Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

Many people have had 'movements' to change things all throughout history, and sometimes it backfires or ends up in disasterous consequences.

Yes. For example the 'movement' to rid the world of Jews? Is that the kind of movement you mean? There are certainly different types of movements. I don't think, however, that a movement toward equality for all people will end in a disaster. Are you concerned that the feminist movement will have disasterous consequences?

Not only that movement (heh, godwin's law, eat your heart out), but there have been many, and that would kinda hit the top 5 I suppose. I wouldn't think the feminist movement would have disasterous consequences (though it would be possible of course), I do feel somewhat threatened by the extremists, but who doesn't (in respects to extremists of almost anything). I'm just saying what I realized once when I was told I would be a great teacher: Who am I to teach others? What if I teach them wrong? What if, by my teaching, I impact someone in a negative fashion? (hence why I used the word vain in my first post)

Otherwise, thanks for the clarification and amplification on my queries, very well explained.

Originally posted by dedre
I'm just saying what I realized once when I was told I would be a great teacher: Who am I to teach others? What if I teach them wrong? What if, by my teaching, I impact someone in a negative fashion? (hence why I used the word vain in my first post)

I think that's an important point. And what I would say about that is that I am ultimately accountable for what I choose to believe. You (or anyone) as a 'teacher' couldn't make me believe anything. We all have our free will. And I hold other people as able to form their opinions and views. So, while I think we as human beings have information to share and even lessons to teach each other, ultimately each of us is responsible for what we choose to believe and do.

On another subject:

Legal Ban on Sex Toys

But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
...
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

South Carolina law borrows from a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to define obscene as something "contemporary community standards" determine as "patently offensive" sexual conduct, which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Fortunately, it looks like this won't pass, but Alabama has a ban as far as I can find out.

I suspect that sex toys, the newer ones being mostly designed for female pleasure, are seen as a bit of a threat. However, if they market Viagra as having benefit to men and women (as we know they do) then who needs sex toys? Viagra will take care of you both!

Any thoughts on this? Did people know aobut this?

Frankly, to me, the whole discussion about whether Condoleeza Rice is a powerful woman or not, while interesting, is indicative of just how much the culture has NOT changed. And yes, I believe that the human species would benefit from some fundamental changes.

Condoleeza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright - and others - are considered beacons of women's progress towards equality.

However, all these women truly represent is that women can assume positions of power in the same old tired male-dominated patriarchy. These women, as impressive as they are, do NOT represent any fundamental change in the culture. The culture is still patriarchal, hierarchal, dominated by philosophies of power and fear. Basically the same as it has been for centuries.

The fact that women can now hold positions of 'power' in this culture represents at best minor modifications... much the same way that the engine in a brand new car represents minor modifications, and indeed improvements, but is fundamentally still the same design as first appeared over 100 years ago.

On the subject of women in powerful positions, is it possible that when we vote in our first female President, these attitudes might change?

Are we able to judge women on their merits instead of giving in to the patriarchal system then?

With those two questions, I agree with Benevolent Heretic that although Dr. Rice is in a powerful postion, her stand on women's issues have been nil. She's hawkish. Of course. She's intelligent. Of course. But is that all?

I think that when people are afforded positions of power, they can either use it or abuse it. Dr. Rice, in her position, could have used her station within the government for good. But, she has squandered it, pandering not only to "patriarchal" influences, but also to politics which at the outset doesn't truly serve her best interests at heart.

As a woman, she could have spoken out on human trafficking. She did not. She could have spoken on the issue of young women and how they could make an influence within government. She did not. She even could have taken the time to address women's issues as a whole. She did not.

Instead, she spent her time "parroting" what she has been told and doing what is "socially acceptable" within a patriarchal system.

Because of that, she hasn't, imho, demonstrated forthrightly how women could make a difference in the world if they achieve as high a position as herself.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
However, all these women truly represent is that women can assume positions of power in the same old tired male-dominated patriarchy.

You hit the nail on the head, Mr. Heretic!

Originally posted by ceci2006
On the subject of women in powerful positions, is it possible that when we vote in our first female President, these attitudes might change?

It depends on the person. The title, the position is nothing without a powerful person to occupy it. Right now, I do not believe that the president is the most powerful person in this country. It's clear who is in charge, even though they don't hold the highest positions. So a woman president could make a difference, but only if she applied the power of the position.

Are we able to judge women on their merits instead of giving in to the patriarchal system then?

Are we? I couldn't say. I can only speak for myself. But I feel that I am able to see what people who have the opportunity of power have done or not done with that power. If they've used it or squandered it.

I agree with you, Dr. Rice is a brilliant, talented woman. But her excellence is being wasted, in my opinion. She could be powerful! She could be incredible, but sadly, I think she is keeping it under cover. Even when she speaks publicly, I get the impression she's not totally grounded or something, like she's saying what 'they' want to hear, playing along... She doesn't seem authentic.

Instead, she spent her time "parroting" what she has been told and doing what is "socially acceptable" within a patriarchal system.

That's exactly what I think. I honestly can't see her taking a stand on anything and risking losing her position in the structure.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The latest commercial features Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read, Australia's most notorious toe-cutter. In this ad Read informs potential rapists of the repurcussions that await them when they get to prison. Read
Because the ad condones violence against men who beat and rape women, it has been met with derision.

While I applaud the efforts to try and stem the occurence of rape I do question the method. This advertisement appears to me to be telling men not to rape because, if caught, their ass will be getting beaten in prison. It's not teaching a fundamental respect for women or that women should not be raped. It's saying, in a sense, don't rape and get caught, for if you do you're in trouble in prison. Furthermore, it seems to me that in not aiming to educate people and try to change fundamental attitudes, the only thing that will potentially be affected is rape - not overall attitudes towards women.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't have any respect for Condoleeza Rice.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you, Dr. Rice is a brilliant, talented woman.

Which is it Mz. Heretic?

-- Boat

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it were Madeleine Albright, a woman of true power, it would be a different story.

Oh, of course!

But BH why should I consider Madeleine Albright to be a woman, just because she has different genitals than myself? Shs just "passing" as a woman; didn't you hear??

-- Boat

Originally posted by Boatphone
Which is it Mz. Heretic?

You assume way too much. Just because a person is intelligent and talented doesn't mean they deserve my respect. There are plenty of people I can think of who are brilliant and talented that I do not respect.

Originally posted by Boatphone
But BH why should I consider Madeleine Albright to be a woman, just because she has different genitals than myself?

I don't care what you consider her. Your opinion, Boatphone, is the very least of my concerns.

I grow weary of explaining everything to you. Your constant inane questions and intent focus on other members and their opinions instead of the subject of the thread, while a hallmark of your participation on ATS at large, really have no place in this forum. We're in the Deconstructing Disinformation and Deflection forum and your constant and persistent deflection is getting very OLD.

Would it be too much to ask you to either join us in discussing the topic intelligently or else find another thread to take off topic? Yes, sadly, I suppose that is too much to ask... :shk:

*sigh* Carry on...

Okay fine, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just hate to see people I really respect get bashed on this board, I feel unfairly.

I mean if we really want to focus on the thread topic I think it is fair to say that:

1. Many people want full equaility between genders, that are not feminists.

2. Some people want full equaility between the genders who are feminists.

3. Some people who call themselves feminists, tend to blame men for everything, and show them in a negitive light.

Just my opinion...

-- Boat

Feminism is a very noble cause, but by paying women an equal amount, businesses have had to REDUCE pay to males. Now, just to make ends meet, women and men work all day and the nuclear family is disrupted. Nobody has time for their children since both mother and father must work together to pay the bills. Women may have gotten the short end of the stick back in the day, but there's a reason when ships go down someone yells "Women and children first!"

Originally posted by IAmHungry
Feminism is a very noble cause, but by paying women an equal amount, businesses have had to REDUCE pay to males. Now, just to make ends meet, women and men work all day and the nuclear family is disrupted. Nobody has time for their children since both mother and father must work together to pay the bills.

You fail to see that changing the workforce is not all it did:

It is allowing women into positions never before open to them (jobs outside traditionally female occupations). It allows women to be economically dependent of men - even in marriage. It allows women to live their lives as they see fit. So perhaps in paying women an equal amount (not always, now), or paying women anything at all mens pay had to be reduced (do you have any supporting links, by the way?) but so what? Otherwise other fundamental changes might not have begun to happen, most importantly, women's economic independance, which is crucial.

Women may have gotten the short end of the stick back in the day, but there's a reason when ships go down someone yells "Women and children first!"

Is that right? What might that reason be?

Actually that is a very important point about the kids. Since women are now financially independant the kids often get sent to daycare. Now don't get me wrong i support equal rights, but the lack of parents is damaging to development. A child needs one of the parents, male or female to stay at home for the first 4 years of their life. As our society grows we are seeing more instances of kids going wrong.

The problem is that when one parent stays at home then they are dependant on their partner and many think this is wrong. If a man stays at home then he gets ridiculed for being "under the thumb", this is just as embarrassing for a man as a women, if not more so. If a women stays at home then people have a go at her and she may even resent her husband for it.

Personally if i had a kid and my wife was absolutely against staying at home then i would do it, but i think compromise needs to come into it. The women should stay at home for two years and then the man should stay at home for two years. You can't get much more equal than that.

Many feminists absolutely say no to women staying at home though and that is wrong. They often say that men should stay at home instead and this is surely wrong as that isn't equal.

Where does that leave single parents? They have to work. And frankly, I've seen single parents that make better parents than the ones where one parent stays home with the kids.

I don't think the 'kids these days' problem comes so much from not having a parent with them all day, but from the foul parenting that gets done when they are at home.

The answers are clearly to make GOOD child care available, in work settings if necessary. And the parents need to make extra efforts to set limits and be nurturing and emotionally available to the children.

There are benefits to the kids when both parents work. Less financial stress, college funds, a respectful example, dad gets a chance to be more active in parenting and the kids get socialized and educated early.

When considering these modifications to the family dynamics, there is considerable
basis for proof that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects experienced by offspring in families were both parents are employed.
Source

In terms of parenting, I think that the mother and father should trade roles from time to time. There are times in which the wife has to make important deadlines. There are also times the husband has to complete his work as well.

In between those times, I think it is possible for the husband and wife to make allowances for each other and the children. Trading these roles, I agree, would be egalitarian. And by having both parents nurture the children, they can have both the mother and the father as role models instead of one outweighing the other.

On the subject of mothers, though: Mothers have a completely hard job to do when they both have to work and take care of the kids. Because society still has the view that the wife takes care of the kids and maintains the home, women sometimes have to do overtime trying to be "a good mother" while maintaining a career. Since this "overemphasis" on motherhood has been placed on women, the image of the "superwoman" still holds relevance.

But judging from my friends and their stresses involving trying to do too much with so little time, I know that mothers need a day off from time to time to revitalize themselves. My mother called it her "Beauty Shop" day. She says that every woman deserves one. And as I grow older, I realize why. And equally in the same way, men have to have their own activities for down time too so they won't go crazy.

That's why men in their roles as husbands and fathers have to be willing to help women out with parenting. This could only be a bonus to the kids because it does give them a chance to spend time with their father. During this time, men can be nurturing to the kids. The kids would see examples of nurturing men as part of the parenting process.

Originally posted by parrhesia

Originally posted by IAmHungry
Feminism is a very noble cause, but by paying women an equal amount, businesses have had to REDUCE pay to males. Now, just to make ends meet, women and men work all day and the nuclear family is disrupted. Nobody has time for their children since both mother and father must work together to pay the bills.

You fail to see that changing the workforce is not all it did:

It is allowing women into positions never before open to them (jobs outside traditionally female occupations). It allows women to be economically dependent of men - even in marriage. It allows women to live their lives as they see fit. So perhaps in paying women an equal amount (not always, now), or paying women anything at all mens pay had to be reduced (do you have any supporting links, by the way?) but so what? Otherwise other fundamental changes might not have begun to happen, most importantly, women's economic independance, which is crucial.

While that might be true about independence with women it raises a worrisome question....who exactly will take care of these kids if both parents work? grand parents? well thats all nice and dandy but who is supporting these grandparents babysiting these kids? it aint social security

In the end nothing is changed except an increased the population of troubled kids.....

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
....who exactly will take care of these kids if both parents work?

Someone will. Either relatives or, with the increased income of 2 parents, daycare. A good daycare. Or in-work daycare made available by one or the other parents' employer. Why do you think working mothers push so much for this? It's ideal for all concerned.

In the end nothing is changed except an increased the population of troubled kids.....

That is so not true. There is no indication that working parents result in troubled kids. Crappy parenting results in troubled kids. Giving kids everything they want regardless of cost because Jimmy and Sally have one is resulting in troubled kids. Inconsistant parenting is resulting in troubled kids. Constant access to unlimited and unsupervised TV is resulting in troubled kids. Thousands of dollars worth if video games, cell phones, ipods and gameboys is resulting in troubled kids. $200 tennis shoes and designer clothes and handbags are resulting in troubled kids. Lack of real parental attention and emotion is resulting in troubled kids. Boredom treated with drugs is resulting in troubled kids. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Teaching kids that either or both parents can work to provide for the family; that the parents respect and love each other; that it's good to have a fulfilling life as an adult and that daddy or mommy can be nurturing and/or stern will provide good role models for children to see the equality of men and women.

Two working parents, as long as they set limits and provide quality emotional availabiltiy to the children has far more benefits than downfalls.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Lack of real parental attention and emotion is resulting in troubled kids.

Interesting, isn't that what happens when parents work away, leaving children alone and unattended, or attended by a stranger, working barely minimum wage in a daycare?

When both parents work 9 to 5, whos becoming the parental figure? The Daycare worker with the pierced lips thats making out with her boyfriend todd in the closet when nobodies looking, not paying attention to the kids, who are left alone in a room for several hours.

And when both are working 9 to 5, whos teaching them morals? Or right and wrong, or things not to do? Where is that parental guidance and attention whe nthey are working 9 to 5?

Originally posted by WolfofWar
And when both are working 9 to 5, whos teaching them morals? Or right and wrong, or things not to do? Where is that parental guidance and attention whe nthey are working 9 to 5?

Being taught morals isn't a 9-5 thing. What BH is getting at is that when the parents are with their kids there isn't satisfactory parenting going on. The same may occur even if the parent is there 25/7.

Nice image of the daycare, btw. My daughter was in daycare for two years and it is/was nothing like that. Are you trying to associate something negativity about body piercing? Lack of responsibility? That they'll be a shoddy parental figure? What's the point of including that image? Doesn't matter what they look like; it really has no bearing on their responsibility taking care of our kids.

Most licensed daycares have the kids busy all the time, whether it be playing, learning and whatnot. Daycare doesn't have to be a bad thing and what you describe, imo, sounds like a teenage babysitter - not a daycare worker. In the closet with their boyfriend? I don't think so. There have to be a minimum number of adults per a certain amount of kids - there won't be just one worker and here in Canada, anyway, the job is paid much more than minimum wage.

Do you have kids, WoW? Have they been in daycare? Are you a single parent?
I'm just curious to know where you're basing your assumptions.

Originally posted by parrhesia

Being taught morals isn't a 9-5 thing. What BH is getting at is that when the parents are with their kids there isn't satisfactory parenting going on. The same may occur even if the parent is there 25/7.

no, its not a 9-5 thing, but look at it this way. Theres 24 hours a day, an average person sleeps 8 hours a day. That Leaves 16 hours, more or less, of a conscious day. A 9-5 day is about 8 hours, which leaves 8 hours of home time. Now thats just assuming the parents dont have second jobs. If you leave a child with some stranger for 8 hours, and are with them 8 hours, your only with them half of the time. WHich means any parental guidance is split 50/50. 50 between You, if your not too tired from working all day, and 50 between an unknown daycare worker whom could essentially be the son of Sam, you dont know, only they are with them. That leads to not only conflicting parental guidance, but even confusion of parental figures.

Nice image of the daycare, btw. My daughter was in daycare for two years and it is/was nothing like that. Are you trying to associate something negativity about body piercing? Lack of responsibility? That they'll be a shoddy parental figure? What's the point of including that image? Doesn't matter what they look like; it really has no bearing on their responsibility taking care of our kids.

Did I take some dramatic flair? Sure, but Parrhesia, you know me, I love painting a picture. More to the point, we're talking about people potentially the polar opposite of a parent. And you assume all parents are sending them to daycare. You assume that every daycare work is the peak top of responsibility. Theres plenty of parents who may not want to afford daycare. You know how many parents I know that just left theyre kids home alone?!? And we're talking kids that are like 6 or 7 or 8 years old.

Most licensed daycares have the kids busy all the time, whether it be playing, learning and whatnot. Daycare doesn't have to be a bad thing and what you describe, imo, sounds like a teenage babysitter - not a daycare worker. In the closet with their boyfriend? I don't think so. There have to be a minimum number of adults per a certain amount of kids - there won't be just one worker and here in Canada, anyway, the job is paid much more than minimum wage.

Again, your under the assumption of a perfect world. Fact is, people dont always have peoples best interests, and there are many reports of events occuring in daycare centers, especially in america, where a daycare attendant abuses or just neglects a child, sometimes in instances where the children have died because of it. In a perfect world perfects daycare is the perfect place to put kids, but this isn't a perfect world.

Do you have kids, WoW? Have they been in daycare? Are you a single parent?
I'm just curious to know where you're basing your assumptions.

Do any of these have any basis of the facts? No. My opinions are not voided if I didnt have kids, or were a parent, if anything, it gives me a non-partial look upon the system some parents rely upon. After all, if you NEED it, you overlook the negatives.