"Feminism"

[Myweponsg00d]

In my political theory class...we have spent a lot of time speaking about "feminism" and I seem to have come up with a stance on it that many people never even thought of before, and somewhat questions the fundamental ideals of feminism. Are they even right?

 

When I see a "feminist" group running around campus with their pro-choice signs and their unshaven armpits, honestly it just distrubs me a little. I think they are missing out on something here:

 

There is nothing feminine about "feminism". No, this isn't about women not having the right to vote. No, this isn't about women having the right to leave the house...all of those things are great. Women deserve those kinds of things. What bothers me is when women go around urging little girls to set their sights high on the professional world; to not "give in" to an unfair "stereotype" and just become a housewife. I have seen so much "feminist" opinion that basically tells people "It is wrong for a woman to 'have' to stay in the house all day cooking and cleaning and raising the kids"

 

But...wait...whoa...WHY is this a "bad" thing? I don't understand a lot of feminist opinion because they say "I'm gonna do everything a man can do!" There is nothing feminine about this...in fact, I think that is absolutely DEGRADING to women. For thousands of years, women served the role of caregiver, housekeeper, etc....and why is this suddenly a BAD "stereotype" of women? Why is getting a job "better" than being a homemaker? Why do women feel that they have to say "I can do math just as well as any man can!"

 

This isn't empowering your womanhood...it is taking it AWAY from you. We are in a society that strives for equality, but in my opinion "equality" does not mean that you need to make a "step up" to the level of men...thats just ridiculous. What is wrong with the "stereotype" of men being the protectors and the workers, and women being the homemakers and the caregivers?

 

In my mind, equality comes in the form of recognizing that these qualities are EQUAL to eachother. Our society is making many women feel that staying home is less important than going out and being the boss of your own business. In my eyes, these things are equal.

 

Furthermore, the same thing could be said about men who have feminine qualities. I, for one, love to cook. I love to clean. I love to stay around my place and rearrange the house, and I've always felt like many of my natural tendencies would lead me to be an excellent homemaker. But, in today's society, this is the "wrong" thing to do....and I am just trying to figure out why so many people thought that what women tended to do was so inferior to what men tended to do.

 

What do you guys think? Please don't flame this thread for absolutely no reason...I'm not making an inflammatory post and I'm not trying to tell anyone they are an idiot for thinking whatever they think. I just thought this was an interesting view on the society that has been developing in the past 100 years, and wanted to see how you guys thought about this viewpoint.

[Saru Inc]

Whoa I was just about to post a topic on this!

 

I think they're hypocrites. If I started a group called "Masculinists" I would be deemed a sexist. Yet, these women, can for whatever reason they have, basically [bleep] about things no one cares about. They stand around picketing about women's rights instead of actually doing something. And I think it is stupid, to be honest to spell woman "womyn" what the hell? My friend is in a woman studies class, which is basically feminazi indoctrination, and my friend is now terrified of being married and living at home, because of the freak occurrences the teachers teach as if its the truth. Like wives being locked into closets while they're husbands away, etc. It's ridiculous, and annoying. I am completely for woman's rights, with out a doubt. I am not, however, for woman [bleep]ing about things, and not doing anything about them.

[Lateralus]

Whoa I was just about to post a topic on this!

 

I think they're hypocrites. If I started a group called "Masculinists" I would be deemed a sexist.

 

Such an ideology does exist. Masculism.

 

In any case, I think the OP's definition of feminism is unfair or possibly just outdated. I imagine the kind of people you're encountering are fairly young and are impressionable, so ideas take root fiercly and quickly. My understanding of current feminist thinking is that it simply tries to promote choice for women. Be a homemaker or don't; shave your armpits or don't. Seems fair to me. I say this and yet I still go for the more traditional kind of girl, and that's my choice too. Let's none of us oppress each other and things will run along much more smoothly.

[EdgedThesis]

Yes, it does seem to me like a 'choice' issue.

Equal opportunity sounds good, yes?

[Iamdan]

I've always had basically the same opinion. We are different, and we should be different.

[Serpent Eye]

I don't think feminists have an issue with the act of cleaning/cooking/being a homemaker itself - I think they have a problem with it being expected that they should do these tasks, and only these tasks.

 

It's all about empowering yourself and doing what you want to do, and not what society expects from you.

 

I think it's great that more and more women are stepping out into the working world, and I also think it's awesome that more and more men are taking on the role of being homemakers/stay-at-home dads.

 

As far as the political issues of feminism go, however (i.e., protests, etc.) I don't really know enough of the facts or history of feminism to have an opinion on it.

[Furah]

And I think it is stupid, to be honest to spell woman "womyn" what the hell?

It's to remove the man in the word. Feminists also use womon and and womin. Despite the fact that originally males were called werman and females were called wyfman. Eventually they dropped the wer for males and wyfman evolved into woman. Man originally stood for any or all human beings regardless of gender or age.

[lflash]

I assume you know very little about the history of law or you would know that women weren't even allowed to own property. Even as of a generation ago, only 2% of the property in the world was owned by women. Now you might think it's just fine that men own every thing, but honestly, doesn't that seem a little barbaric to you?

 

And while you think the things that women do are a bit extreme, you are a perfect example of just how unknowledgeable so many men and women are about law in particular, and maybe that is why it manages to get your attention?

 

And as far as armpit hair goes, I find it disgusting on men, go figure. It smells pretty rank. You want women to shave their pits? Men should start doing it themselves? Why expect other people to do what you are not willing to do yourself?

 

Anyway, your lack of understanding of feminism seems the least of the gaps in your knowledge. I hope you keep an open mind and learn some things along the way. And yeah, I have heard what you said thousands of time, it's quite a typical response. But it looks at only the sociological aspect of feminisn, and not the legal, which was the whole point of suffrage to begin with.

[OldJoe]

Hehe, it's pretty funny. Just the other day, me and my dad did a "feminism" test to see how much of a feminist you are. I scored 37% and my dad scored 58%... And his 60.

 

To reply to the above about shaving. I could never date a girl that doesn't shave her legs and armpits. (no i'm not 14, i'm 21) But if a woman want you, as a man, to shave this or that... Well maybe you should tell him.

And all this about business. Well, it's always "woman that and this". If a woman is more competent than a man for job x, of course she should have it. But that doesn't mean we should start with affirmative action. Like a few days ago, some politician in my country said that (for some top job within EU) it should be a woman that gets the job. Why? If a man is more competent of doing the job than a woman, he should have it. To employ a man or a woman based on what they got in their pants is bullcrap according to me. I say, employ based on competence and not what sex you are.

 

And i'm getting fed up with this crap at kindergarten. Girl and boys wearing all sorts of colors, boys playing with dolls and girls playing with cars. For christ sake, do adults sincerely think that a boy wants to wear pink and play princess? No. Sure, if they choose it themselves... But most prefer not to.

 

Abortion? Well, i believe that anyone should be able to use it. But i don't believe using it as a sort of contraceptive. If girls do that, than the school has failed sex ed.

 

Housewife? Well, i don't think it's a bad thing, taking care of the house, cooking and so on is important. But i personally am not so much for it, since the income then relies entirely on the man and not both.

Cooking? I love cooking. Actually, me and my dad cook more often than my sis and mom.

I read the other day that too few women applies for technical schools (or, fewer than they'd want). But that depends on what people like. Perhaps it is that more guys than girls are interested in technologies? But that's not really political correct talk, is it.

If girls want to apply for technical schools, i'm sure they will. But maybe not enough just aren't interested.

[bluehooloovo]

Feminism is one of those things that mean different things to different people. Honestly, I think the type of "feminism" that myweaponsg00d sees on his campus is extremely annoying. The way I like to define my view of feminism is with a quote from Rebecca West that is getting pretty common on bumper stickers: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." I don't believe that women are better than men. I don't believe that men are better than women. I think that they're equal and should have equal opportunities as much as possible. If a woman wants to have fifteen kids and stay home and raise them all, more power to her (though I will admit to cringing slightly at the thought of having that many children myself). If a man wants to stay home and tend to the cooking and the cleaning while his wife goes out and works, hey, I'm cool with that too.

 

What I'm not okay with is someone forcing their spouse to stay home and tend to it, whether it's a man or a woman doing the forcing. I'm also not okay with a man doing everything in his power to force his wife to have children when she doesn't want to - depending on the form this forcing takes, it could range from marital rape (which is legal in many parts of the world still), to denying access to birth control and refusing to wear a condom (or sabotaging it), to preventing her from seeking an abortion (and can we not debate this point here, there's another thread for abortion).

 

I think that there are girls who want to go to technical school, but also want to get married someday and have been told their whole life that boys don't like smart girls, so they either don't go to college, or they get a degree in something more "feminine" than engineering. Whether or not boys do like smart girls isn't the issue - it's that girls are told they don't and since they still want to get a man, they supress their own desires, and i think that's wrong, just as it would be wrong to force a girl who loves cooking to go to engineering school. There are as many different kinds of women as there are men - possession of a uterus doesn't untie us any more than possession of a penis unites men.

 

So really, feminism is all about a women's right to choose, and not just in the "pro-choice" abortion sense. It's a women's right to choose as much of her destiny as a man can, whether that destiny is in a kitchen with a couple of kids running around, or in an operating room performing brain surgery.

[1_man_army]

While I think the OP is stuck in the 60's with his view of feminism, I do dislike some elements of feminism. I think it's because it's gone beyond a push for choice and equality for women (which I support) and has become a push towards role reversal. I admit that I might be talking a very small minority of feminists but there undoubtedly is an element that is purely dedicated to bashing men in any way possible. I'd much prefer to see the term equalitism used, feminism implies a form of female domination (as masculinist would with men) - I would prefer to see the sexes treated equally and fairly and I think that the terminology should reflect that more.

[bluehooloovo]

While I think the OP is stuck in the 60's with his view of feminism, I do dislike some elements of feminism. I think it's because it's gone beyond a push for choice and equality for women (which I support) and has become a push towards role reversal. I admit that I might be talking a very small minority of feminists but there undoubtedly is an element that is purely dedicated to bashing men in any way possible. I'd much prefer to see the term equalitism used, feminism implies a form of female domination (as masculinist would with men) - I would prefer to see the sexes treated equally and fairly and I think that the terminology should reflect that more.

I agree. However, I think that any attempts trying to change the name of the movement would result in a lot of eyerolling and comments to STFU, so... Yeah. Good idea in theory though, and I'm going to start using it. :) I'm sure that there are others who already are.

 

Also, to the person who said that they've seen people trying to change the spelling of women to womyn... ROFL. That's just stupid.

[assassin_696]

I think the feminists point though is that since there is still such a disparity between the earnings/positions of men and women in business/politics that they need it probably needs the kind of shouty affirmative action they want to level the disparity. I'm not saying I agree or that's right, but since they don't have the obvious "choice" yet (barriers to entry still exist) they can't be seen to accept anything less than absolute parity, which requires motivating more women to become "achievers". Not that I think becoming a high-flying businesswoman is anymore of an achievement than staying home and raising a family.

[Myweponsg00d]

Anyway, your lack of understanding of feminism seems the least of the gaps in your knowledge. I hope you keep an open mind and learn some things along the way. And yeah, I have heard what you said thousands of time, it's quite a typical response. But it looks at only the sociological aspect of feminisn, and not the legal, which was the whole point of suffrage to begin with.

 

I'm sorry but I think you seem to have misunderstood the intention of my post. Near the beginning I talked about how it was a good thing that women are treated LEGALLY equal to men (then can vote, they can own property, etc) My entire point was to question the social ramifications of "feminism" and the morals behind it, so that is probably why it seems like it is the only thing I am focused on.

 

My problems in thinking about feminism arise because a lot of it seems to be philosophically questionable. How is thinking "I am not as good as a man and must strive to become 'as good'" at all a feminine thing? A lot (not all) of feminism seems to me that women are trying to become men because they think what men do is better. But, in reality, women are good at many things that most men do not have tendencies toward.

 

My point was that the "feeling" i get from the social ramifications of radical feminism sends a message of "be as good as a man" to many young girls. In my mind, women should be saying "what comes naturally to women is just as good as what comes naturally to men"

 

But that doesn't mean people arent allowed to do whatever they want. I am just saying that the majority of women are natural at one thing, and the majority of men are natural at another.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't think feminists have an issue with the act of cleaning/cooking/being a homemaker itself - I think they have a problem with it being expected that they should do these tasks, and only these tasks.

 

Your notion of "expectation" is basically the backbone behind the philosophical meanings of everything we do. Every debate about humanity is basically centered around this: is it right to do what is natural, or are our natural tendencies counter-productive to the advancement of the human race.

 

My first example: violence. Everybody has violent urges in them. Why? Because we are animals. Animals fight with eachother...it is in their instinct. However, for obvious reasons (or perhaps...are they not so obvious?) violence is discouraged in most societies. It is one of those things that most people would agree is one of our BAD "natural tendencies". People are discouraged from being violent, no matter if their instincts want to make them a violent person.

 

The second example: homosexuality. Homosexuals are a minority of the population. Their natural instincts to be attracted to members of the same sex are an "oddity" but are they wrong? No. In most intelligent societies in today's world, homosexuality is being brought into the realm of "normal" human behavior. This is a "strange" natural tendency that we have come to accept as being good for people. It makes the homosexuals happy, and it does not harm the heterosexuals, so we encourage people to do what comes natural.

 

So my objective of examining Feminism is to try to figure out what type of classification we should put on our natural behaviors that differ based on our sex. Is it wrong to say "Women have motherly tendencies so it is right for them to be homemakers"? Is this statement the equivalent of saying "People have violent tendencies so it is right for them to kill eachother"?

 

Are we trying to put these caregiving instincts in the "wrong" section of natural instinct? Or is the philosophy different? Are we telling women they should express their inner man? Should ALL women work to display both feminine and masculine qualities? What about men? Is it right for men to display feminine behavior? Should masculine men be pressured by society to display a feminine side?

 

Or should we approach this like sexuality, and incourage each individual to display whichever such behavior they feel like displaying?

 

These are a lot of questions that I feel are unanswered by what I have seen of the "feminist" movement.

[pokemama]

John Malloy's "Dress For Success" book (based on SERIOUSLY, AMAZINGLY heavy research) back in 1975 showed that an applicant is more likely to get hired if s/he is dressed to look like the people who work there. Even he acknowledged what a horrible thing this was for women and minorities - it's awfully hard to "look the part" if all the current employees are white males.

 

[hide=for guys feeling the pain of reverse discrimination]By the way guys, if you think that as a young man you aren't getting all the money and position benefits of being a rich white male, or are being shafted by affirmative action, be aware of the small things. Once you get out of your teens, if you are at a store counter you will get waited on before a woman or a minority. In a work group, your ideas will carry more weight and you will speak first. There are dozens of 'benefits' you will receive every day without knowing it.[/hide]

 

Ideally, no one wants standards to be lowered in order to admit females and minorities (for the record, females outnumber males, ~ 51% to 49%, because there are more male-inherited diseases, and because childbirth dangers have been reduced). Hiring someone substandard guarantees failure, which only serves to "prove" the stereotype.

 

But, females shouldn't have to be superwomen. Bella Abzug said it comically, back in the 70's: "Feminism has made enough progress that a highly qualified woman can get hired and get ahead. But we also want a woman schlemiel to get hired and paid the same as a male schlemiel." That has always cracked me up, but it stands.

 

If it wasn't for the required public lists showing the salary for each position, at least in government and contractor jobs, we'd still be getting the shaft. The "glass ceiling" is very much in place - management and CEO positions are rarely held by women. Look at Congress. Bleah.

 

Regarding technical qualifications - girls actually get BETTER grades than boys, right up to puberty. It's been proven that iron levels affect the brain's ability to do math. Although the amount of iron lost due to menses was believed to be insignificant, they now suspect it *may* play a factor in the "girls can't do math" stereotype.

 

Regarding the femininity of ignorance, I saw a sign on someone's desk. "I used to pretend to be stupid so that guys would be interested in me. Then I noticed that the guys who were interested in me were stupid."

 

I've learned over the years that the best way to find compatibility regarding women working is to look at a fellow's mother. If she was a homemaker, he tends to *unconsciously* expect his wife to be a homemaker, despite protests to the contrary.

 

[hide=unconscious marriage role expectations] (My ex-husband's attitude turned out to be that I *could* work - as long as it didn't interfere with my regular chores, lol. My *best* relationships were with guys whose mothers worked - they simply expected it and it just wasn't a problem. My mother's mother was a homemaker and normally "had a woman in" once a week to help with the "heavy chores" like hanging out sheets and such. My father's mother worked 16 hours a day her entire life, first as a live-in maid and then started a business that supported the entire family for decades. My parents were constantly in conflict about a woman's role.) [/hide]

 

At another time (or in another long-winded post, lol), we can go into why homemaking became a straitjacket for women in the 50's.

 

I like 1_man_army's phrase "equalism" and I'm going to spread that one around, lol. I also like the "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." You guys are awesome.

[Myweponsg00d]

pokemama, I like your insight. How exactly do you feel about "glass ceilings"?

 

I am in a psychology class and our book shows that research suggests men are, ON AVERAGE, better at doing certain tasks that involve logic and unemotional decision making. What does this "average" do to society? And what response would a female who is concerned with her femininity say?

 

If we are hiring someone to do a job that requires these traits that have been researched to be more pronounced in men, is it right or wrong to search for your employee thinking that it will likely end up being a man? If you approach it saying "we are equally likely to find a man or woman to fill this job to the best of their abilities" does this ignore psychological research? Even if it does ignore this research though...is this a bad thing? Perhaps it is necessary to ignore the "average" qualities of people, just so that you don't end up overlooking the woman who would outperform every man in this job.

 

It certainly is not an easy question to answer...The problem is that we approach sexism like we do racism. Racism, however, never has scientific founding. It is common belief that minorities are more likey to commit crimes. While it is true that there are more minorities that commit crimes, the problem is that minorities live in worse neighborhoods. In other words, there is a direct correlation between quality of neighborhood and liklihood to commit crime. However, there is no direct correlation between the race of a person and their crime rate.

 

But the story is different for sexes. Many of the "unfair stereotypes" have foundations in facts about how male and female brains/hormones function differently. It is hard to say whether or not this gives us any more viability in judgements made toward an individual person, though.

[Arcantica]

If women want equal rights then all laws should be equal for both genders period.

 

 

Although there has been no military draft in the United States since the 1970s, young men are required to register with the federal Selective Service when they turn 18, or within 30 days of that birthday. In the event that military conscription is resumed, these registered men, ages 18-25, will form the draft pool.

 

It's a felony to not register. The punishment includes fines of up to $250,000 or five years in prison.

 

What about young women? The law specifies young men only. Young women may not register with the Selective Service.

 

 

 

 

You can't even get college financial aid or other benefits from government programs if you don't register for the military. Women should have to do it as well in my opinion since they want truly equal rights.

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

It would be interesting to hear an "Extreme Feminest's" view on this.

[bluehooloovo]

I wouldn't call myself an extreme feminist, but I agree. Women should be required to enroll in the draft, and they should also be allowed to serve in infantry units. And as a side note to the military, there should be a much stronger stance against rapes, because currently... Yeah, reporting someone for rape goes very badly for the woman, even worse than in civilian life, and it's no picnic here.

[OldJoe]

And as a side note to the military, there should be a much stronger stance against rapes, because currently... Yeah, reporting someone for rape goes very badly for the woman, even worse than in civilian life, and it's no picnic here.

 

This is a [bleep]ing joke in my country (Sweden). We have gangrapes, child rapes and all kinds of [cabbage] that doesn't belong in Sweden. This is a major issue in my country, but the politicians doesn't give a single crap about it. *Sweden leades the amount of reported rapes in Europe, 46 per 100k, which is double the amount of the 2nd place England/Wales. And it amount to over 5k reported per year. It is a [bleep]ing joke. I won't go into specifics, but i know a couple of the reasons. The major one being that you don't get punished for raping.

For instance, 2 [bleep] heads who had raped a girl during school hours (they were about 16-17) didn't get anything else than a bit of community service and speaking to social workers. If i'd been the dad, i'd fetched the hunting rifles.

I mean, you get more severe punishment for economical crimes than rape/assault crimes in this country.

I'm [bleep]ing fed up with it.

 

Sorry if i went slightly OT but it pisses me off.

 

*Source: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/flest-valdtakter-i-sverige-1.853118

[pokemama]

Sexual harassment lawsuits (assuming they are legitimate and not frauds, which is unfortunate but does happen), typically go badly for the woman also. She is marked as a "troublemaker" and will suffer for it, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaint.

 

I have always thought that selective service registration was a perfectly ridiculous law and should either be abolished or applied to both sexes.

 

Myweponsg00d, the study that you missed is that women actually make BETTER managers. Because women in general have more connections between the right and left brain, they are more able to integrate many different factors and make better management decisions. But you won't see them promoted to manager very often.

 

Men in general have the advantage of focus, due to the increased separation of the right and left brain. They are not as distractable by other things going on. (Thomas Edison admitted his deafness was an advantage - no distractions at all!) Distractions also include other considerations, so men may not see the big picture, or how their work is going to affect other things. And this is what women in general are supposed to be better at.

 

What is wrong with homemaking? Nothing!

 

Historically, a woman's job in a rural home was every bit as demanding and recognised as vital as a man's. Cooking on a fire or wood stove, heating water on same to wash dishes, clothes and bodies by hand, hauling water from the well, carrying firewood, hanging out laundry, maintaining a kitchen garden, canning food for winter, milking the family cow or goat, sewing clothes by hand, darning socks, knitting badly needed sweaters scarves and hats for warmth, quilting blankets (not a luxury back then), beating rugs, making soap, caring for the sick (with zero medical help), and keeping the children from falling into the well or the hot stove or other life-threatening incidents that were extremely available back then. Adding a bit of embroidery or lace to try to brighten up the place was an option during the winter if you weren't too busy.

 

Modern conveniences were theoretically going to reduce these efforts.

 

But ... here's what happened. At the end of every war, the men come home and there aren't enough jobs, especially if the women were doing the work while the men were gone (think Rosie the Riveter). To clear women out of the workplace after WW2, a bit of brainwashing was implemented. A woman's place was in the home, etc. Women's magazines started coming out with all kinds of frou frou excessive stuff that women SHOULD be doing. Modern conveniences made it easier to pile on these chores. Formerly, clothes weren't washed each time they were worn. People bathed only on a Saturday night, each taking turns in the same water. Rugs were beaten once a year or so. But now you have a washing machine, running water in the home, a vacuum cleaner, linoleum and a mop, an iron, etc. So these things should be happening every day, right?

 

Even today, in the 21st century, women actually spend MORE hours per day/week doing household chores than they did in 1900! And usually that's on TOP of working, because men still see homemaking as a woman's job.

 

I believe the 60's feminism movement was in part caused by the horrible restrictions placed on women during the 50's. Although the general atmosphere of protest movements likely made it easier also. The advent of the Pill gave women their first real reproductive freedom EVER.

 

I can't speak for rabid feminists. I was educated as a white male because I had no brothers, lol. I didn't think of myself as a "second class citizen" until someone made me read some books. The Women's Room (by Marilyn French) was the first, and it was horribly painful to have prejudice and discrimination pointed out so baldly. It opened my eyes to many things I had not noticed before, or had dismissed as random.

 

Women's Reality (by Anne Wilson Schaef) was another one, and far more positive - it explains the basic gaps in society and the inability to understand minorities. Women actually have their own 'society' and rules and expectations, and so do blacks, latinos, asians, and amerinds. And the white males at the top have no idea about these virtually "underground" societies - they never see it. (Not unlike the South Park episode where the boy finally admits to Token that he can have absolutely no idea how it feels to be labelled with the "n-word". And Token says, "NOW you're starting to get it.")

 

I'm not a salesperson, but I heartily recommend that EVERYONE read Women's Reality. The book is so amazing that despite never being advertised, and thus passed on only by word of mouth, it's sold 10s of thousands of copies. And it's not a male bashing thing.

[magekillr]

This thread makes me want to throw up. Nothing but sexist diatribe, falsities, and disgusting stereotypes.

 

When I see a "feminist" group running around campus with their pro-choice signs and their unshaven armpits, honestly it just distrubs me a little. I think they are missing out on something here:

 

Well, in your opening statement you manage to get the sexist talking points down pat. First off, feminists aren't women who "don't shave their armpits" or "burn their bras." These are nothing but false caricatures that try and make feminism appear like a radical ideology. What proof do you have that these women don't shave their armpits, for one? You're assuming this on a negative stereotype of what you perceive feminism to be.

 

There is nothing feminine about "feminism".

 

Ugh, what the hell are you talking about? Does there have to be anything "feminine" about feminism? There's such a thing as male feminists, myself included.

 

No, this isn't about women not having the right to vote. No, this isn't about women having the right to leave the house...all of those things are great. Women deserve those kinds of things. What bothers me is when women go around urging little girls to set their sights high on the professional world; to not "give in" to an unfair "stereotype" and just become a housewife. I have seen so much "feminist" opinion that basically tells people "It is wrong for a woman to 'have' to stay in the house all day cooking and cleaning and raising the kids"

 

Ugh again. No, this is NOT what feminists do. Feminists fight for equality, feminists fight your negative stereotypes about us. Feminists argue for equal rights and equal opportunity. No, we're not there yet, sorry, Charlie. What you view as feminists telling girls that it's "wrong" to stay in the house is your own false perception, and it's the sexism in our patriarchal society that has allowed this to bubble to the top. If women choose to be housewives, that is their choice; if they choose to be in the workforce, that is again their choice.

 

It's those who are *expected* to stay home or who stay home because institutionalized sexism make it imprudent for them not to. That's the problem.

 

But...wait...whoa...WHY is this a "bad" thing? I don't understand a lot of feminist opinion because they say "I'm gonna do everything a man can do!" There is nothing feminine about this...in fact, I think that is absolutely DEGRADING to women. For thousands of years, women served the role of caregiver, housekeeper, etc....and why is this suddenly a BAD "stereotype" of women? Why is getting a job "better" than being a homemaker? Why do women feel that they have to say "I can do math just as well as any man can!"

 

Um, because for thousands of years and in today's society, women are treated as though they are not equals, and it resonates throughout your entire post. It's not about being a housewife, it's being treated as a maid, an object, a piece of property. That's what has happened for thousands of years. Your happy-go-lucky view of how women have been treated and continue to be treated is on equal footing with Columbus's voyage to North America in children's history books.

 

This isn't empowering your womanhood...it is taking it AWAY from you.

 

Oh, deciding what's best for themselves is somehow taking away their "womanhood?" I guess they have to rely on men like you to decide what's best for women, huh?

 

We are in a society that strives for equality

 

Lol, well that all depends. Which society are you talking about? America? Not really; Maine just voted down gay marriage equality in case you missed it. Sure a lot of us are striving for equality, but people like you are standing in the way. Women make roughly 75% of what men make for doing the same work in America. Millions of people still believe rape is partially the woman's fault if she was drunk (and I bet a good portion of the sexist pigs here believe this themselves). The moral arc of the universe might bend towards justice, but it doesn't mean there won't be dents and hiccups along the way; this post is testament to that.

 

 

but in my opinion "equality" does not mean that you need to make a "step up" to the level of men...thats just ridiculous. What is wrong with the "stereotype" of men being the protectors and the workers, and women being the homemakers and the caregivers?

 

The stereotype part; the fact that women are viewed as lower.

 

In my mind, equality comes in the form of recognizing that these qualities are EQUAL to eachother. Our society is making many women feel that staying home is less important than going out and being the boss of your own business. In my eyes, these things are equal.

 

LOL! Our society is doing this? PLEASE! Our society is so sexist it's not even funny. I mean, Sarah Palin, objectively one of the biggest sexists in politics, while very unintelligent and deserving a lot of the criticism she gets, is still treated with [cabbage] sexist male perceptions. Granted, she's hanging around the wrong crowd and is somewhat self loathing, but last time I heard, men weren't put on the front cover of Newsweek in short shorts with a picture that wasn't intended to be used in the way it was. You'll say "but she took the picture!!!" Yeah, she did take the picture, but it wasn't meant to be used as a pinup for Newsweek to make more sales to horny guys, and that's exactly why Newsweek used the cover they did. They could have picked any picture of her, but they chose the one. Not to mention the sexist crap that followed immediately afterwards:

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/16/sitroom.03.html

 

Here's the cover I'm talking about:

 

 

But, in today's society, this is the "wrong" thing to do....and I am just trying to figure out why so many people thought that what women tended to do was so inferior to what men tended to do.

 

No, it's not the wrong thing to do. It's wrong to have perceptions about women as if it's what they're supposed to do when they grow up. That's what you don't get.

 

Feminism is the radical idea that women are people. Today's feminism focuses on abortion, equal pay for equal work, and to get rid of the false perceptions and stereotypes that exist in our media, our society, and everyday life. Just because women can walk outside without a man accompanying them--strange thing, I know!--doesn't mean sexism is over. It focuses on abortion because abortion is not about life or death, but about control over one's body; let's not kid ourselves here, because that's what this debate is really about. Men want to control what women do with their bodies. It focuses on equal pay for equal work because women are consistently paid less for the same work in America, and in Europe. Granted Europe is a little skewed because it involves the poorer and less equal countries, but the disparity is still quite large.

 

Perhaps you should actually see what feminism is really about, instead of viewing it for what you think it is. The sexism in the media is obviously apparent here, because nothing in your OP has anything to do with feminism, and sounds more like something Rush "feminazi" Limbaugh would say.

[magekillr]

Here's a good article on this very subject (the effects of benevolent sexism):

 

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/faq.htm

 

An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. By Glick, Peter; Fiske, Susan in the American Psychologist. Vol 56(2), Feb 2001, 109-118.

[Ss_J9_Goten]

but in my opinion "equality" does not mean that you need to make a "step up" to the level of men...thats just ridiculous. What is wrong with the "stereotype" of men being the protectors and the workers, and women being the homemakers and the caregivers?

 

The stereotype part; the fact that women are viewed as lower.

 

Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but are you saying that the homemaker/caregiver stereotype is "lower" than the protector/breadwinner stereotype? Because if that's what you're saying, I think you missed the point of this guy's post...that women are told that their traditional role is inferior for whatever reason is [cabbage]. The traditional stereotype of women is just as important as the traditional male stereotype (someone has to take care of the kids, house etc. I'm not saying that women should do this, just that it isn't inferior to being the breadwinner).

 

Again, please correct me if I interpreted your post wrong.