is the established patriarchy that makes rules like this: For a woman to take care of her family, she must spend more time with the family; for a man to take care of his family, he must spend more time at work. This rule is only valid if you believe it. There is no scientific proof for it anywhere on the planet.

I am just as human as a man, and therefore the same rules should apply. Any liberty that a man enjoys, I should enjoy as well, but do not think that I am wanting to squash men's rights.

The truth is that patriarchy hurts men just as much as it does women. Why don’t men complain about it? Because, it wouldn’t be manly to do so. Many men don't even realize they are being damaged, because to even consider it isn't manly. It is only because we are women that we can complain openly about our standing in society, but if the general public ever found out just how damaging the current system is, patriarchy would be out the _ It isn’t good for anyone.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What more freedoms do you desire?


That is a fantastic question! For me, I want men and women to be free of the nonsense of the dominant / submissive ideal. I believe that someday, when men realize that patriarcy is damaging them, they may release it. I want men to be free of patriarchy, because when men break free of it, so will women.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
The truth is that patriarchy hurts men just as much as it does women. Why don’t men complain about it? Because, it wouldn’t be manly to do so. Many men don't even realize they are being damaged, because to even consider it isn't manly. It is only because we are women that we can complain openly about our standing in society, but if the general public ever found out just how damaging the current system is, patriarchy would be out the _ It isn’t good for anyone.


It's a pleasure to have a sociologist aboard. Perhaps, you could clarify a few things for me.

Do you have a model of successful matriarchy for us to examine or are you suggesting anarchy and is there a successful model for that? What do you propose in the absence of patriarchy?, which I think is pretty much dead in America already. Is the current family model better or worse, in your view, and what would you call it?


[edit on 2006/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It's a pleasure to have a sociologist aboard. .


First of all, thank you.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Do you have a model of successful matriarchy...snip


No, I don't believe that there can be a successful matriarchy. Matriarchy would be just as big of a problem as patriarchy. Matriarchy would simply reverse the problems, and I certainly would not want to live with the problems that men currently have.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
snip ... or are you suggesting anarchy and is there a successful model for that?


No, I am not aware of any successful model for that.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What do you propose in the absence of patriarchy?


I would just propose equality. Ideally, (although I know that 'the ideal situation' isn't likely to ever happen) we would stop lying to men so that they would no longer be required to repress their emotions. When a small boys cries we say, "Boys don't cry." Obviously we are lying, the boy is in tears when we say it.

We would then rid ourselves (in the Southern US anyway) of the idea of a "culture of honor." A "culture of honor" is a misnomer that dictates that the only acceptable emotion for men to display on a regular basis is anger and that it is okay for men to react violently in anger for the least slight to their manhood. (Example: If someone calls you gay or asks your girl to dance, you are within your right to beat them to a bloody pulp. Doing so may be the only way to protect your manhood.)

Then we would stop glorifying violence in the media. In the last 50 years the size of guns used by action heroes has been increased over 15 times. (Example: Bogart could threaten a man by pulling a .22 but Rambo carried something that looks as though it should have been mounted on a tank - he carried two of them in one movie, one in each hand. Ideas concerning masculinity have indeed changed.)

There are plenty more examples where those came from, but the results of this are what really bother me:

Men are four times more likely to succeed in committing suicide.
Men have shorter life spans in general.
Men are ten times more likely to commit a violent crime, and five times more likely than women to be the victim of a violent crime. (This is in spite of domestic violence and rape, which ordinarily have women victims.)
Men are less likely to seek medical attention until a condition becomes serious.
Men are less likely to admit being overwhelmed, and therefore they do not receive emotional support. They are much less likely to seek counseling.
Men pay more for driving insurance and life insurance.

The absence of patriarchy could bring about the absence of everything in the above list.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is the current family model better or worse, in your view . . .?


In an earlier family model, men were under tremendous pressure to provide for the family. Women were heavily dominated. Children were property, but were economic assets.

Now, men are still under pressure when it comes to work roles, but I think the pressure is less. Women are still dominated, but to a much lesser degree. Children are not property but are economic liabilities.

Family issues are a bit outside of my balliwick, but I would have to say that both models, old and new, have drawbacks. Since the early 1980's the family model has been undergoing rapid changes, and I think that some of them have been positive. Just off of the top of my head I would have to say that the current family model, although it is in flux, is an improvement over the old.

[edit on 7/16/06 by wellwhatnow]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
(Example: If someone calls you gay or asks your girl to dance, you are within your right to beat them to a bloody pulp. Doing so may be the only way to protect your manhood.)


I'm sorry. I hate to pick this statement out of your scholarly discourse, but I just can't seem to get past this. What would your ideal response to someone who presumes to make an issue of another's sexual orientation? Personally, I wouldn't necessarily consider beating the offender to a bloody pulp, but a bum's rush would be the very least such a presumptuous idiot could expect from me. I somehow doubt that any amount of socialization would ever change the very essence of manhood. At least, I hope not. I'm all for "turning the other cheek," but in some situations action is the only reasonable response, whether a woman is involved or not. Also, what is wrong with protecting one's manhood?

In most situations, merely asking a woman to dance is really not a fighting issue, in my experience, unless the inquirer is overly aggressive with the woman. It is customary, I believe to ask a lady's escort for the privilege of a dance, but I'm old-fashioned and a terrible dancer.

A brief response will suffice, then we'll need to return to marg's original subject.


[edit on 2006/7/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I think that it isn't a case of socialisation changing the essence of manhood, I think that socialisation is what creates the essence of manhood in the first place.

To keep my answer brief I think it is important to think about the opposite. How can I protect my womanhood? If someone asks my partner to dance, would it protect my womanhood for me to resort to violence? In most cultures, no. This demonstrates a clear difference, yet the difference is not a biological one. It is a difference in socialisation.

Under the circumstances, men cannot be blamed for aggressive acts. Our culture requires them to act aggressively and trains them extensively for that very purpose.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Great thread marg - and good questions.

IMO - healthy societies respect all people - men, women and children - and all living things.

I support most of the goals of the old women's movement because it tried to create balance - but seems to me that the "women's movement" was appropriated by the Eugenics Movement when it had to go underground after WWII.

Now - "women's rights" is mainly a front to push "racial hygiene" and "good" breeding (abortion) - to support the corporate political-economic takeover (turning everyone into draft horses, including women) - and help establish the new corporate feudalism.

Also, one of the main effects of so-called equality is to camouflage the fact that Americans are sick and getting sicker - by taking responsibility (and ability) for "family health oversight" from mothers, and giving the power to AMA doctors and drug companies.


.

ed missed word

[edit on 17-7-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I am very happy with what woman’s before me has achieved so we now be able to enjoy the liberties of we enjoy now.

But. . . are we woman has come to far . . . what we have now is actually the end result that pioneer women before us wanted ?


I believe what the pioneering leaders of women's rights wanted was a better life for their daughters and future generations of women. But times change and visions for a brighter future change. Besides, at this point in time, why does it matter what these pioneer women wanted? Shouldn't it be, "What rights do women today want?"

I still want equal pay. I still want autonomy over my own body. I still want my voice heard and my opinion to count for something. I could go on and on. As a whole, women have made tremendous progress in the struggle to attain these basic rights. Unfortunately, there is still much to be achieved.

The one thing I am sure of, returning to the "days of old" is not a feasible solution.


Originally posted by marg6043
Women are not longer slaves of a household and husbands.

But is that a good thing? Single mothers are becoming the trend, but are we helping society with our freedoms or hindering society and family values.


As far as single mothers go, it is a trend, not the trend. It should also be duly noted that for every single mother, there is a father unwilling to take responsibility for his actions. It still takes two to tango, and it is unfair to stigmatize women who fall into the category of single motherhood. I would hate to think we would resort to the practice of forcing unwed mothers to display the letter "A" emblazoned across their breasts.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust

I still want autonomy over my own body.


Good post maria - thanks.


FYI - my post above might be interpreted otherwise, so I have to say it clearly:

I own my own body - and no one has any right to control my body. I believe in every woman's right to choose - and I will exercise my own rights no matter what the laws of the land may say.

...One of the reasons witches were burned back when was to destroy women's power and healing knowledge - to pave the way for male doctors and eventually, the AMA. But women's knowledge is still preserved.

"They" only have the power we give them.




posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


I'm a little confused by this, dawnstar. Could you elaborate a little on the dynamics of this process? Male-dominated legislatures and courts have paved the way for women in our society to the point that we now send our women to war. What more freedoms do you desire?


but, even without the legislation, if war was to come home to our backyard, women would be fighting, would they not? the first states to grant women any rights were in the western states, where the women were forced to step over the imaginary boundaries of gender roles. out of necessity of course. when it is necessary, or even when it is convenient for men, these imaginary boundaries disappear quite easily, don't they? only to reappear later, when it become bothersome for them. or at least this has been my experience.

yes the government has passed rules and laws, made decisions out the ying-yang to extend equality to women. it's obvious that for a major portion of the population, it hasn't rested within their hearts. churches still preach the submissive, servant, dependant roles of women, women still sholder the majority of the household, childcare duties, and because of this she cannot focus as clearly on career and wage earning as a man does. so, we come to the conclusion that women are in need of financial assistance either from the husband, or from the government if the husband is not available to provide it to her. when what she needed was for the men to take on a share of her responsibilities giving her the time and energy to devout to invest into her financial state. but, this can't be legislated, can it? so, in light of women's "handicap" more laws are passed, a nice welfare scheme thought up, and low and behold, companies get out of paying a fair wage, the divorce rate climbs higher, our economy is twisted to the point where we are all working more and more, for less and less. and the cost of living keeps going higher and highet, because well, if they can't get it from the customers, well, there's always a very wealthy government that will chip in and help out right? more and more people become dependant on the government, men and women....and dependancy leads to servitude!!

and the women are still sholdering the major portion of the household and childcare duties!!!

equality and freedom can only be legislated to a certain point, it takes the people embracing it to bring it into fullfillment, this hasn't happened and the government can't do a thing about that one. it's up to us.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I don't care about your filthy society of worthless apes, I will only care when our pets have the rights to vote. A lot of people treat their animal friends like crap and they ask nothing in return except food, water, and a place to poo. You humans are so selfish, I hope you all feel what it's like to become nearly extinct!



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Personally, I think a lot of the cries back then were misrepresented and misunderstood. I believe that most women want what they do to be respect. They want to be seen as equals. For a long time after the movement, housewives were looked down upon. It was still looked down upon (by women) 9 years ago when I started staying home. A few years later, it became a highly respected position. Granted a lot of women do not stay home, most because they can not afford it, some because they do not want to. It is a very difficult, and necessary job. One that was not respected prior to the movement by men. Now that many women work, men have had a taste however small of what it takes to be a housewife. There is more respect from men than there has ever been. Respect rather than the aditude of "thats womens work". I think that was one of the great accomplishments of the movement.

For many women, being a housewife is a death sentence. You have no credit, because you have no income. Not enough put into social security for later, no retirment program. If he ups and leaves, finding a job is quite difficult. For a couple of years now I have been looking into how to change that. People can write off their childcare expences, but not if the mom stays home. So, I have been looking into how to write my job as being self employed. Take the womens movement a bit further. I would be self employed, hubby pays me half of what he makes, everything I buy would be a tax write off, etc. But that is a bit off subject, so I will stop there.

Basicly, women just want to be seen as equals. They want what they do to be respected. Unfortunatly, now it is other women who judge worse than men. Women wanted men to know that they are fully capable of doing anything they can do, and they went out of their way to prove it. I do not believe they wanted to take on the whole thing though. I am sure it will work itself out over time.

With that said, I want to make sure credit is given to all those men out there who have taken on the woman's roles as well as their own. That has to be very difficult for them. They do not have the dna to go with that role. The perks of being a woman....able to do 5 things at the same time, the maternal instincts, and as I mentioned in another thread, the instinct to be glue and keep every thing together. Men are not mentally built to be housewives, so I applaud all of them who have stepped up to the plate.



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
...[A]re we helping society with our freedoms or hindering society and family values.


Let's not forget this question. Has "women's liberation" been beneficial to society, its stability and its perpetuation?



posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Let's not forget, stay at home women are more apt not to have health insurance. insurance it tied to employment, and if she doesn't work, well, maybe just mayber her husband can add her to his plan, but it's much more expensive, and many times just plain too expensive. so, the men will insure themselves, but momma and kiddies go without.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join