The problem is a distorted view of feminism.


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The problem is a distorted view of feminism.

The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
When a woman partecipates in something labeled as feminism she thinks she just fights for her constitutional rights. For euality for empowerment. However the roots of feminism lie in the likes of women who composed something like the SCUM manifesto who hate men and implemented doubel standards and anti male anti father divorce laws and who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Real world feminism and the “definition” of feminism have little to do with each other. It is an anti male movement anti marriage movement penalizing males who marry.
A man has to keep her woman happy else she will find somone to cheat with at work and rightfully so because he failed at keeping her happy. A man is a pig if he cheats for whatever reason. A cheating husband looses his kids a cheating wife keeps her kids regardless of who worked. VAWA states that when the police is called in a domestic violence case the police MUST arrest the man regardless of who the agressor is and regardless of who called the police. The doubel standards list goes on and on and i do not have to tell the rest of you wimmin what men face in the event of divorce. Feminists who speak of equality will find about any excuse to keep those doubel standards and the divorce laws. We are not so angry about what feminists do we are angry about what women do not do about the lack of outrage because of the doubel standards and the way divorce is handeled at the expenses of men.
A lot of women wrote they are disgusted about what men wrote here. Girls were was your disgust in the wake of the unfair doubel standards and unfair anti male anti father divorce laws ?

Message Edited by Cassius on 08-28-2006 07:46 AM

08-28-2006 07:17 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Romulus
Regular Contributor
Romulus
I think this article exposed feminism’s true colors. For years they demanded equality, better jobs, more income, etc. I had no problem with this as many women have made valuable contributions to society as a result of feminism. But what shocked and disguisted me was the feminist reaction to an article whose single conclusion is to not choose to marry career women b/c they bring factors to marriage that increase divorce. It seems the feminists don’t want men to choose who they wish to marry. Why else would they complain when men refuse to marry the career woman? This has clearly stepped past the line of equality and into fascism.

08-28-2006 07:27 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Just look at what men have been putting up with in the media for years and years now. A non-stop onslaught of misandrist stories with falsified statistics about how a large proportion of men are wife beaters, adulterers, deadbeats etc. Even women who couldn’t care less about feminism and politics would shake their heads in agreement. And yet men have just put up with it and barely complained at all. In fact many men have even sided with the feminists.

One little story saying a certain demographic of women are risky to marry and they go beserk and demand the article be taken down. And any man who dares to agree with the article is deemed “mysoginistic”, “bitter” or “intimidated”.

And why is this? Because deep down women know that marriage benefits them more than men. If that wasn’t the case then we wouldn’t be seeing books like Debbie Maken’s “Getting Serious About Getting Married”. A book I might add that absolves women of almost ANY blame for the predicament they find themselves in and (once again) points the finger of shame at men. Not only that but she twists the meaning of Christian scriptures to back up her claim that “God wants men to marry women”. See http://scripturallysingle.blogspot.com/ for an excellent rebutal of that book.

Whats that feminist catch-phrase again?

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”

Individual cases aside, the actions of females in the west prove this as a lie. As an overall group they need us more than we need them. And, as a group they seem to refuse to admit that feminist policies have made a major contribution to the decline in marriage, childbirth, economics, education of boys and the sorry state of male/female relations on the whole.

08-28-2006 08:41 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics. But it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect (apparently without discussion) that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. If you’re looking for that woman, then go for it — she’s out there, and she deserves to find happiness in you as well.

But the article didn’t say that. It blanketly blamed women with careers for the breakdown of marriages, the filthiness of homes, the unhappiness of spouses, and most incredibly to me, the illness of husbands. If the article had started from the premise “Men, are you unwilling to compromise your career ambitions? Then don’t marry a woman devoted to her career”, then that’s something else entirely. But it didn’t say that. It said that all men should stay away from the majority of university-educated women, because while men shouldn’t have to make any changes, the woman will chafe at being expected to suddenly take on all the responsibilities of a stay-at-home-mom or suffer the guilt-ridden consequences.

If you want a stay-at-home wife, find her. But don’t go into a marriage expecting that, without discussion, a few years down the road that lawyer you married will be happy to give up her hard-won position to be a housewife. It’s simple logic, just as I would never enter a marriage without the understanding that I will likely continue to work after having children, and expect the father to make some compromises in his career to pick up the parenting slack.

We don’t want to marry a man who is then going to be shocked and disgruntled that we want to continue our careers. But we also don’t want some blowhard telling ALL MEN that we are unweddable, because it’s just not true.

08-28-2006 08:55 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Back to the thopic please ^^. What good is it to attack “stupid” posts gettin all empowered writing how stoopid the poster is and ingoring the intelligent ones. Do not tell me you are all ingoring mine because they are soo stoopid because if they were dozens of females would have made me the cortesy to point out my shortcomings. Iam really anxious to read the contributions of the females to my post. Admitting that somone might have a point did not kill annyone ever.

Message Edited by Cassius on 08-28-2006 09:19 AM

08-28-2006 09:17 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Pelican wrote:
For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics.

I’m not having “hysterics” as you put it. The hystericals are the ones that had the article pulled in the first place.

08-28-2006 09:32 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Don’t worry, most men find you repulsive.

08-28-2006 10:02 AM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

It is enormously time consuming, energy draining, and vitriol inviting to engage in reasoned argument with people who are agenda driven and not disposed to argue or discuss matters impartially. The depressing personal attacks that follow any attempts to reason with feminists (both professional “Meeting Hall” mavens, or meek-and-bitchy “living room” feminists) or with their nominally male fools, effectively discourages most men, and virtually all men who depend on social interaction and inclusion for their professional success, or the continuation of their marriages. Thus, there is a widespread and vicious societal system of denigration and sabotage that is turned against any men who oppose the feminist agendas at all levels from casual dating to corporate culture. My purpose is not to point out this fact, but to examine critically one typical instance of feminist attack upon an individual who has challenged the feminist agenda.

The most general concept that I would like to present, in case it has escaped any readers’ notice, is that the study of, or expertise in, rhetoric and logic is a two edged sword: It can foster either reasoned argument, or wildly mystifying and manipulative harrangues whose sole intent is to confuse and neutralize clear thinking. I have chosen to do this with a recent blog response which fits this description. Here is the opening paragraph of that post:

“For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics. But it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect (apparently without discussion) that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. If you’re looking for that woman, then go for it — she’s out there, and she deserves to find happiness in you as well.”

My technique (informal and personal) is first to edit out the material whose intent is manipulative, and whose inclusion serves no other purpose. Then, to separate individual points from one another – serving the purpose both of clarifying arguments, and to make clear those points which are not logically connected – to prevent an apparent but false logic of “this then that” when such a connection does not exist. Thus:

“For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics. But it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect (apparently without discussion) that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. If you’re looking for that woman, then go for it — she’s out there, and she deserves to find happiness in you as well. ”

Now, we have:

“it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids.”

Normally, I would continue the analysis of this, and of the blog’s following material, but in this case the writer’s intent is so easily discovered, and the truth which she is attempting to obscure is so clearly, albeit unintentionally, exposed, I don’t think any further analysis is required. This elementary method of demystification can easily be applied to the remaining paragraphs by anyone who wishes to do so.

08-28-2006 04:00 PM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Michael78
Contributor
Michael78
Cassius, you needn’t post variations of the same comment all over the message boards. Once is adequate, especially since it takes so much time to wade through the poor spelling and grammar.

And I’m sure I’m not the only one who’d love to see some concrete cites for this bizarre version of “feminism” you’re talking about.

08-28-2006 05:44 PM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
It isnt A feminism iam talking about its real world feminism iam talking about that is happening, there is only one in the real world.
Michele just consult the news read the laws and ask a divorce attorney. I suspect you are still in denial, but since you grapped for a straw attacing my spelling i suppose you suspect I might be right. Instead of playing on time asking me for proove for something you can read yourself quit trying to buy time and engage in the discussion.

Message Edited by Cassius on 08-28-2006 06:18 PM

Message Edited by Cassius on 08-28-2006 06:19 PM

08-28-2006 06:16 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – The problem is a distorted view of feminism.

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

Diogetrix wrote:

>

The most general concept that I would like to present, in case it has escaped any readers’ notice, is that the study of, or expertise in, rhetoric and logic is a two edged sword: It can foster either reasoned argument, or wildly mystifying and manipulative harrangues whose sole intent is to confuse and neutralize clear thinking. I have chosen to do this with a recent blog response which fits this description. Here is the opening paragraph of that post:

“For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics. But it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect (apparently without discussion) that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. If you’re looking for that woman, then go for it — she’s out there, and she deserves to find happiness in you as well.”

My technique (informal and personal) is first to edit out the material whose intent is manipulative, and whose inclusion serves no other purpose. Then, to separate individual points from one another – serving the purpose both of clarifying arguments, and to make clear those points which are not logically connected – to prevent an apparent but false logic of “this then that” when such a connection does not exist. Thus:

“For heaven’s sake, we’re not trying to force men into marrying career women, no need to have hysterics. But it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect (apparently without discussion) that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids. If you’re looking for that woman, then go for it — she’s out there, and she deserves to find happiness in you as well. ”

Now, we have:

“it’s irrational to marry a career woman, then expect that she’s going to stay at home and be happy cooking, cleaning and raising the kids.”

Normally, I would continue the analysis of this, and of the blog’s following material, but in this case the writer’s intent is so easily discovered, and the truth which she is attempting to obscure is so clearly, albeit unintentionally, exposed, I don’t think any further analysis is required. This elementary method of demystification can easily be applied to the remaining paragraphs by anyone who wishes to do so.

Sure, I have no problem with that edit — the message is still the same. Though I’m unsure what the “truth” you’re speaking of is meant to be, considering your edit (while still cogent) took out the sections of my post that said we don’t want to force men to marry career women, that dicussion and compromise are necessary before any marriage, and then the assurance that there actually are women out there who don’t want to be career women and that men should go looking for them rather than trying to change a career woman will make everyone more content.

All you’ve done is clarify the central message by taking out all qualifiers, which is fine if you’re having a point-by-point argument, but certainly isn’t a requirement.

08-28-2006 08:28 PM

Re: The problem is a distorted view of feminism.
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

In a very general sense, I think there are two kinds of public discourse: One is discourse that just happens to be witnessed by others. The other is discourse that is intended to be witnessed by others – in other words, is constructed with the intent that others hear it. Of course, that suggests that there is a motive, and in my experience that motive is to influence the “others.” It is definitional that discourse with such a motive is propaganda. Is it evil in intent, or is it benign or beneficial – that is the matter which must concern the listener, and there are many elements of a person’s speech that must be considered when we make that particular determination. (I assume here that we have only the content and presentation of the person’s speech, and the personal data revealed therein, but no other clues to the person’s motive or personality such as visual or historical-biographical information). Staying within the very general, it is my opinion that motive is most often revealed by the speaker’s desire to be truthful. Softening the impact of hurtful thruths (being tactful in consideration of others’ feelings) or misleading with the intent of benefitting another who cannot profit from the truth – these are far different from misleading with the intent of self benefit at the expense of the other. In 1968, in a typically casual conversation with friends, one young female stated somewhat pedantically that women’s liberation would be good for society because, “it’s liberating men too.” I responded, “Come on, Sharon, you don’t believe that crap, and neither do I.” My meaning was clear: I thought she was speaking disingenuously, and I was telling her that I thought so. Her response? She turned to another female who was less than four feet away, and said in an amused delighted tone: “Did you hear what James just said?!” and repeated my words as though she were relating some “cutest thing” that her two year old had spoken. I was intuitively aware of the manipulative turn she had made, but back in those youthful days I didn’t know exactly how to charaterize it. (I do now, but the complexity of the rhetorical and psychological mechanisms are beyond this discussion). She never openly discussed the issue with me. Thirty years later, in a sort of reunion party that included that same little group, she did EXACTLY the same thing using EXACTLY the same words when I expressed myself on another similar issue. I wasn’t even surprised. I know her history. She became pregnant purposely in 1966 using a young fool as her mate-husband knowing he was soon to leave for military duty overseas. On his return, she rejected him, purposely shaming him and frustrating him emotionally and sexually, then using his hurt to create a scene which made her appear the injured party. Over the next twenty years she pursued her own education and career goals using his child support money to supplement her own earnings, and after attaining her advanced degree and a suitable position in her field, she found another male to set up housekeeping with who is an asset professionally. I don’t know what happened to her sperm donor after 1969 or so, but I really don’t think that “women’s liberation” had the effect of liberating him too, unless you consider that he needed to be liberated from the same oppressor who was claiming to be liberating him. That kind of ironic paradoxical thinking would amuse only a person who cares nothing for the welfare of others. And that is feminism.

08-29-2006 02:33 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: