It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Whine, Womyn, and Thongs: How Feminism has failed

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:21 AM
The Failures of Feminism

The goals of feminism were always brilliant in their clarity: Convince women that they were an oppressed class that should agitate for political change. Hold out the promise that political change would yield a world of greater freedom that would eventually bring them greater happiness.

This project has failed. In a recent presentation at a meeting of the American Law and Economics Association, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania outlined what they called the new paradox of declining female happiness. After noting that by most objective measures, “the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years,” they showed that, nonetheless, “measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men.”

Instead, the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s gave us a steady stream of women’s complaints disguised as manifestos; institutionalization in the form of women’s studies on college campuses; and a brand of female sexual power so promiscuous that it celebrates everything from prostitution to nipple piercing as a feminist act—in other words, whine, womyn, and thongs.

It is not a surprise that the feminist movement of the late 20th century morphed into vanity and voyeurism rather than sustained political action. Its notions of women as a class were never inclusive. It had little room for women who couldn’t or wouldn’t embrace the Manichean worldview of organized feminism, and no place at all for women whose views rested on the more conservative end of the political spectrum.

An interesting take on Feminism that questions the "benefits for women" that the movement has achieved. Could it be that Betty Friedan's unnamed problem was that women had less pressure and expectation placed on them and this was mistakenly viewed as a bad thing? Are modern women, on average, happier than they were in the 1960s?

Was it really oppression from men that kept women from achievement? Or was it that women were already achieving greatly in the roles nature had dealt them? In areas such as raising children, nurturing them and instilling positives values in them, women were without a doubt the masters of their domain. So, why was there a need to convince them that material gain and power were more important societal values?

[edit on 10/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:39 AM
i dont see how anyone can take out of context their past with their present. you cannot compare the present from the past; the future judges present states.

i disagree with the notion that women are stewards of life that precedes themselves.maybe the conditions of life and the focus on the "womans role" is the defining object attemptedly studied out of proper relation of time.

my opinion
personally it would be good if you can tell a woman what she is and that just be it; and she just be that. in truth exercising this will to right of action is what causes the "problem".

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:43 AM
It looks like the femenist movement may have been instigated and used as part of an effort to turn the US communist ( or at least destroy it) which the CIA seems to have a heavey hand in...
Much like Obama having a CIA back ground and having been a community organizer who never had any success till he began using hate whitey tactics

this explains much of how things are IMHO

Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA

What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn't say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See "The Communist Manifesto" (1848).

Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States." In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999).

PS I add here I fully support individual accomplishement so I support women who wish to empower them selves...

being used by the CIA like a tool would be the opposite of personal empowerment

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:44 AM
Is that a line form a whitesnake song?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:56 AM
it has been my personal experience that indeed women are able to persue happiness more freely than before. This does not mean all women are more happy...often they are told what to think and have to deprogram themselves later on in life to stop doing as society tells you to and start doing what you want to do...sometimes this takes the form of dropping the false ambition of wanting a career and independence and find a 50s style relationship, or the opposite and forego a family in favor of being a independent woman.

the woman's lib movement simply allowed the ground here to be level to men so that they could choose their own path, be it a quiet conservative housewife role, or the oversexual "out of control" path....same with a guy whom wants to either settle down with a nice girl and have a family, or the guy whom wants to play the field without being held down while he focuses on his career, etc.

Any group that generalizes how any sex, race, etc should be acting is just as bad as those they fight against...people are individuals...not some one size fits all clone.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 06:59 AM
Whatever it was it has failed. Things are coming back to normal. If I see those feminists I will get naked in front of them and show them the finger. Of course I would still love the one I'm with, the woman I respect. It's a general law in everything that is changing. Waves will calm down in the water eventualy and you will get a plane field. The ocean will go to the mountain top if the ice caps melt. Equality takes effect.

First there were monkeys, the monkeys were dumb but ruled with the power of
the fist, then came some monkeys that were half monkeys half something else, they had a brain and gave women a chance. Then came cheap tricks done by women so women may get the upper hand. It's just cheap tricks without logic, the ilusion of the body with some words in it that were sort of stereotype. Then came logic to level everything, to make everything equal again. Are those feminists still out there ?
Just how you say no to drugs you can say no to the Bees and pick up the good ones.

There is no such place for the feminist movement in this new milenium. They may exist in countries where cave man still exists, I would have no problem with that.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:05 AM
"Wymen"??? [facepalm]
Really? Why don't they just ruin spelling completely and spell it "WYMYN".

Men and women are NOT equal.
Why fight it? There's a vast amount of things that women can do that men never can.
There are things that men can do that women cannot.
There is no better way to denounce feminism.
Ever hear of macho-ism?

I believe feminism could've been introduced into society for a higher agenda because it's absolutely ridiculous to me.

Women today are treated extremely better than in days past. Especially here in the USSA. They don't have to stay home and slave behind the stove anymore or raise kids if they don't want to...or unless society forces them out to make money because the cost of living in the USA is more...that's an entire conspiracy in itself. They are NOT second class citizens in any shape and they have every opportunity to achieve greatness in the USA. Can't speak for other countries, though.

I hate movements.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by havok]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:07 AM
Strange article. Even stranger a choice for the spelling of women. The form most commonly used to denote lesbianism?

All I really have to say is that it's a good thing the vast majority of real women don't get hung up on this "label largely devoid of meaning," which she has apparently assigned so very much meaning to. Labels do so get in the way of real life and real communication.

And is it me, or is so much of her information very 80s and 90s oriented? Perhaps that's when she took her women's studies classes.

And where are the thongs? I was promised thongs!

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by pepsi78There is no such place for the feminist movement in this new milenium. They may exist in countries where cave man still exists, I would have no problem with that.

Agreed western nations, the playing field is pretty much equal...what needs to happen now is feminists need to go east and make change there if they truely are driven towards female self empowerment...

What started as a great movement with lots of change is now a redundant process that in some have become a preaching bytchfest of mentality...

equal pay, equal vote, equal protection of law and land and let the woman decide afterwards...same with a man, etc.

the only exception I personally hold is female combatants...only because war is ugly and people do ugly things to captives...sure, there are some elements in society that is intrigued by the idea of being captured...but ultimately its all around a bad idea.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:53 AM
I think the use of Womyn is so that the same word can be written without using the word "man" or "men" as its root. Same as the word "herstory" is used by certain Feminists instead of history - again omitting the masculine root word which happens to be "his" in that case. I suppose these Feminists would say that using a masculine root promotes patriarchy and misogyny...

[edit on 10/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by havok

You are right but not, there is your equality. Women will become men, it's what they wanted ??? Hey I can do that ? I can sign up for the army and so on, I can learn karate? You can have equality even if a woman will stay a woman.
1 As a human being between man and woman there are many similarities that are identical in nature.
2 Then comes the difference because one is man and one is a woman.

There are 231821738127213 things that represent identical things we share in commune and there are 2131293812 that make us different.

I guess I'm talking about point number 1. You can have equality there.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by SaturnFX

As always a great post...
During the 70's,80's,90's and early 2000's,I was
a hard core women's libber.I swore that there wasn't
ANY MAN man enough to dominate me.I was macho
woman and tarzana all rolled into one.Then,guess what
happened?I met my future husband.

Now,I am a fat and happy housewife that bakes cookies
and makes homemade jelly.I have the time to spend hours
on ATS harrassing the rest of you.I just have to remember
to get off ATS long enough to clean my house and cook dinner.
My husband wasn't too thrilled about the soup and sandwich
dinners he had when I was too busy playing with someone
on ATS.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by pepsi78

Point taken.
I see the equality in opportunities but not sex.
Of course, I don't see/understand many aspects of human nature (including homosexuality) to begin with. Therefore, I could be biased.
I just don't understand the movement I guess.
But then again, I don't witness oppression either.

I am glad to see that women can achieve anything a man can achieve, but I was never the type of person to say they can't.
People should be treated equal, even though we are all created as individuals.

I treat everyone, let me stress everyone, equally.
Sex, race, religion, sexual preference, all irrelevant when it comes to my treatment.

Times have changed, yes...
But we are two separate entities. (IMO)

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:15 AM
I think the women's movement did just what it was designed to do.
It got women out of the home and into the work force, adding vast amounts to the tax rolls.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:17 AM
I grew up in the time frame in which you refer with five sisters. Two are divorced with huge mansions, while the other three have similar assets. They all married professional men and all have college degrees and some with advanced degrees.

The sisters were raised old fashion yet they are slowly changing over the years. I am sure there are many other variables at play other than feminism forces and rights. They always wanted to be treated like a son of the family.

To make a long story short, the sisters have huge assets compared to the brothers. I realize assets are a small portion of the equation but it sure stands out. I never have understood some things about inequality. For example, when my father dies, my mother will get all the assets. That is as good as it gets financially, except for the divorced sisters.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:37 AM
This is so simple, so elementary that I continue to be stuned that discussions still ensue. I, and countless others on these forums, have stated repeatedly that the woman's movement, ie feminism, was a product of Communism. Just look at the "Founders", the enablers and the promoters... all have Communist ties.

The Communist manifesto REQUIRES that a society be divided in order to be conquered. It requires that individual group identities be created and populations segmented in order to instill a sense of "Balance" that both "Empowers" one group while weakening another. This is how people sell their souls into slavery. This is how you prevent unity and create dependency as each group feels that it NEEDS the higher power of government to ensure its own equality.

This has been the plan all along... to collapse the United States from within without firing a single shot. Communists are very patient people and are willing to allow their infection to spread slowly, deliberately and quietly. The woman who have supported this movement have been a pawn in a greater game which only serves to accomplish the exact opposite of its stated goals.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by havok

Better then other countries? Yes. Great? No.
There is still a lot of oppression and discrimination in the workforce, and at home. I have faced it many times on a personal level. So much so that I have come to realize that men may not realize they are actually doing it.

Women have to work twice as hard for less pay to be considered an equal.

I have friends that had positions of influence, and the only way to garner respect is to act like a man.

Yet you do too much of this, you get labeled a nutcracker. Martha Stewart is a hag, but oh Donald Trump is just a businessman.

So a woman has to learn to balance on the tightrope, while someone else keeps changing the height.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I think the use of Womyn is so that the same word can be written without using the word "man" or "men" as its root. Same as the word "herstory" is used by certain Feminists instead of history - again omitting the masculine root word which happens to be "his" in that case. I suppose these Feminists would say that using a masculine root promotes patriarchy and misogyny...

[edit on 10/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Yup, and there's also 'wimmin' as well. I am from the bay area, and am well versed in how my lingam has oppressed thier yonis.

I have noticed in society there is a trend back to motherhood. When i look at my network of female friends, I see full-time mothering is absolutely more than the norm. It crosses social and economic lines as well. Many of my friends are intelligent, college educated women, and could do quite well in the workforce if they so choose...but they haven't.

I think that in the end this is all the proof one needs. Sure I have a few female friends that are professionals, but by and large, I think that women are returning to their natural role. And the natural role is sacred and valuable and more important to society than the feminazis can fathom.
In the end a part of us are still animals, still driven by instinct and thousands of years of evolution. As posted above, you can stir the water, but it still calms back to a state of balance.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:37 PM
The Feminist Movement was about creating 2 taxpayers in every family and indoctrinating children at an earlier age.

There is a lot of wisdom in the following video < 15min

Google Video Link

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by blamethegreys

It boils down to choice. And that means for both sexes. If a woman wants to pursue a career, great. Wants to be a stay at home mom. Great.
A valuable piece of advice I got once was a woman who chooses to stay at home has more choice then a woman who has to work.
I am now forced to work. And I hate it. I was happy being a stay at home mom. It is the most challenging thing I have ever done. And I took it very seriously. You are raising someone for the rest of the world. Children pass through you and are not of you. But a father's role is just as important. Just different.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in