It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Feminist Movement—Ruining The Image Of Men

page: 24
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


you are proving my point...

did women get equality? no

did things get better for women? a little bit

prior to the movement, it was the poor that held 2+ jobs in the household...

after the movement it was the middle class that needed 2 incomes to survive




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

And regarding the "nowdays women HAVE to work, it isnt a choice," I dont suppose it ever occurred to you that women HAD to go to work financially even back before "womens lib." Women have always HAD to work. Not every single one of them, but the poor have always been for the most part two income households. The options for what women could do was very limited, and they had little protection from being fired for ridiculous things, (like getting married) and that is what the whole equal rights thing was about.



Absolutely! Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality. But it was in mine.

By the way - - I was a stay at home mom until I got divorced.

I did it for my children. I did not want anyone else raising them. I enjoyed the mom part - - - but the rest of it cooking/cleaning etc - - was pure drudgery for me. I love working. I love all the interaction of having a job.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
you are proving my point...


I'm not sure I get your point.



did women get equality? no


We are still in the process, but we have made significant ground. We ARE equal. Now it's just about getting equal treatment in all areas. We're getting there.




did things get better for women? a little bit


Oh, no. A LOT! A HELL of a lot better!



prior to the movement, it was the poor that held 2+ jobs in the household...

after the movement it was the middle class that needed 2 incomes to survive


Correlation does not equal causation



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
reply to post by Annee
 


you are proving my point...

did women get equality? no

did things get better for women? a little bit

prior to the movement, it was the poor that held 2+ jobs in the household...

after the movement it was the middle class that needed 2 incomes to survive



I am not proving your point.

You are choosing to have a specific viewpoint.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I agree. I know a lot of older women 70's, 80's, and I have also done some study on marriage and family from the 1500's onward.

This idea that there was this "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle where women stayed home in skirts and heels and pearls and took care of the house and family while men went out and on their one income provided everything, is just not the case for the vast majority of people.

Its like pretending Bill Cosby's family in whatever show that was was representative of the reality of life for a large percentage of blacks. It just aint so people. There have always been single parents, often female, struggling to keep their children and themselves from homelessness and hunger. There have always been poor families, where both parents took any work they could find, and the kids fended for themselves, often with the older children being the "housewives."

The good old days werent so good, and these "horrible modern times" with the collapse of the American family, really arent so bad. The past is idealized, and the present is made to seem worse than it is. Its propaganda people. Its not real.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I stand by my original statement...

it was a scam to get the middleclass into 2 income households

www.mybudget360.com... ss-americans-are-losing-ground-by-supporting-the-financial-sector/


www.mybudget360.com...

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee



Absolutely! Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality. But it was in mine.

By the way - - I was a stay at home mom until I got divorced.

I did it for my children. I did not want anyone else raising them. I enjoyed the mom part - - - but the rest of it cooking/cleaning etc - - was pure drudgery for me. I love working. I love all the interaction of having a job.




did things get better for women? a little bit



Oh, no. A LOT! A HELL of a lot better!







if thats your version of alot better, I feel bad for you

2nd line



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

after the movement it was the middle class that needed 2 incomes to survive



Lol it always makes me laugh and feel slightly sad when i hear people saying they need 2 incomes to survive. The simple fact is you could survive on 1000 a month, 2 people with a mortgage IF you were willing to sacrifice.

For example two people probably don't need a 3 bedroom house with an 800 pound mortgage, you don't need that second car, the new tv, those new expensive clothes or any of the other stuff. People seem to confuse want with need more than ever before.

I am of the opinion that if two people can't afford a child they should make the choice not to have one. If they can afford to havea child then one of the parents should stay home to look after it. When the child goes off to school the person at home can get a aprt time job and i don't care if it's the man or woman who stays home.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by kalisdad

after the movement it was the middle class that needed 2 incomes to survive



Lol it always makes me laugh and feel slightly sad when i hear people saying they need 2 incomes to survive. The simple fact is you could survive on 1000 a month, 2 people with a mortgage IF you were willing to sacrifice.

For example two people probably don't need a 3 bedroom house with an 800 pound mortgage, you don't need that second car, the new tv, those new expensive clothes or any of the other stuff. People seem to confuse want with need more than ever before.

I am of the opinion that if two people can't afford a child they should make the choice not to have one. If they can afford to havea child then one of the parents should stay home to look after it. When the child goes off to school the person at home can get a aprt time job and i don't care if it's the man or woman who stays home.



my rent is $730 a month for a 2 bedroom.... childcare in the area I live in is over $850 a month...

I worked and covered my half the bills AND watched my wife's daughter so we could save that $800 a month... it was when my wife started having seizures that I quit my job so she wasn't alone at nights. and we still survive.

but the fact that childcare costs more than our rent is rediculous


perhaps the word NEED isn't quite accurate for everyone, but when you consider the federal minimum wage.... 2x40x$7.50=$600/week before taxes. rent+childcare = $400/week

unless one of the persons in making ALOT more than minimum wage, they NEED 2 income household

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 


Sorry i should have made it clear i was talking pounds not dollars
Still the point stands that people claming they need two incomes just to survive need a serious reality check. People only need two incomes when they are spending far more than they need to.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
if thats your version of alot better, I feel bad for you

2nd line


So you think poor women, widows, women married to alcoholics, or disabled men, or men with mental or other illnesses, divorced or abandoned women and their children should have just sucked it up and dealt with it so that some in the middle class could have the Beaver Cleaver thing going?

Heck, we could make that same argument about slavery. All those whiney black folk should have just sucked it up so that a certain segment of the population could prosper from not having to compete with them.

Right. Your argument isnt selfish at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by kalisdad
if thats your version of alot better, I feel bad for you

2nd line


So you think poor women, widows, women married to alcoholics, or disabled men, or men with mental or other illnesses, divorced or abandoned women and their children should have just sucked it up and dealt with it so that some in the middle class could have the Beaver Cleaver thing going?

Heck, we could make that same argument about slavery. All those whiney black folk should have just sucked it up so that a certain segment of the population could prosper from not having to compete with them.

Right. Your argument isnt selfish at all.



when did I ever mention 'Beaver'???

I said that after the movement, women have it a little better.

Annee said that they have it ALOT better, despite her own words that

"Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality"

my point was that the they have more options, but they still don't have equality


edit for spelling

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

when did I ever mention 'Beaver'???

I said that after the movement, women have it a little better.

Annee said that they have it ALOT better, despite her own words that

"Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality"

my point was that the they have more options, but they still don't have equality


edit for spelling

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]


Huh?

Women have the right to vote.

Women have the same legal protections as men.

Women are generally paid the same amount (some sectors lag behind).

Women can work.

Women can be government officials.

Women can be in the armed forces.

You consider these to be "a little better"?

Please point out the exact inequalities you seem to think abound.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Keeping up with the "Jones's" - is hardly a modern concept.

I'd say TV (invented by a man) & the increase of commercialism has a lot more to do with people not know the difference between - WANT and NEED.

I'm really not getting the connection that Women's Rights is responsible.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by kalisdad

when did I ever mention 'Beaver'???

I said that after the movement, women have it a little better.

Annee said that they have it ALOT better, despite her own words that

"Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality"

my point was that the they have more options, but they still don't have equality


edit for spelling

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]


Huh?

Women have the right to vote.

Women have the same legal protections as men.

Women are generally paid the same amount (some sectors lag behind).

Women can work.

Women can be government officials.

Women can be in the armed forces.

You consider these to be "a little better"?

Please point out the exact inequalities you seem to think abound.



just as Annee put it.... My wife is afraid to tell her employer that she is pregnant because she thinks she will lose her job...

---

en.wikipedia.org...

Male–female income disparity, also referred to as the "gender gap in earnings" in the United States, and as the "gender wage gap", the "gender earnings gap" and the "gender pay gap", is used by government agencies and economists to refer to statistics gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, as part of the Current Population Survey, comparing median male wages to median female wages. The gender gap is usually expressed as the ratio of female to male earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.

For example, in 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR female workers

---

www2.asanet.org...


Proving Inequality Is Alive and Well in U.S. Workplaces
Alleged discrimination at Wal-Mart and Kodak is reflective of patterns throughout American workplaces, according to new research published in the American Sociological Review.

---

beingfeminist.wordpress.com...

According to the 2007 Gender Gap Report, the U.S. has dropped 8 places in the report, from 23th to 31st.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by kalisdad

when did I ever mention 'Beaver'???

I said that after the movement, women have it a little better.

Annee said that they have it ALOT better, despite her own words that

"Women today can not even fathom they could be fired for getting married or pregnant or even living with some guy. Or rejecting advances - or not wearing nylons - or being over weight. It is not in their reality"

my point was that the they have more options, but they still don't have equality


edit for spelling

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]


Huh?

Women have the right to vote.

it's been over a century in alot of countries...

en.wikipedia.org...'s_suffrage

Women's suffrage or woman suffrage[1] is the right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women[2] and without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status. The movement's modern origins are attributed to 18th century France. In 1906, Finland was the first nation in the world to give full suffrage (the right to vote and to run for office) to all citizens, including women. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant all citizens the right to vote, in 1893, but women did not get the right to run for the New Zealand legislature until 1919.


--


Women are generally paid the same amount (some sectors lag behind).

in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages


en.wikipedia.org...

---


Women can work.

they have been for a long time....

www.nysut.org...

1765
The first society of working women, the Daughters of Liberty, is organized as an auxiliary of the Sons of Liberty, a workingman's association.

1824
Women workers strike for the first time, in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. 102 women workers strike in support of brother weavers protesting the simultaneous reduction in wages and extension of the workday.


---


Women can be government officials.

one thought comes to mind here.... THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!

---


Women can be in the armed forces.

Women in the military have a history that extends over 4,000 years into the past, throughout a vast number of cultures and nations. Women have played many roles in the military, from ancient warrior women, to the women currently serving in conflicts.

en.wikipedia.org...
---


You consider these to be "a little better"?

Please point out the exact inequalities you seem to think abound.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Please point out the exact inequalities you seem to think abound.



me joining this thread has never been about the equality or lack thereof.... I say again, it's always been about power/control.... they forcefed us the idea that women would be equal just to get the household income up so they could tax more and rape the people of their hard earned money...

www.mybudget360.com... ss-americans-are-losing-ground-by-supporting-the-financial-sector/



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

me joining this thread has never been about the equality or lack thereof.... I say again, it's always been about power/control.... they forcefed us the idea that women would be equal just to get the household income up so they could tax more and rape the people of their hard earned money...


You are entitled to believe what ever you want. I you want to believe there is some government agenda - - go for it.

But - I find that to be one of the most ridiculous viewpoints I've ever encountered.

Supression is Supression is Supression is Supression

Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights

Simple.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kalisdad

me joining this thread has never been about the equality or lack thereof.... I say again, it's always been about power/control.... they forcefed us the idea that women would be equal just to get the household income up so they could tax more and rape the people of their hard earned money...


You are entitled to believe what ever you want. I you want to believe there is some government agenda - - go for it.

But - I find that to be one of the most ridiculous viewpoints I've ever encountered.

Supression is Supression is Supression is Supression

Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights

Simple.



this is a conspiracy website.... don't most people here have their own views of things, regardless of what a few others might think??

and it's not just my viewpoint...

BRAINWASHING OF WOMEN INTO WOMEN'S LIB
truth-it.net...
--
revelationplanetearth.com...
--


[edit on 15-6-2010 by kalisdad]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kalisdad

me joining this thread has never been about the equality or lack thereof.... I say again, it's always been about power/control.... they forcefed us the idea that women would be equal just to get the household income up so they could tax more and rape the people of their hard earned money...


You are entitled to believe what ever you want. I you want to believe there is some government agenda - - go for it.

But - I find that to be one of the most ridiculous viewpoints I've ever encountered.

Supression is Supression is Supression is Supression

Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights is Equal Rights

Simple.



this is a conspiracy website.... don't most people here have their own views of things, regardless of what a few others might think??


Uh - didn't I just say you are entitled to believe whatever you want?

I just don't agree with you on this issue.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join