#WomenAgainstFeminism

[HiGirlsRHot]

Even if we double the number number of rapes/sexual assaults, men are still more likely to be victims of very violent crimes than woman. You add to that men are 3.6 times more like to be murder victims than woman. It is kinda of hard to reach conclusion that woman are the ones that need special protection.
I

When men are assaulted/murdered/raped who is the assailant a majority of the time. Is it another male? Yes. Same thing when women are victims of these crimes. I am NOT saying that men are dangerous, I am saying that we teach men that aggressiveness and violence are appropriate ways to demonstrate their manliness and this is how it manifests.

Men, as a gender, ARE dangerous,and it has little to do with nurture and hell of a lot to do with biology. If you think that is just a matter of education, than how do you explain that there have no instance of society where woman are more violent than men? It doesn't matter if its the isolated societies like headhunters in Papua New Guinea, ancient Hawaiians,or the relatively peaceful Hopi Indian, men engage in violent behavior either sanctioned war, or unsanctioned like crime/taboo breaking at rates many times that of woman. The top killers either at a wholesale level, Hitler, Pol Pot, or the retail level (serial killers) are all men.. There are a no societies which teach people that murder is a good thing.

Men have 7-8 times the levels of testosterone of woman. Men in the US are also 15 times more likely to be incarcerated than woman. (One of those statistic that feminist never include when they demand equality in CEO, and power positions.) While there isn't a predictive link between testosterone and criminality, there is a high correlation between high testosterone and guys in prison for violent crimes. We've done a good job locking these men up in increasing number over the last 30 years, and enjoyed a safer society as a consequence.

Now if we can just educate woman that they shouldn't have sex with bad boys and especially not kids, maybe we can breed these violent tendencies out of the human race. But I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I see feminism as having a victim mentality in most (not all) areas due to the tendency to demand that others change, instead of changing yourself.

Feminism says "women make less than men, what are you going to do about it, male employers?" instead of "women work less than men and have less ambition - what can we do to change that?"

Feminism says "women face damaging body image issues in the media for men's pleasure. What are you going to do about it, media producers?" instead of "maybe we're too media-driven, maybe we need to reevaluate what is important to us and what type of media we consume."

Feminism says "women don't feel safe walking down the street because of male harassment and fear of rape, what are you going to do about it, men? Don't rape!" instead of "maybe we should look at statistics to judge our actual risk factors instead of allowing our emotions to drive us into viewing all men as rapists" or "maybe I should increase my own personal security so I am no longer living in fear."

This is why many women say that feminism makes them feel victimized instead of empowered. You may disagree with this, and that is perfectly fine, but simply because someone says feminism makes them feel victimized does not mean that person does not truly understand feminism.

I am guilty of not having read the whole thread, I just saw this and thought it was interesting. You were saying in a previous post that women who are "feminists" or "anti feminists" (or whatever they call themselves) are more focused on other women than they are on men. I think this is true. Large reason being some of the things you just stated.

We are our own worst enemies. The majority of women like men who don't treat us well, will be unpredictable or like power and/or control. Not all women go for this type of man but it is a fairly common occurrence. Many of us also like the idea of getting a high powered career but most women aren't driven enough to achieve it and are more focused on relationships. Because men are weak when it comes to sex we take advantage of it to cut corners, and then complain about it. Many of us allow men to do the "heavy lifting" in things we are perfectly capable of doing if they weren't around. Men don't force us to do these things though some of it is to appease them and because of cultural reasons. These things are still our choice.

Men and women are different and naturally are interested in different things. These different things don't mean we shouldn't be equal to men, but they do mean that we are more likely to act the submissive part. It's very easy to blame men but honestly I think that we are also to blame. Most western men nowadays are completely willing to see us as equals and treat us with respect, but just like anyone else you still have to earn genuine respect.

Changing is a gradual process and culture is never going to change over night. I know that as much as I'm seen as a fairly strong woman I'm pretty guilty of a lot of things that really don't help the cause.

Personally I think true feminism is a brilliant cause but I think that zealots are turning it into something really negative. They're turning it into a joke which could potentially undo a bunch of incredible progress. It's very sad. Really the name should be changed to "equal rights movement" or something similar as just the word "feminism" sounds a bit... sexist? It's not really a man friendly word.

 

[I_Love_You503]

We are our own worst enemies. The majority of women like men who don't treat us well, will be unpredictable or like power and/or control. Not all women go for this type of man but it is a fairly common occurrence. Many of us also like the idea of getting a high powered career but most women aren't driven enough to achieve it and are more focused on relationships. Because men are weak when it comes to sex we take advantage of it to cut corners, and then complain about it. Many of us allow men to do the "heavy lifting" in things we are perfectly capable of doing if they weren't around. Men don't force us to do these things though some of it is to appease them and because of cultural reasons. These things are still our choice.

Men and women are different and naturally are interested in different things. These different things don't mean we shouldn't be equal to men, but they do mean that we are more likely to act the submissive part. It's very easy to blame men but honestly I think that we are also to blame. Most western men nowadays are completely willing to see us as equals and treat us with respect, but just like anyone else you still have to earn genuine respect.

I agree men and women have inherent differences that make true equality difficult. But I don't think somebody has to act the dominant part, or have a high powered career, or do the "heavy lifting" to "earn respect." I don't think women should be required to take on the traditional responsibilities of men to be seen as equal, or respected. Women, despite their oppression throughout history, have always added value to society. The reason why feminism was necessary is because that value was not recognized. A lot of early feminists had no desire or envy to be like men. They already worked tirelessly raising their families, keeping their homes, volunteering in their communities. Feminism wasn't about allowing women to finally have a shot at contributing to society, it was about recognizing their existing contribution (by demanding the right to vote).

I'm speaking from a bias because I know that I'm a naturally submissive person, it's not an act. I like men who treat me well, but I also like them to be comfortable in control, because I'm not always comfortable being in control. I'm never going to have a high powered career, and I'm probably always going to put family and "relationships" before my job. I don't think these are flaws. I feel best as a person when I'm being supportive of others. It's really a shame because there is little to no respect paid to making that sort of life decision, regardless of your gender.

Edit: I should mention this is more a problem I have with feminism's lacking, like I mentioned before, rather than what you said in your post. The problem is I don't think feminism has done enough to allot respect to this stuff...

 

[MintyFlowers]

We were just discussing a few posts ago how feminism is fighting against these issues too. I didn't mention them in my post because I was specifically talking about women but I don't think any one here has said that men don't suffer from these issues too.

I almost never see modern feminists talking about men's issues. Actual feminism at its core does, yes; but the new-wave feminists generally ignore or even deny that these are men's issues as well, or that feminists should be fighting for male issues. Thus why you get hashtags such as the one in the thread title where women want to distance themselves from the notion of 'feminism' entirely. It's almost become a militant term in the social consciousness, and it's now being viewed askance by both genders (and for good reason in its present form.)

I guess I have a skewed view because I graduated with a degree in women's studies so the last 5 years of my life was spent discussing men and women's issues, defining feminism and engaging in social activism but my experience of feminism, and the feminism that occurred in my department, was very concerned with both genders.

Yea, but I think Gemma is right about that not being the majority.
Besides the women here, I have yet to meet a feminist that even want to acknowledge that men issues exist.

I am a feminist, you know me, and there are jarring inequalities that men suffer that women don't suffer, such as being subjected to societal standards for masculinity, representation in media makes the "average physique man" as the "dork," or "nerd." We don't acknowledge that boys/men are being raped, and a very sizable amount of attackers are female but instead the victims don't have enough people campaigning for their protection, or enough outreach programs to help the abused men.
It doesn't mean much because they are my group of friends, but I have hundreds of friends who feel the same way about men, but don't use men's rights as a topic to derail, or invalidate the struggles that women have.

[‘Men get raped and molested,’ should be a whole sentence. If you have to tack on the word ‘too,’ then you’re using the experience of male victims to silence females instead of giving them their own space.]

This is what bothers me about feminism. They want yo be an "equality" group, which I understand in some form of the word. But it's pro-female equality. (And yes, I'm a feminist.) feminism shouldn't pretend to focus on men's issues. They focus on women's issues, and then some issues that affect men too. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. That's also why I believe MRA's are necessary. We need a orp-male equality group as well as a pro-female equality group. Special interest groups keep trying to pretend something they'e not. And not consciously pretending, it's subconscious. Also why I like the word "justice." Feminism does not focus on anything that is SPECIFICALLY men's problems. Nothing would be wrong with that if the movement didn't act like it did otherwise.

While I see your point, and part of me agrees... the thing that we actually should do is push for intersectionality and be far more encompassing. MY definition of feminism does not exclude black, minorities, disabled, trans women, AND MEN (because their suffering is also a part of our societal structure); you cannot be "pro-Woman" but not include these groups. To push it off to "specialized" groups pretty much means it only benefits one group... The group that raises up needs to extend their hands into helping the other types of women that did not benefit... which includes encompassing issues such as racism, ableism, and discrimination.
I know you're not trying to say you only support one group within the feminist movements, but maybe I could be reading your post incorrectly. Perhaps you are saying everyone could be feminist, but then also have specialized groups, such as:

Umbrella: Feminist

MRA
Minority men

-----------------------

Black Feminists
Colorism

?

Now if we can just educate woman that they shouldn't have sex with bad boys and especially not kids, maybe we can breed these violent tendencies out of the human race. But I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon.

In the long run it's probably better to expand on sexual education, STD prevention, and birth control education so that people are better equipped to avoid things like unwanted pregnancy when having flings with "bad boys."
Also, both 15 - 24 year olds, and seniors have seen a sharp increase in getting STDs so pretty much EVERYONE should be educated on it~

Edit: I wish there was a sage option.

 

[LadyLuna]

Wow, this took an incredibly long time to read. Anyone who wants to know my take on it can check out this page on my blog. Long story short:

I am not an anti-feminist, because the vibe I get from them is that they are pushing for domestic roles for women. I am not one who would be happy in a purely domestic role. However, I sympathize with the MRA.

Points I would love to make but can't back up:

Rape statistics.

-If .08% of women are raped each year, after 10 years that's now .8% of women. It doesn't take long for someone who meets hundred of women to find that many.

-Rapists tend to be repeaters. Thus, if a woman in one area was raped and her attacker never found, women in that area will have a higher incidence of rapes than in other areas.

Fathers.

-It has been found that children who don't have a father in their life tend to grow up without any empathy for other people. That's really important.

-The system is set up so that fathers don't try. Fathers who contact lawyers to attempt to gain custody are told not to bother, because it's so rare that it's not worth the lawyer's time to try. Fathers are told that they will be accused of some pretty awful shit if they try to gain custody. Then later, they change their minds, but they are told that since they weren't there, obviously they didn't really want it. If you've watched Lost, you've seen how the story went with the one African American father who was bringing his son back with him. The boy with the dog. That's pretty standard now-a-days.

Creating victims.

Feminists push for women to be seen as victims. They inflate the rape statistics to make women afraid, when women shouldn't be. Many women's shelters push for the women to see themselves as victims. And feminism is behind the message that "there are things worse than death", with rape being the main thing being talked about. How damaging is that, to be told that you can never recover from being raped, so you would be better off if you had been killed? And yet, that message is pervasive.

Man-hating.

I'm just going to leave this here. (In this video, he provides quotes which show how prominent feminist writings have stated similar goals to those of Nazi Germany)

 

[PlayboyMegan]

This is the second time I've heard from women on here that rape statistics are inflated.
Can someone please elaborate on how they came to that conclusion?
As I've mentioned earlier, some women who get raped take it to their grave. Others are too young to remember. And others completely block the entire incident out of their memory.
Because of those factors, I can only assume rape statistics are actually lower than the real numbers.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

This is the second time I've heard from women on here that rape statistics are inflated.
Can someone please elaborate on how they came to that conclusion?
As I've mentioned earlier, some women who get raped take it to their grave. Others are too young to remember. And others completely block the entire incident out of their memory.
Because of those factors, I can only assume rape statistics are actually lower than the real numbers.

This is taken from The National Institute of Justice web pages.

— the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice — is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to reduce crime and promote justice, particularly at the state and local levels.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

Rape definitions vary by state and in response to legislative advocacy. Most statutes currently define rape as nonconsensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration of the victim by body parts or objects using force, threats of bodily harm, or by taking advantage of a victim who is incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent. Incapacitation may include mental or cognitive disability, self-induced or forced intoxication, status as minor, or any other condition defined by law that voids an individual's ability to give consent.

Not surprisingly, rates of rape also vary widely among studies according to how the crime is defined, what population is studied, and what methodology is used. Estimates range from as low as 2 percent [3], as quoted in The Epidemic of Rape and Child Sexual Abuse in the United States [4], to 56 percent [5]. The most recent and methodologically rigorous studies show that sexual assault still occurs at rates that approximate those first identified more than 20 years ago when Koss, Gidycz, and Wisiewski [6] found that approximately 27.5% of college women reported experiences that met the legal criteria for rape.

I think both groups of people can be correct in a way. You'll notice the range varies from 2% to 56%. So depending on how you want to do your study your numbers could be under reported or over reported. Also what percentage of rapes are reported. That 27.5% seems to be the closest to the actual number there is though and takes into account those who didn't report it to the police.

If you look on that page they list that study that was done around 20 years ago as still the most likely overall accurate. It is this page:
http://www.soci270.carvajal.ca/documents/KossTheScopeofRape.pdf
It's a scanned in image based pdf so text copy is difficult. But if you look on page 7 of the pdf file (listed as page 168 of the paper it was from) it has a table summing up all the results. It also goes over different numbers based on which definition of rape is used. The FBI uses a narrower definition. The discussion section on that page bullet points it all nicely. But do read the rest to understand all the varied questions that were asked for this study.

So basically if you're not wanting to read the article yourself it boils down to this. Both men and women were questioned. Women saying they were raped was at 83 per 1000 women for a 6-month period according to the more broad definition. According to the FBI definition of rape 38 per 1000 during a 6-month period.

On the men side they concluded 34 per 1000 had committed rape, or according to the FBI's definition 9 per 1000.

And since the age of 14 (up to 24) 27.5% of college women reported that meet the legal definition of having been raped and 7.7% of college men reported perpetrating those acts. That includes attempts.

This rape victimization rate is 10-15 times greater than rates that are based on NCS, which are 3.9 per 1000 16-19-year-old women and 2.5 per 1000 20-24-year-old women. Even men's rates of admitting to raping are 2-3 times greater than NCS estimates of the risk of rape for women between the ages of 16-24. At least among students in higher education, it must be concluded that official surveys such as the NCS fail to describe the full extent of sexual victimization.

So yeah, it seems the number of rapes are not really inflated if you're using crime reports, then you are actually understating the number of rapes. Unless someone can come up with a better study to back them up I'll just keep going by these numbers as the actual number of rapes. Seems like a pretty good study backed up the Department of Justice.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

This is the second time I've heard from women on here that rape statistics are inflated.
Can someone please elaborate on how they came to that conclusion?
As I've mentioned earlier, some women who get raped take it to their grave. Others are too young to remember. And others completely block the entire incident out of their memory.
Because of those factors, I can only assume rape statistics are actually lower than the real numbers.

I don't think any of the rape statistics presented in this thread are off.
Your statistics "1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). " Seem pretty much middle of the road. Doing some number crunching based on average annual rates reported over the last few year by the National Crime victimization survey, , I came with a figure of 12.6% chance (1 in 8) of 12 year old girl being of victim or rape/sexual assault in her lifetime.

I think both groups of people can be correct in a way. You'll notice the range varies from 2% to 56%. So depending on how you want to do your study your numbers could be under reported or over reported. Also what percentage of rapes are reported. That 27.5% seems to be the closest to the actual number there is though and takes into account those who didn't report it to the police.

The main problem with this study was it was published in 1987 and used data from late 70s and early 80s. Crimes in the US have dropped by about 40% since 1980. If we decrease the 27.5% by 40% we get 16% or virtually the same percentage as your statistics. The reason my number is lower is because as crimes rates have decreased, a young girl today has lower chance being raped in her life than the average 39 year woman .

Now I guess 1/6 could be either comforting or scary. As I pointed out earlier men have higher chance of been a victim an aggravated assault and ending up seriously injured in a hospital The lifetime chance for men is roughly 1/4, and yet we don't speak of an assault culture.

I think the crime survey addresses the problem of under reporting because it asks 160,000 people a year "have you been a victim of crime" instead of relying on police reports. So if you think your neighbor borrowing your electric saw last year and not returning means you are a theft victim, then it gets report as theft. Same thing is true for rape, if you think you were raped or sexually assaulted for statistical purposes you were period, no questions asked, no judgements rendered. While I generally agree that rape is black and white, in certain case say spousal or boyfriend rape and booze there are grey areas.. So while it is true that some one woman will take their secret to to their grave and not even reveal it what happened to the (generally) female census worker, it is also true that some woman will play the victim card and exaggerate. Do they balance out? I don't know.

As far exaggeration of rape statistics in certainly does happen in society Here is what VP Joe Biden said recently. ""One in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years,". So according to Joe a college woman is more likely to victimized in 5 years, than woman who doesn't go to college in her entire life.. Really???

The answer is it depends on the meaning of sexual assault in the context of Joe Biden's statement

"sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention." Offenses range from inappropriate touching to forcible rape.

So yes when you classify having frat guys, shout out "baby that fine ass belong on my dick" as the same crime as been sodomized by guy with gun then you get statistics like Joe spouts out. Frankly, I am surprised the number isn't higher.

 

[LadyLuna]

A lot of good points are brought up by Christina Hoff Summers, who I know many of the prominent feminists like to smear. She has a blog, The Factual Feminist, and posts in the American Enterprise Institute YouTube channel every couple months.

There's two playlists of her videos on there:

The Factual Feminist
and
Christina Hoff Summers

(x.x I typed this up awhile ago, and forgot to hit submit x.x)

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I think both groups of people can be correct in a way. You'll notice the range varies from 2% to 56%. So depending on how you want to do your study your numbers could be under reported or over reported. Also what percentage of rapes are reported. That 27.5% seems to be the closest to the actual number there is though and takes into account those who didn't report it to the police.

The main problem with this study was it was published in 1987 and used data from late 70s and early 80s. Crimes in the US have dropped by about 40% since 1980. If we decrease the 27.5% by 40% we get 16% or virtually the same percentage as your statistics. The reason my number is lower is because as crimes rates have decreased, a young girl today has lower chance being raped in her life than the average 39 year woman.

Even though the study was done back then it's still considered accurate today, even reflective of differing crime rates. If you read the page from The National Institute of Justice they state that the best modern methodology still returns the same rate as that study. So in my mind that's still the most accurate even including any change in crime rates.

The most recent and methodologically rigorous studies show that sexual assault still occurs at rates that approximate those first identified more than 20 years ago.

 

[KudosKids]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

I'm not going to say I'm for either or, I'm just going to say back before the feminists movement. It seems like families were more put together then they are today. Does that mean there were no fathers that beat there wives or packed there bags and left? Nf course there was, there are pieces of shit in every generation. It just seems the divorce rate has gone WAY up since then maybe its because in marriages today people feel like they should be independent not dependent on one another and get all power tripped, kids get into drugs and partying WAY younger now,since it is typical for both parents to work in modern society and kids are not being watched. My dad told me when he was young, there were hardly any broken homes, now today you can hardly find someone whose parents are still married. There just seems to have been a dramatic shift in a negative way in family values ever since the movement. But in the end we should all be equal, it just seems whenever anyone gets rights in this country there's a 5-10% positive outcome and then the rest is just negative.

 

[Gen]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

I'm not going to say I'm for either or, I'm just going to say back before the feminists movement. It seems like families were more put together then they are today. Does that mean there were no fathers that beat there wives or packed there bags and left? Nf course there was, there are pieces of shit in every generation. It just seems the divorce rate has gone WAY up since then maybe its because in marriages today people feel like they should be independent not dependent on one another and get all power tripped, kids get into drugs and partying WAY younger now,since it is typical for both parents to work in modern society and kids are not being watched. My dad told me when he was young, there were hardly any broken homes, now today you can hardly find someone whose parents are still married. There just seems to have been a dramatic shift in a negative way in family values ever since the movement. But in the end we should all be equal, it just seems whenever anyone gets rights in this country there's a 5-10% positive outcome and then the rest is just negative.

Back in "the day" it was also legal to beat and rape your wife (and I'd guess it happened more often than now, seeing as now it's much less socially acceptable). I'd argue there was a stronger religious element in more homes as well, that would discourage people from divorcing. Women had far fewer financial options if they did leave, so they stayed in abusive or unhappy marriages. The homes may not have been "broken" but that doesn't mean that they were more put together.

As for kids getting into drugs earlier because of parents working, I'd argue that that is a result of the economy (few people can afford a family on one income) more than feminism.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

Protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault is pretty much one of the keystone endeavors of the feminist movement. If you don't know the statistics you're pretty much yapping nonsense in the breeze.

 

[KudosKids]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

Protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault is pretty much one of the keystone endeavors of the feminist movement. If you don't know the statistics you're pretty much yapping nonsense in the breeze.

I'm talking about STATISTICS. First of all, rape and domestic violence was illegal, not in all places but it was and its still like that today. In some counties it still isn't illegal to beat or rape a female. The point is, back then rape was HARDLY EVER reported. Same with domestic violence. How can you put a statistic on something that wasn't reported? thats more like a guess. Even today, rape and domestic violence still isn't as reported as it should be. Mainly because women feel ashamed for having to go through these things. I've had many female friends who didn't tell me there boyfriend was abusive to them til AFTER there relationship was over. No one really knows the statistics, so putting out numbers to prove a point is pointless. The womens movement was to give them the right to vote, religious rights, and able to work any position they wanted. It was so women didn't have to be a wife and a mother if that was not what they wanted. Rape/domestic violence has gone up and down with how its looked at over the years. There are monsters in every generation, in every society. Child abuse wasn't reported that much back then either, are you going to factor that in as well? There still are MANY marriages in todays world if they were to divorce they simply would not make it on there own means of income. So a lot of women still have to put up with abusive husbands. The womens movement didn't stop rape or abuse. Laws still have not stopped rape or abuse. You can't stop a monster from doing what it wants to do. There were plenty of men back then, that had morals and knew abuse like that was wrong. And there were plenty who just did not care, like it is today. What the movement gave women was the ability to be equal with men in the work place in the churches and in the votes. And that sums it up.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

How can you put a statistic on something that wasn't reported? thats more like a guess. Even today, rape and domestic violence still isn't as reported as it should be.

Your statement is so far off from the truth it's evident you didn't read any of that report I cited. Go back and actually READ the pdf before making such silly statements.

 

[mutantdonut]

What the movement gave women was the ability to be equal with men in the work place in the churches and in the votes. And that sums it up.

If that’s all you see in feminism, then you’re looking at it from a antiquated perspective. The movement has evolved, taking on various issues that go beyond women’s suffrage. To limit feminism as simply about women in the workforce, ability to vote, etc, trivializes the bigger scope of what women go through in this world.

 

[Joeternal]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

I'm not going to say I'm for either or, I'm just going to say back before the feminists movement. It seems like families were more put together then they are today. Does that mean there were no fathers that beat there wives or packed there bags and left? Nf course there was, there are pieces of shit in every generation. It just seems the divorce rate has gone WAY up since then maybe its because in marriages today people feel like they should be independent not dependent on one another and get all power tripped, kids get into drugs and partying WAY younger now,since it is typical for both parents to work in modern society and kids are not being watched. My dad told me when he was young, there were hardly any broken homes, now today you can hardly find someone whose parents are still married. There just seems to have been a dramatic shift in a negative way in family values ever since the movement. But in the end we should all be equal, it just seems whenever anyone gets rights in this country there's a 5-10% positive outcome and then the rest is just negative.

The Baby Boomers were called the "me generation" for a reason. The mindset of the 60s and 70s has come to completely dominate society, and we're all living with it. The biggest division in society is between people who were born into a two parent household with a married biological mother and father and those who weren't. Rates of childhood abuse, drug abuse, incarceration, low educational attainment and poverty are much higher for children not raised in a "traditional" home. And those numbers are growing. Feminism is not the only cause of it, but it is part of it.

By constantly demonizing the traditional family model, feminists have encouraged the trends. Regardless of whether or not the woman works - women have always had to work when the family was not well off - marriage and motherhood are characterized by feminism as some kind of prison that prevents women from pursuing their own selfish goals. In the pre-Boomer culture, there was much more emphasis on self-sacrifice, duty and honor in all spheres of life. Now lying, cheating and breaking the rules to get what you want is encouraged, and rejecting any obligation to others, particularly your family, is treated as a totally acceptable approach to life.

In the past, people also accepted that life is hard, and you don't always get what you want. Now we're all told to demand what we want and do whatever we have to do to get it, no matter who we hurt in the process. It applies to men or women, but it has been systematized and institutionalized when it comes to groups or classes of people who can be declared "historically oppressed" and "victimized". If you're a white male you're just as screwed as anybody else, the only difference is nobody gives a damn.

 

[Joeternal]

What do rape statistics have to do with feminism or anti-feminists?

I'm not going to say I'm for either or, I'm just going to say back before the feminists movement. It seems like families were more put together then they are today. Does that mean there were no fathers that beat there wives or packed there bags and left? Nf course there was, there are pieces of shit in every generation. It just seems the divorce rate has gone WAY up since then maybe its because in marriages today people feel like they should be independent not dependent on one another and get all power tripped, kids get into drugs and partying WAY younger now,since it is typical for both parents to work in modern society and kids are not being watched. My dad told me when he was young, there were hardly any broken homes, now today you can hardly find someone whose parents are still married. There just seems to have been a dramatic shift in a negative way in family values ever since the movement. But in the end we should all be equal, it just seems whenever anyone gets rights in this country there's a 5-10% positive outcome and then the rest is just negative.

Back in "the day" it was also legal to beat and rape your wife (and I'd guess it happened more often than now, seeing as now it's much less socially acceptable). I'd argue there was a stronger religious element in more homes as well, that would discourage people from divorcing. Women had far fewer financial options if they did leave, so they stayed in abusive or unhappy marriages. The homes may not have been "broken" but that doesn't mean that they were more put together.

As for kids getting into drugs earlier because of parents working, I'd argue that that is a result of the economy (few people can afford a family on one income) more than feminism.

This is the thing, and it applies way beyond feminism. The mantra that everything in the past was horrible, and things are much better now, is a lie. There are many ways in which society today is demonstrably much, much worse than it was in the past. Feminists will merely point at the margins where a few things have unarguably improved, while denying all the damage they've done in the process, and blaming everything on the economy, corporations, etc.

Maybe going off subject, but the stagnation of wages that has been happening for almost 50 years now directly coincides with the increase of labor force participation by women, and the increase in the foreign born population of the US. So do more women have to work because wages have fallen, or have wages fallen because more women are working - thereby increasing the supply of labor, and driving down wages by competing with men? The basic law of supply and demand is that when the supply of something increases, its cost goes down. Immigration is completely off topic, so I won't get into that. Just food for thought.

 

[Nordling]

Oops. Thanked by accident.

Your food for thought would give the average mind malnutrition. You're making all kinds of correlations and suggesting they are causes for your perceived modern evils.

It is a good thing that there are more divorces now...it's not an indication of selfishness; it's an indication that people no longer are forced into staying with abusive people.

 

[Joeternal]

Oops. Thanked by accident.

Your food for thought would give the average mind malnutrition. You're making all kinds of correlations and suggesting they are causes for your perceived modern evils.

The correlations regarding children raised in a household with their married biological parents vs those who are not are iron clad. That stuff is about as proven as any kind of sociological data can be.

The statistics I cited about wages and labor force participation are likewise absolutely real, but it's a chicken and egg question. Nobody (meaning "experts", the media and so forth) ever even acknowledges the possibility that female participation and immigration have driven down wages, but any intellectually honest economist knows it's at least an equally valid explanation, if not more likely.

It is a good thing that there are more divorces now...it's not an indication of selfishness; it's an indication that people no longer are forced into staying with abusive people.

Are you seriously suggesting that most divorces are a result of abuse? Do you know any actual human beings? In nearly every case I've personally witnessed, the two people involved "got sick of each other", one or both of them cheated, and they got divorced. But divorce isn't even the main point. The big trend today is children born completely out of wedlock. Marriage isn't even happening in the first place for there to be a divorce. The number is now close to 40%, and those children are at a massive disadvantage.

 

[Nordling]

No, you're not "citing" anything. I see no links to reasonable articles. What you are doing is ASSERTING things and calling them "iron clad" facts. What, for instance is your causal factor...in other words HOW does women entering the work force cause wages to go down?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Oops. Thanked by accident.

Your food for thought would give the average mind malnutrition. You're making all kinds of correlations and suggesting they are causes for your perceived modern evils.

It is a good thing that there are more divorces now...it's not an indication of selfishness; it's an indication that people no longer are forced into staying with abusive people.

I don't agree with most of JoeEternal's conclusion, but this statement is absolute correct.

"The correlations regarding children raised in a household with their married biological parents vs those who are not are iron clad. That stuff is about as proven as any kind of sociological data can be."

There is literally 50 years of research on the subject. It is also in many peoples opinion a significant source of income equality, lots of poor people have kids out of wedlock. It is much more expensive to maintain two households than to one, which leads to kids growing up in poverty.

 

[Nordling]

Oops. Thanked by accident.

Your food for thought would give the average mind malnutrition. You're making all kinds of correlations and suggesting they are causes for your perceived modern evils.

It is a good thing that there are more divorces now...it's not an indication of selfishness; it's an indication that people no longer are forced into staying with abusive people.

I don't agree with most of JoeEternal's conclusion, but this statement is absolute correct.

"The correlations regarding children raised in a household with their married biological parents vs those who are not are iron clad. That stuff is about as proven as any kind of sociological data can be."

There is literally 50 years of research on the subject. It is also in many peoples opinion a significant source of income equality, lots of poor people have kids out of wedlock. It is much more expensive to maintain two households than to one, which leads to kids growing up in poverty.

No argument here. Certainly, the fuller a family, the happier a child, the happier a child, the better they do in life. Well, one argument. I'm not sure that it matters whether or not a child's parent are biological or not. Why would it? One would think adoptive parents would love the child more, since they actually planned to have the child. Many exceptions, of course, on both sides of that discussion...so many factors, exceptions and other factors that I doubt one can draw any "ironclad" conclusions.

 

[Joeternal]

No, you're not "citing" anything. I see no links to reasonable articles. What you are doing is ASSERTING things and calling them "iron clad" facts. What, for instance is your causal factor...in other words HOW does women entering the work force cause wages to go down?

If you doubt the facts about outcomes for children born out of wedlock, you can look it up. As for your question, I already answered it. Maybe you missed it. It's the most basic law of economics, supply and demand. As supply increases, prices fall.

Let's say you're a welder, and there's somebody who needs to hire a welder. If you're the only welder in town, you're in a very strong bargaining position. So let's say you charge $40 an hour. Now another welder comes along and says, "I'll do it for $30 an hour". You get into a bidding war. Now imagine there are 20 welders, and still only one employer. The employer is the strong position, and can offer a lower wage, knowing that the welders are desperate for work.

That's how it works.

So if you doubt what I'm saying, go to Google and find three charts: Real Wages (i.e. adjusted for inflation), Labor Force Participation Rate (preferably subdivided by male, female and total), and the Foreign-Born % of the US population. Look for line graphs that show the trends over time, going back to the end of WWII. You will see that all three line up, with the latter two rising substantially starting around 1970, and Real Wages going flat starting at the same point in time.

Correlation does not prove causation, and I'm not claiming this interpretation is unassailable. But it makes more sense than any other explanation, in my opinion.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

It seems like families were more put together then they are today.

This seems like nostalgia for a past that never was.

 

[Nordling]

No, you're not "citing" anything. I see no links to reasonable articles. What you are doing is ASSERTING things and calling them "iron clad" facts. What, for instance is your causal factor...in other words HOW does women entering the work force cause wages to go down?

If you doubt the facts about outcomes for children born out of wedlock, you can look it up. As for your question, I already answered it. Maybe you missed it. It's the most basic law of economics, supply and demand. As supply increases, prices fall.

Let's say you're a welder, and there's somebody who needs to hire a welder. If you're the only welder in town, you're in a very strong bargaining position. So let's say you charge $40 an hour. Now another welder comes along and says, "I'll do it for $30 an hour". You get into a bidding war. Now imagine there are 20 welders, and still only one employer. The employer is the strong position, and can offer a lower wage, knowing that the welders are desperate for work.

That's how it works.

So if you doubt what I'm saying, go to Google and find three charts: Real Wages (i.e. adjusted for inflation), Labor Force Participation Rate (preferably subdivided by male, female and total), and the Foreign-Born % of the US population. Look for line graphs that show the trends over time, going back to the end of WWII. You will see that all three line up, with the latter two rising substantially starting around 1970, and Real Wages going flat starting at the same point in time.

Correlation does not prove causation, and I'm not claiming this interpretation is unassailable. But it makes more sense than any other explanation, in my opinion.

No. You make the assertion, then YOU provide the citations. And yes, I understand supply and demand, but that has nothing to do with women entering the labor force. Just because women started working more than historically, doesn't mean employers hired more people than they needed. Manufacturers typically build to sell, not to stock. And if you have more people making money, then you have more money in the economy to purchase widgets.

When weren't there a lot of foreign born workers in the US? Isn't that why there's a Statue of Liberty sitting in NYC harbor?

 

[weirdbr]

The claim that wages are being lower due to immigration and women joining the workforce is only part of the picture - you are skipping the fact that during the last 50 to 100 years there's been an increase in the rate of replacement of workforce with machines. So now you have twice as many workers available competing for fewer jobs and obviously you get lower wages from that.. Which leads to very low wages that locals won't accept, while immigrants will happily accept those. And over the last 100 years as well, global mobility became cheaper and easier - before you had to sit on a ship for a month go to from Europe to the US, now it's a matter of hours (assuming you get your paperwork right).

 

[SexySteph]

So to save the economy and the morality of America people women should... Leave the work force??

Sorry? I'm just trying to follow JoeEternal's train of thought.

 

[Joeternal]

It seems like families were more put together then they are today.

This seems like nostalgia for a past that never was.

Up until 60-70 years ago, the marriage rate and the percentage of the population that was married was much higher, the divorce rate was much lower, and the percentage of children born out of wedlock and raised by single parents was drastically lower than it is today.

That's what he was obviously referring to.

 

[Joeternal]

So to save the economy and the morality of America people women should... Leave the work force??

Sorry? I'm just trying to follow JoeEternal's train of thought.

I didn't say that. Like I said, just food for thought. I'm not sure I have the answer.