Could Feminism Save The American Family?

[brain5000]

Got to start off by making it clear -- I am no expert on feminism.

I know a few things but in no way could I teach a women's studies class. If I get a few things wrong, please feel free to teach, but try to restrain the hate. I mean well and didn't write this to offend anyone.

With that, I must offer my understanding of what feminism is and means - that men and women are legally equal, that we should have the same legal rights, equal pay and be treated with equal respect at all times. Perhaps that is an oversimplification.

If that definition is acceptable, I don't understand how anyone could find such an expectation unreasonable.

Since World War II, there has been a cultural norm of a family structure where a man works to provide while a woman stays in the home and maintains a household. Whether you think this is the way things should be or not, it is increasingly a fantasy.

In the late 1980s and 90s, with dual-income households and low interest rates, the price of housing skyrocketed, forcing both mom and dad to work to support a family. Now the "traditional" heteronormative family expectation is driving in reverse: women are taking over the halls of higher education, while the number of men with college degrees and high-earning jobs is decreasing.

Is this women's fault? I can't see how this can be argued. The things driving this change have little to do with feminism, and more to do with other societal changes like skyrocketing inflation in the cost of higher education, free trade, improvements in technology and the decline of organized labor.

If feminism is a factor, it is in that women are more united than men, and are providing each other with scholarships and financial aid that men haven't provided for each other. Yet all of the prevailing wisdom out there suggests women want educated and professional men to mate with, so this is a problem for us all.

Women aren't going back to the kitchen, and it is ridiculous to expect them to. Yet, it also seems impossible to deny the reality that many women —most?— want to pair up with a wealthy man and commit to being a homemaker. So if you're a guy who hates feminism, chances are there is a woman out there for you. You just have to grab yourself by the balls and work your ass off for her.

In the meantime, the rest of us have to face the reality that a new family model - perhaps several - are in the offing. That model is going to be based on equal responsibiltiy and respect. It might involve outside help to rear children, although that will remain beyond the budget for many.

Men will have to expect to find women who can contribute to the cost of a family, and women are going to have to learn that they can't rely on a man to provide for them. I think both men and women are generally struggling with this; it goes against our evolution.

However, if we can buck the evolution and adapt, as humanity does so well, we'll probably emerge with a stronger, more just and robust family model than we had in the 50s.

[Distant]

Save the American family? Professional women are shooting themselves in the foot by spending their prime birthing years in a classroom trying to get a career. By the time she graduates and finds a potential husband, she's often in her mid 20's. Nevermind time spent trying to meet the right guy, date for the appropriate amount of time and eventually get married.

Studies indicate that giving birth after age 35 increases risk of disease in infants among other complications: www.nichd.nih.gov/.../factors.aspx#age

This gives women a VERY narrow window to find an appropriate husband and have children before 35 if she plans to pursue a graduate degree or PhD.

In addition, if she plans on marrying someone with at least her level of education, she's going to have even worse odds: "Women between 25 and 34 are 21 percent more likely than men to be college graduates, according to 2013 data."

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com/.../how-the-gender-ratio-in-the-us-could-be-affecting-your-dating-life_55e07f99e4b0c818f6178e58

Am I saying women shouldn't pursue an education? Hell no, they should do whatever they want. However, your suggestion that modern feminism will "save" the American family is incondite at best.

[Distant]

@Distant

[brain5000]

Yeah, it is incondite. I am responding to a lot of feminist-bashing I see here. Men and women are both struggling with the new reality, I think, and no one seems to be discussing how to incorporate the new world into a family model. I am not equipped to suggest those models, but it would be interesting to see what people have tried, and how it is working.

In the meantime, I will continue to read men blame the decline of their opportunity to force women into submission, while also reading myTakes where women bemoan their ability to find someone in a very small pool of wealthy men, like this one.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23621-the-reason-there-are-no-good-men-left-women-30-problems

[SylviaBelle]

True feminism is the desire to make sure that men and women are treated equally, no double standards, no gender biases. That means we have to stand up for men's rights as well as women's, and that's the part that many pseudo feminists leave out. Real feminism is about making sure that no one experiences gender bias, so in short, it creates a more loving and happier society for both genders. Men would no longer need to be afraid to show emotion, they would get custody of their children if they're the worthier parent, they would not be dismissed and told to shut up when raped. True feminism wants to end these kinds of awful things that men go through as well as the awful things women go through. So yes, feminism could save the modern family, and it can save a lot more than that too.

Male issues are actually a particular interest of mine as a feminist because I think there are so many people pretending to be feminists but refusing to support men that no one knows what feminism actually is anymore. They think it's man-hating which it cannot be, because as long as men are suffering so will women and vice versa.

[brain5000]

This is an excellent comment, thank you. I only touched upon one aspect of this, that many women are still are attracted to and looking for men who can be providers. You hit more of the bases.

Whether people are happy about it or not, feminism is happening. So why can't men start claiming some of their benefits? Last time I asked about this on a forum I was shouted down by women who thought I had an agenda to re-assert the patriarchy, but one guy who agreed with me wrote privately and appealed to gradualism. After that I decided I would happily join the feminist movement -- as soon as women were ready to.

Again, thanks for this excellent comment.

[Anpu23]

You might find this interesting

[SylviaBelle]

Thank you! The problem is lack of education and a stigma created by extremists. I in no way want to compare what feminists go to to what muslims are going through now, but you can see that it's kind of a smaller-scale prejudice in the same way. Right now, muslim extremists warp the teachings of the koran to justify horrible acts and then suddenly a disgusting amount of people become anti-islamic because those bad people who happen to be muslim are the only muslims the media wants to show us.

The same thing happened with feminism, which is why so many people think feminists are bad. Again, I'm not belittling the horrible islamophobia that's going on right now at all, I know that they're not equal, but the media has always shown feminist extremists exclusively. People who warped the teachings of feminism to make it into something ridiculously over the top and justify the hatred of men or any number of bad things. That's not feminism. We just need to be the examples to teach the world.

[brain5000]

I agree. Feminism is really complicated and almost seems to require one to read several books and know lots of statistics to really get it. For example, if one sues their employer it can be extremely difficult to find a new job, so what recourse do people have? Concepts like street harassment and rape culture have to be explained to men, while women live with them all of the time. The pay gap is something no one really seems to understand except that we all know it is a real thing.

"Lack of education" is certainly a valid and correct way of asserting the problem, but "lack of simplicity" is another. There isn't really a simple goal of all feminism, at least not that I have learned of, and this allows people to distort it easily.

[SylviaBelle]

The goal is actually super simple, it's just that there are so many people pretending to be feminists that are making it sound like the goal is scattered and disorganized and can't include men's issues.

The goal is to make men and women equal, to make sure that no one is treated differently because of their gender. That's it.

Which means when there's a discrimination against women, it's a feminist issue. It means when there's discrimination against men, it's a feminist issue. Feminism is about stopping gender-based discrimination. That is all.

[brain5000]

You know that and I know that, but do all of the people claiming to be feminists and all of the people claiming to oppose feminism get that? You are right again: there are too many claiming to be feminists while losing sight of the goal.

[SylviaBelle]

Exactly! Lol, so we just have to be the example that the world needs, and be louder than the fakers. Luckily we have some women now, like Emma Watson and Malala Yousafzai (as well as men like Aziz Ansari) who are showing what real feminism looks like and explaining what it really means and they're actually getting public attention for it rather than being shoved aside and showing the few crazy people setting bras on fire or whatever it is they want us to believe feminists do...

[Anpu23]

Are you open to debate? I am interested in learning more about modern feminism. I was brought up by a 70's bra burner and have had a lot of trauma in and around feminism. But I honestly want to know.

[JackHandy]

Bravo! Wish more feminists were as egalitarian as you.

[Mekkalyn]

"I only touched upon one aspect of this, that many women are still are attracted to and looking for men who can be providers. You hit more of the bases."

you know, I really don't think this is wrong.
I think it's perfectly okay for women to look for a provider.
If that's what they want in a relationship, and if it makes them happy, who are we to say otherwise?
Personally, I'd love to be a stay at home mommy. It would make me very happy. But am I going to go out and search for a wealthy man because of that want or be unwilling to help financially? No. Would it be nice to be able to stay home and be a caretaker? Certainly.

[brain5000]

@Mekkalyn Personally, I would love to be a stay-at-home daddy. Which of us becoming a stay-at-home parent is more likely to happen?

[SylviaBelle]

Thank you, OP :) while I agree that it's not wrong for some women to want a provider in a relationship, we need to change the conversation so that it's okay for men to want that, too. Being a stay at home dad is just as relevant a profession as a stay at home mother. The problem is that one is accepted by society and the other isn't, and that comes back to patriarchal values again. Because men need to appear strong and in charge according to patriarchal values, and because being female is seen as lesser, a man taking on traditionally feminine roles is seen as lesser and weak. That's a huge problem.

[hellionthesage]

Well, it wasn't until the feminization of schools that women graduating at higher rates and male drop out rates increased. Their is significantly more female school teachers then males despite the fact that all evidence shows that male students respond better to male teachers (and unlike all male dominated fields their is no quota to address this discrepency) Prior to this shift when the numbers where reversed it was blamed on men and sexism, ironic that now that its men suffering it has nothing to do with how there gender is being treated but "economics". In fact this is the reason the economics are an issue, half the population is loosing out on jobs because the system is increasingly being taylored for women instead of both genders. As for women being more "united" all those scholarships and programs where pushed by feminist to benefit women (using tax payer money ie men and womens money to benefit only women). That said by your definition of feminism, "that men and women are legally equal, that we should have the same legal rights, equal pay and be treated with equal respect at all times." should include men yet as you have pointed out, twice, has not. In fact with the claim of equality, already you have pointed out that its men who are inequal and yet refuse to acknowledge that feminism has not addressed these issues at any point in time, and in many cases are actively pushing for these inequalities. In fact you are currently pandering to women, not very equal of you. Your basing your notion that women where historicly mistreated yet all historical evidence and cultural evidence shows beyond any doubt that women where treated far superior to men. It was men who had all the responsibilities and it was men who where expected to die if it was required, so that a woman may live. That is not treating women with out respect but rather treating men as disposable. Their is no pay gap what so ever, it has been debunked time and time again. The inital study, done by feminist, compared the pay of men and women, not of men and women in the same field, with the same time at the company etc. In fact in some cases women make more money, like in stem fields where their are fewer women and therefore the companies pay more for female workers to entice them into the company to fullfill there quotas, an advantage men do not have. As for division of labor why should we change? You have not given a reason to do so. Why do you think it would be better?

[hellionthesage]

The fact is we do this because each is best adapted to a certain task, to alter that with out reasonable justification is illogical. Why is it wrong for a woman, who is better adept at taking care of children, to stay at home and take care of children. We know that splitting the task puts a strain on relationships/marriages as the years that children are most dependent, between birth and early teens, are the years that are most frequently reported as being the most unhappy. Yet that does not seem to be the case with more traditional families. Both are difficult jobs, both require dedication, splitting your time between work and kids means you are working more which is stressful and your kids are not going to have the care they need ie if you work your not with your kids, if your with your kids your not working so your going to be doing both tasks poorly. Thats why division of labor occured, it was efficient and worked with our natural biological tendencies.

[hellionthesage]

As for feminism "saving" the family, they (the founders of second/thirdwave feminism and the academic feminist) have actively tried to destroy it, by their own admission no less:

The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. Linda Gordon

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Andrea Dworkin

thoughtcatalog.com/.../

The fact is, they have perpetrated myths and lies in order to get what they want and have actively destroyed families and our society by pitting women against men.

[ShadowStaff]

Great comment, funny when I studied feminism early on I used to side with feminists. Until I seen all the downsides and it's true motives, Human rights activist is much more the approach than feminazism, If you look at many sub cultures within the united states and and now even mainstream culture you control a group, manipulate or eradicate it by controlling their women. Once you have lost your women in integrity, in actuality, or loyalty your group is bound to wither away. You can look at man native American groups that was wiped away sacajawea is a prime example. During slavery the men and women were separated and the women made"nannies or mammies" were given unequal power to suppress their men. The chinese and mexican immigrants were not allowed their wives or women to enter the country. And during the big eastern immigration wave... oh wait thats when feminism sprung up to help socialize and integrate and destabilize new minority group families and re-socialize them in U. S economy.

[hellionthesage]

@ShadowStaff Feminism is a very manipulative ideology. It functions on half truths and the exploitation of male instincts ie their protective instincts. You'll notice that in all instances feminist portray themselves as victims of men, now if men where as sexist as feminist say then this wouldn't matter and would not affect anything, yet it does work, every time. They exploit that fact to gain more power for themselves. Another example, they claim women couldn't vote which is true, but then it was also true that men couldn't either, at least not until the 1850s ie 70 years before women. The only reason why men got that right was because they where drafted into war against their will, women never had to be drafted. So during world war II 2/3 of the soldiers where drafted that is they where forced to go to war against their will the only consolation being the ability to write a name on a ballot, women on the other hand never had that responsibility yet still got the privledge.

[JackHandy]

Bravo to you good sir! This answer resonated with me deeply and you expressed what I was thinking so well. Thanks!

[hellionthesage]

@JackHandy Glad I could be of service.

[Phoenix98]

Nope feminism is not even remotely what this country needs, what will save this country is a new administration less political corruption, new tax codes, a budget plan, making use of our massive stores of natural resources which could allow us to be completely self sustaining for hundreds of years. Smaller government, and getting rid of all these useless corrupt government agencies which are money pits, bringing back innovation and industry back to America as well as kicking out all of the illegal immigrants living here and not taking in more from other nations as well as securing our boarder which will in turn limit how effectively drugs and criminals can get into the country as well as illegals. Having the UN or all the members pay rental fees of sorts for having their headquarters here since as of right now they are here free of charge.

Feminism didn't make things better in the USA it was part of the cause and a symptom of a much larger problem not the first generation of feminism I support that generation because all they wanted was simply the option to work or go to school themselves, support themselves among other things and wanted to make things overall better for both genders will still staying true to the traditional morals and values that made the traditional American family great.

But every generation of feminism after the first one has done nothing but harm the American family, the traditional values that were part of the reason this country was so great, families are meant to be a father and a mother and children, the mother is supposed to be there and spend time with the child as they grow up, because that bond is important the mother and the father have clear and defined roles and purposes in a family for a reason.

What does "modern" feminism have to show for itself? broken families, single mothers with children without fathers or single fathers with children who don't have a mother, unstable households, women who spend most of their young life getting a "career" wanting to have it all, only to complain later that they can't find a man, what do you expect? nor can you have it all, it's a unrealistic goal, it's a group that corrupts young women's minds with ideals of supremacy and dominance, laws that favor women and leave men with absolutely nothing, even if she was the one at fault for destroying a marriage she still gets everything how is that equal? It's a group of lies, double standards, bigotry, and hypocrisy.

[Phoenix98]

And women have also apparently lost the ability to use basic skills one of the core principles of the first generation feminism was that women would be able to support themselves and function by themselves, but yet barely any women know how to cook, clean or use any practical skills needed for life in general for both genders.

Also FYI I have no never heard of a stay at home mother being forced to be a stay at home mother, all the ones I've known chose that life, they chose to sacrifice for the good of the children and the family, my own mother did the same thing in fact she went to college got a degree had a career but decided it was best to be a stay at home mother, and she never looked back, every other stay at home mother had the same mindset.

[Phoenix98]

O I almost forget while the times may change I will always be an old fashioned person and my views will remain the same. The times may change but I under no circumstances will change with them.

Also the whole men being able to be pregnant thing is an abomination against nature and humanity, same with any medical advances in similar fields.

[Entity]

The problem with most things is usually the seed. This is no different. The nuclear family was propaganda, but it carried a bit too far, 70 years into the future too far actually.

The concept of a stay-at-home mother was actually new and really impossible for most families. Just ask a farmer. Everyone worked.

As the population boomed and technology did it's thing with the advertising of high life as the norm people took propaganda from the era and made it as such. Women had been working in industrial America for well over 30 years by this time because remember: Child labor existed. What are the odds mom didn't work but little Susie and Tom did?

The seed gave birth to a false understanding of history which in turn created madness in an era where changes were too rapid. Huge increases in prosperity, new frontiers in medicine, and now labor laws existed?

Wait. Yes. Labor laws. Because people could no longer be legally shafted by their employers money was abundant! Poor families became less poor and the economy grew, education was "the norm" and literacy made huge leaps for minorities, and human capital was abundant!

The age of classism had gently become a thing of the past. . . or art least laid dormant. In 1950 3.2% of the population couldn't read. In 1979 only.6% could not. 10.2% of black people in 1950 couldn't read. In 1979 it was approx. 1.6%.

"What do I care?"

Political movements are a child, not progenitor, of this. There was no nuclear family. There were no institutions to back these things. And the seed is worth nothing. So the tree the same.

More, not less, are going to college and graduating. The gap in bachelor's is not massive either, 57% are women, in Master's 60% but in Doctorates? 53%.

It's about even. It fluctuates at a rate that's no "threat" to men. There's no epidemic of uneducated men. The dropout rates have decreased among both sexes to less than 10% and hover very close to one another with females dropping out perhaps 1-2% less at collegiate level. When we plant bad seeds we get bad trees.

All statistical information taken from nces. ed. gov (The National Center for Education Statistics).

You must take it upon yourself to learn of the real reasons why things are the way they are. Study. Research. Don't eat all that is spoonfed to you; there's no national crisis in colleges where men are dropping like uneducated flies. Third wave isn't the problem nor holds any solutions.

[CanPenguinsBendOver]

To be honest, I think it's unfair that a lot of people define feminism over the actions of it's extremists and misandrists, forgetting all the rest of us logical women who actually want fairness for both males and females. It's not a man-hating cult that seeks female dominance (although I admit a lot of these pseudo feminists are like that) because real feminism is about equality.

The only problem I find with feminism is that it's only focused on women and leaves out the men which is why I consider myself an egalitarian. However, I still consider feminism as a subcategory of egalitarianism so it saddens me that so many men hate it when what they really hate is the hypocrisy, bigotry and double standards that some of the pseudo feminists assert over men.

I wish they'd stop mixing the two very different versions as one, it paints us all in a negative light. Anyway I'm all for equality and justice so to answer your question, no I don't think feminism alone can save it, I think egalitarianism can.

[Anpu23]

The problem with this argument is simply, that it's the recognized leaders of the movement that act in ways contrary to the stated beliefs. When the chairperson for NOW, or a prominent book writer, or the spokesperson in the UN state or do things contrary to "equality" then it brings the ENTIRE group into question, it's not fair to say, "well those aren't MY kind of feminists" when they put themselves forward as leaders, and spokespeople for the group as a whole. When you identify with a movement, from an outsiders perspective it's the prominent leaders of that movement that define it, their actions, words, etc. And those trump any definition that anyone may put forth. It's pure apologia to say "well they don't speak for ME" when they speak fro the group as a whole.

[oddwaffle]

Actually, none of that matters because the problems (or so people thought) with families is an economic issue than developed from an equality issue. There is a piece f important information: divorce rate peaked at around 5% in the 80s then fell to roughly 3.4% in 30 years. That means people are getting divorce less today than a generation ago and people who married in the 50-70s were the ones getting more divorces.

Back in those ages, a family is needed because both mom and dad had a certain function for the family. There were very few choices for a woman to support herself so her options was to get married or lived in poverty. On the other hand, a guy could make enough for himself and provide for a nuclear family. So the mom took care of the domestic problems and the dad tried to make money. Of course, this means a lot of women married for economic reasons rather than love or emotions. Hence, high divorce rate.

Nowadays, things are different. A gal can fully support herself if she knows what she's doing and not running into debt. Combine with birth control, a woman can await for Mr. Right rather than Mr. Right Now.

[brain5000]

Perhaps the reason that divorce rate peaked in the 80s is because then, for the first time, women could have careers and raise families without men. It wasn't easy, but they could do it. I would be curious to know where you pulled those statistics from.

[oddwaffle]

Statistics from the CDC. You can google it for divorce rate since 1950.

One of the supporting reasons for rise of divorce rates is that women could get more access to jobs to escape their unhappy marriages. This also contributes to lowering the marriage rates since 1970s because people (mostly women) can afford not to have a family unless they are sure to get the right person.

Another reason pointed out that the marraigable males are getting more and more differentiated. Some men are too successful while some are too unsuccessful. Men don't usually try to work in traditionally women industry like nursing or children care. This limits the job markets for men and a lot of men find themselves unable to obtain a degree or job. With women being able to support the! selves, why would anyone want to marry a minimum wage guy?

[brain5000]

No, YOU can Google it. You made the claim. Back it up, friend.

[oddwaffle]

https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005044.html

1min google

[brain5000]

Thank you. Your table shows that since 1975, half of marriages end in divorce. It doesn't show a decreasing divorce rate unless you disregard the number showing fewer marriages.

"Since 1975" = "since feminism"

[oddwaffle]

You have the read the data and interpret them.

The rate is per 1000 people. It means that for every 1000 people, there are about 10 of them going through a divorce in 1980. Similarly, for every 1000 people there are about 6 going through a divorce in 2012.

People who get married in 1980 won't show up on divorce rate in 1980. It's the people who married before that who were getting their divorce. That means in 1975, all most none of those who was getting married would be going through a divorce (unless it was very urgent).

While people can argue that the divorce rates haven't gone down because of the decline in marriage rates (worthy of a research paper), it's also really really hard to argue that the families are failing more now compare to those olden days.

[heavensgift2girls]

Eventually the new family model will be that technology will be developed that will make it possible for a man to have his own child that he doesn't have to share custody with. That way men no longer have to worry about losing custody of his child they way they do now. It will be lots of single mothers and fathers, and children that only ever had one parent. Men and women will still marry, but they won't be able to take the other persons child, and divorce will be as small a legal matter as a simple break up is now.

The human race is growing apart. Even today kids spend more time with their electronics than they do actual human beings. As technology develops the human race will grow apart even more. Technology makes us more independent, by making other humans less important to us. Eventually other people won't matter to us at all. Most of us will become hermits that never leave their apartments, and use some sort of filter, so they don't have to read anything offensive online. I see no hope of the family unit getting stronger. Considering how fast technology is moving, I would say that this will be the norm, within 50 years.

[notgoodwithnames]

I disagree, we need other humanbeings, and it can be by having friends or having partners. Many people still want to find a man\woman they can have sex with and still love, while many people think their hand is enough and they have enough friends to be loved.
So yes, this is it.

[heavensgift2girls]

@notgoodwithnames Right now we can't even handle real human beings without filtering them through technology. We text them and avoid even the intimacy that hearing their voice would bring on the phone, even though we are holding a phone in our hands. Yes there will always be exceptions, but for the most part it we are growing apart and that is only going to get worse, as new technology keeps getting invented that can replace more and more actual humans from our lives. We may be social animals, but we can clearly get those social needs met through artificial means, and avoid the negatives that come from letting the wrong human in our lives.

We even have people killing themselves because they can't take the bullying of other humans. An advanced A. I. system would never bully that person, and could even help to make them feel loved. Humans just aren't that good at being... good. More and more people will choose the blue pill over the red pill.

[notgoodwithnames]

Actually for many, the internet is helping. For me, i found many online friends that i discussed. And with that, i became stronger and more open to people at my class.
Also, t helped me have a sense of belonging (a fandom).

But there is another thing i would like to add, apart from technology, a family can be in fact formed without the woman being the maid and the man being the tyrant of the house. A long time ago, love wasn't equal, to make long story short, if a man loved a woman and had five goats, boar, whatever, and was rich, even if he was disgusting and abusive, he could buy the woman even if she hated him from her father.
As for now, women and men can love each other equally. So i believe the human race isn't growing that much apart.
Also, if you are lonely, you can go online and find people like you, and go on a date.

As for the last part, I can't say i agree 100% with you, because people, even though there is a lot of greed in them, there is also a lot of love.

[notgoodwithnames]

Many people enjoy giving and helping, and many people like to love. I m not saying they like to give everything they own, but they like to give some things to help others if encouraged; we played a game in social studies, and this proved my point.

[heavensgift2girls]

@notgoodwithnames All love is, is the willingness to sacrifice for that person. It isn't about the way the person feels. In many cultures it was in fact the woman that had to pay, just in order to prove she wouldn't be a burden to the man. Back then the men and the women were expected, and in many cases bound by law to take care of each other for their mutual survival.

Today people are independent because of wealth and technology, and don't need that kind of relationship for survival. That is why people aren't staying together. it isn't because men don't want a relationship if they can't be the boss. Why do you think feminism didn't exist until after technology freed people from having to work the land for survival? The people back then were desperate and had to live that way to survive.

Now we can afford to have a choice. In the future people will even be able to afford to be more choosy. We won't want an imperfect partner, when we don't have a need for a partner at all.

[heavensgift2girls]

The day will come when men and women literally have nothing to offer one another. Look at how the technology has changed peoples lives in the past 200 years. Now imagine how people will live 200 years from now. We simply won't have need for other people, and therefore won't value other humans.

[notgoodwithnames]

I disagree with the first point; long ago, men did all the work whle women, even though they were able to do much more, were neglected and expected to only work at home. and divorce wasn't common, so the women were stuck with that man for the rest of their lives. In the 1980's, the divorce rate went high, basically because a revolution happened and changed the society, and then the divorce rate lowered again because people were able to marry the people they love.
And just because they are independent with wealth and work doesn't mean they don't need each other; true many many people prefer to stay alone, but this is their choice. everybody is different and we need to accept this.

As for the last part, this is inaccurate for me. Now people, instead of marrying because 'they need to', they get married because 'they want to' . and because so many people are different now, it actually gives men and women more offers to each other;

[notgoodwithnames]

e. g. those two both love video games, and they enjoy playing together.
those two both like science, and they experiment things together.
those two are so different; one likes to sing and the other enjoys to teach, but they are really great together, because they both have different things to tell each other.
this man likes to work at home and this woman enjoys to work outside, they divided the houseowkr betweenn them, the man does housework nd the woman brings money.
those two women like to cook together each Tuesday.
those two men enjoy to ski together.
this family of four likes to watch films each Sunday.
those coupe broke up because it didn't work out, they're so different.

i think i wrote too many examples.

[heavensgift2girls]

@notgoodwithnames The role of homemaker was more important than you think. There were practical reasons why women didn't go out to work as often. Did you know the average single mom today spends more time with her kids, than the average stay at home mom women use to? They didn't have TV dinners, fast food, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, etc. It took someone all day long to get all of the chores done to keep the family running. Today a modern woman can do all that, work a full time job, and still have more time for her kids than women in the past.

Life was just harder back then because they didn't have the technology they do today. They relied on a man's strength to work the fields, and do other such chores to support the family. While he was busy doing that, his wife had to do everything else.

[heavensgift2girls]

Technology has done more to bring equality to the genders than any revolution. The revolution only happened because technology created an opportunity for it. The same thing is true for the sexual revolution. As soon as technology created the birth control pill, views on female sexuality started to change.

[Anonymous]

"... that men and women are legally equal, that we should have the same legal rights, equal pay and be treated with equal respect at all times"

Men and women have been legally equal in the western world for decades.

Women have more legal rights than men, not the reverse.

Single, childless women earn more than men. The only things keeping women from earning more than men on average are the choices women themselves make. They choose less lucrative career paths, they work fewer hours than men and they remove themselves from the workforce for extended periods of time. The lie that women earn less for the same work is just that, a lie.

With regard to respect, the only thing standing in the way of respect for women is feminism itself, and the victim mentality it fosters.

And yet feminism still tells women they are victims who are oppressed by some imaginary patriarchy. Huh?

Save the American family? Not so much. Feminism has in fact done great harm to the family, and society in general, in more ways than can be touched on in 2,500 words. Feminism is anti marriage and anti male and has been for more than 50 years. That is what feminism actually does as opposed to what it says it represents. If a feminist who is married or planning to be talks to another feminist she will apologize for and try to justify her decision because women have been told by feminism that men and marriage are bad. There have also been millions of children raised without a father because feminism told women fathers were unnecessary, and we are only beginning to scratch the surface in terms of understanding all the harm that has done to those children and society as a whole.

If the definition of feminism you provided was a true reflection of what feminism really is, I would support it 100%. But it's not, and in fact it moves further and further from those goals every day.

[brain5000]

When you aren't "Anonymous," is your user name "Bizarro?" Because the situation you describe is the exact opposite of reality.

[Opinion Owner]

Can you please provide directions for how to get to your planet? Here on Earth things are very different than the planet where you live.

By the way, are all the men one your planet white knights like you?

[Transigence]

159 years.

[Anonymous]

You've outlined what's happened, but I actually don't see any proposed way forward.

"In the meantime, the rest of us have to face the reality that a new family model - perhaps several - are in the offing. That model is going to be based on equal responsibiltiy and respect. It might involve outside help to rear children, although that will remain beyond the budget for many."

What will 'equal responsibility and respect' look like? Perhaps in particular, what will equal responsibility look like in the case of divorce?

Is one group of women going to work and then using the salary to pay a different group of women to raise their children changing much for average women?

Men, I'd say, are relatively willing to adapt to what's happened. Your wife used to cook and take care of the kids. She now wants to go to work, and use the salary to hire a nanny? sure, whatever. If she's happier.

By contrast I see women wanting more from men, but not actually dropping what they wanted in the past. They want men more involved in child care, cooking, housework, not just on the weekend, but in general. They want their husband to be sharing staying home from work when a child is sick and so on. But they also want the guy who is partner track and who could support them if they change their mind and decide to be at home for a few years.

I know plenty of stay at home mothers, and not one of them was pushed into it, every one of them announced it was what she wanted to do, then acted like she was making a big sacrifice while the family's income dropped so she could CHOOSE to be at home.

[notgoodwithnames]

I agree with you. Evolution made women take care of babies and men hunt or food.
Now it is different. Both men and women have the same abilities to think and work, and both men and women can take care of children.
This, for me, means that we are still evolving. Men don't need to hunt for food, and women don't need to sit at home and take care of a baby all alone, both should take care of the child and both should 'hunt' for food. This can make the family more balanced, because they both get their rest.

[Anonymous]

Feminism is nothing more than a pathetic hate movement full of lies, double standards, bigotry, and hypocrisy. I don't need a moment that demonizes traditional family constructs and men. Feminism has increased divorce rates and single moms, it was increased the graduation rate for women and increased the likehood of men dropping out of school. Feminism does nothing to help men even though the claim to fight for equal rights. In a nutshell feminism is about female supermacy and demonization of family constructs and men.

[JackHandy]

This is the best answer here. Modern "feminism" is completely self centered on women getting ahead and ignores the plight of men completely. They act like men are given some red carpet for opportunities in life when thats the furthest thing from the truth. It's a selfish and misandric and creates an anti-men mindset that makes women feel justified attacking men. Not to mention, the whole "patriarchy" viewpoint is as conspiracy theory bullshit as aliens coming in 2016. Thank you whoever you are anonymous!

[Mekkalyn]

i don't see how feminism can increase the likelihood of men dropping out of school, lmao
If men are dropping out, that's their own fault. Big bad feminists are not forcing you to drop out and they can't make women graduate. It's all about the individual and their ability to perform in a higher level of education. If they aren't smart enough to graduate, then they won't, regardless of gender. Feminists cannot make someone graduate or make someone drop out.

Just like feminism cannot increase divorce rates and single moms. Unless, by that, you mean that women in bad relationships are finding strength in themselves to leave their horrible relationships even when they have children and are finding more self respect for themselves. Feminism has given women strength to leave abusive relationships, because they know that it's not okay that they are treated the way they are and that they ARE equal.

Feminism as a movement is okay.
However, the double standards cannot be denied or defended

[Mekkalyn]

Which is the only reason I don't support feminism and don't consider myself a feminist.
But I can't help but defend it in this case because it didn't start off being bad. It started off with good intentions but got twisted around.

And not to mention that I believe you are spewing out incorrect facts. That's a motive for my comment, as well.

[KRIEL55]

@Mekkalyn I 100% agree with you. perfect points made.

[Jayded1]

Brilliant. I couldn't agree more.

[brain5000]

I posted this for you and @JackHandy,

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23827-could-feminism-save-the-american-family-abridged

@Makkalyn, you commented elsewhere that you want to be a supported homemaker. That could also be why you're not a feminist - because feminism hinders that.

[JackHandy]

@Mekkalyn You are clearly missing the point. Feminism does in fact increase single mothers and divorced families because it creates a mindset in women to do exactly those things with pride. How many feminists do you know go out of their way to reverse the high suicide rate of young men? Exactly

[ShadowStaff]

Feminism has done the exact opposite. It has weakened the traditional or cultural family unit in exchange for strengthening the state and economy which was the plan all along. By encouraging the woman to do the same thing of a man you weaken many aspects of the "home" and "family". Sure there are positive and negative tradeoffs but relating to the topic at hand the trade offs regarding the family were affected negatively. Divorce rates are higher at any point in history, as well as male suicides, single households have grown innumerable since the growth of feminism. Kids and generations seem to be plummeting, in terms of education, overall intelligence, morals, family expectation carried into the future, violence, pregnancy and abortions, drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases.
Trust be I am not blind to the liberal freedoms that came with feminism, but I am not blind to the costs either

[brain5000]

Well, again, I did write that there are lots of women out there who would love to find a rich man out there who could support them and allow them to run happy homes. Not all women are this way, but many are. Do you suppose this might not be the case?

[ShadowStaff]

It has nothing to do with rich or support. A relationship is two people acting as an individual unit in complete cohesion that is why the term marriage even exists. It wasn't much until feminism that we turned marriage into a negative to purposely spur women to become disillusioned of the singularity of their relationship and instigate infighting and separation. Today it does not matter if the man works or stays home or the woman works or stay home or they both work and make ample time for the home. The point is that the homefront has forever been shaken up by feminism, so how could it be the route of the "families" salvation. Gender roles and operations were much clearly defined. Feminisms clear loyalty is not to the family, it's not to next generation or their offspring or even the woman itself. Feminisms clear loyalty is to the economy. Basically doubling the spending power or slightly more as there are more females in the U. S than males. Feminism is a trick, and hey it worked.

[ShadowStaff]

You wan't women right's? then here come work in my factory, You want women's rights? then here smoke cigars and cigarettes and purchase our alcohol. You want women's rights? then here take our hormone pills, and abortion operations and buy tons of fashion to look attractive. you want women's rights? Here work this part time job with no benefits, oh your boyfriend can also have a part time job and share the hours of a normal full time job but now I don't have to supply you with medical insurance or raises and etc. You want women's rights? Here you can vote~ but pay your taxes :). Over 80% of consumerism and commercials are focused at women. But feminism is not there to protect women, it is not there to tell women how to invest on a home, or pay student loans. Feminism is not there to protect her from the perverts and drug abusers that drug women. Feminism is not there when the children of a single mother are left in neglect while she works 2 jobs. Feminism is a Sellout.

[brain5000]

You can light a candle or you can continue to curse the darkness, my friend.

[Serias9]

Feminism has done nothing negative to the family. If divorce rates are higher is simple because now women can choose not to stay in an unhappy marriage, women are the ones asking for divorce most of the time, because they know it's not worth it, it's not worth to stay with men that in plenty of cases are like babies and treat their wifes as their moms. In the past women were just domestic slaves, they were forced to waste their lives with people they were not happy with. This was not united family, that's just misoginy and legalized slavery. You're said, this isn't possible anymore?

[ShadowStaff]

@Serias9 Do you not believe that the availability and easy access of something does not increase it's use? It has nothing to do with unhappy marriages, it has to deal with the flaw of divorce and the woman usually taking half of the wealth of a man she marries when she leaves. If you are telling me that in the past their were no faithful unions and when all women married non of them pre-arranged they were just domestic slaves? I mean seriously that is the exact feminist nonsense that is propagated "domestic slaves" and what is the man who is expected to work, provide, have a home and put a ring on her finger called? an "economic work dog"? here are tons of first hand documentations of books, letters, speeches from women who protected their domestic realm and were in unison with their partner. You're under that radical feminist believe that women were "domestic slaves" so that made all men what? the villain domestic slavers, that miss is misandry and also once again playing the victim.

[Transigence]

@Serias9 The destruction of the nuclear family is one of feminism's stated goals. STATED GOALS.

[Abtraction]

@Serias9 I guess your mom was a worthless slave.

[thetundrawolf]

No, I believe that you are wrong. It is proven that children who grow up in single parent homes are more likely to commit suicide, commit violent crimes, take hard drugs, end up in prison. What we do as families matters. The father-providermother-nurturer system contributed to the most powerful nation that has ever existed.

We are getting away from that. There won't be any, "We'll just adapt and survive and everything's gonna be alright!" type of thing going on here at all. Life is hard and it is getting harder. It's not getting easier. And it won't get easier.

[SIGguy]

Care to provide a source?

[JackHandy]

@SIGguy Uhm, there are tons of studies that showed after the 70's suicide rates went up, depression in youths went up etc.. If you are ignorant to that it is not anyone's obligation to educate you. That's on you

[brain5000]

@JackHandy "If you are ignorant to that it is not anyone's obligation to educate you. That's on you." I am not concerned with verifying or debunking your claim about "tons of studies." The internet is full of idiots making stupid, unsubstantiated claims by people with agendas. If you make a claim and you want to be believed, back it up. This isn't just about feminism or suicides. Just a general thing in general that I believe generally. Put up or shut up.

[SIGguy]

@JackHandy Name a few or I'm ignoring you.

[brain5000]

@SIGguy I'm ignoring him now. He feels like he won, isn't he cute?

[SIGguy]

Indeed. lol

[JackHandy]

The immaturity in both of you is pretty amazing. Like I said it's no one's obligation to educate your stupid asses. If you think 2+2=5 then we will let you make fools of yourself. If you actually cared you would have just started researching yourself! Like I said there's lots of easily available studies that show these trends, so quit being a little baby and wake up to the real world.

[Abtraction]

@JackHandy yep there's a ton of data, moms may make good moms, but they are shitty fathers. Raising a kid with-out a father is child abuse. I guess these days it's just too much work to educate yourself, they need to be spoon fed facts or lies. If they are that lazy how would they know the difference...

[Anonymous]

No, feminism in itself will never be able to save a family. Especially not after destroying it already. Feminism is a practice of women's rights. I am an equalist. Not a feminist. Feminism focuses solely on women. Making out like women are oppressed. They use equal rights as a mask to make out like they are in it for the better good. When truth me told, its the opposite.

[brain5000]

I posted this for you.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23827-could-feminism-save-the-american-family-abridged

[Opinion Owner]

I fail to see how that was posted for me.

[Anpu23]

When I see these kind of mytakes I just want to go in with both guns blazing, but you seem reasonable so I would like to respond rationally and calmly. First I would like to speak about your definition, feminism is dictionarily defined as you lay it out, but in practice it is anything but fair and equal. This is one of those cases of Orwellian double speak that permeates our culture. To define feminism one must look at what feminists do, not what they say.
What feminists have done have lobbied for no fault divorce, and support the idea that men who try and force their parental rights are only doing so to victimize their former partners. That their is no such thing as a femail domestic abuser (men are the only abusers and women are always the victems [even though most studies say that men and women abuse each other at about the same rate]) Hardly a hope or model for a family

[brain5000]

I agree that feminism is often poorly practiced. It has great potential to help men, too, if men stand up for true feminism and equal rights.

[Anpu23]

I think that it's just flogging a dead horse. I am extremely anti-feminist for the record I could send you a lot of links and information why that is so. But in my opinion asking feminists to lobby for men's rights is like asking the Nazis to lobby for Jews. (according to feminist literature men in the form of the "patriarchy" is the cause of most things that are wrong in western society, the also talk a lot about "toxic masculinity" trying to redefine what a man is and how he should behave. It's pure propaganda but it effects countless men in the western world.)

[brain5000]

Did you see the post here from @SylviaBelle?

[Anpu23]

I did, but again it's double speak to say that you believe in one thing and practice another. I've asked many people who hold that feminism is the about equality to provide me with center line feminist sources, ones who are reasonable and don't man bash. I have yet to have anyone give me ONE recognized feminist author that falls into this criteria. I have read everything from NOW chair women, to Margret Atwood, to numerous on line resources. I assure you that the words are just a front. What will happen is that I am directed to a statement or article written by a feminist author that seems reasonable then if you look at other work by the same author you find another one bashing the patriarchy and "systems of oppression"

[SylviaBelle]

The patriarchy is a problem, that doesn't mean men are a problem. Patriarchy is a very specific thing that creates the entire structure of gender as we know it, it hurts men and women. Yes, it's what put men in a position of power, but it's also the thing that makes men have to suppress emotions, the thing that convinces people that men aren't proper caregivers. Bashing the patriarchy is NOT bashing men.

[Anpu23]

@SylviaBelle The patriarchy is a bogyman it's a construct with no basis in reality. It's been blamed for everything from rape to domestic violence to preventing women from getting equal pay. It's easy to point a finger at it because it doesn't represent anyone.

[brain5000]

Whether you believe in the patriarchy or not, here we have both @SylviaBelle and me, and you, saying all of the right things. Am I wrong about this?

[Anpu23]

I think so, I just am opposed to the notion that a group that created a problem is the solution to it.

[brain5000]

It's okay to be wary. I didn't specifically write this myTake to men; I did state that women have some work to do also. Just try to be careful to not go all guns blazing on the people who are on your side?

[Anpu23]

I suppose it comes down to definitions. I define feminism by the actions of those who practice it such as groups as the National Organization of Women who have stated publicly that men can not be raped by women (big sticking point for me as I was abducted raped repeatedly and held for 3 days by 3 women) not by public statements of said groups. To me feminism is the macrocosm of feminist authors, writings, and organizations. I understand that many individual feminists are against "radical feminism" but from an outsiders perspective there is no hard and fast line where the one begins and the other ends.

[brain5000]

Wow, I am sorry that happened to you. :( I did offer a working definition of feminism for the purpose of this piece, partly because I agree, it has been perverted mostly by people who claim the label. I am also sorry they turned this into a trigger for you. Of course men are subject to victimization by women. All the more reason for the rest of us to hold their feet to the fire and demand true equality.

[SylviaBelle]

This is what people who claim to be feminists have done. By definition, as you pointed out, these are not feminists. Just like a person who claims to be a doctor but has no doctorate is not a doctor.

Of course, I'll answer questions.

[Anpu23]

@SylviaBelle where can I get more information on real feminism, what authors, websites, organizations, pamphlets, articles etc. would you recommend? I still think of NOW as the voice of feminism if you say that is incorrect then who is?

[Anonymous]

feminist concept are selfish they try to end men is rights , if u notice most innovation & scitenst & improvement in the USA belong to the old fashion years, men can't have time to focus on their success anymore , I really prefer set at home taking care of child develop their brains , make husband house clean & cook ready so he take care of his success... This how America improved to what it's now... as long there's slut or feminist there's no appreciate for marriage by men... U like or not men is the one who propose I hope feminist don't dare to change that too lol... I ask for men is rights !!!

[Opinion Owner]

Forgot to say, female still can be more successful when they are at home than busy working , they can have home successful job
Marriage is exactly like equal company, like different majors, if all company have just accountant the company will bankrup if all HR too, so the company needs different majors everyone do what he created for, so company can survive... same with wife & husband & children... Wife work inside house husband outside... If both work in the same major (clean house, Job, baby cares, shop) no one will have time for his success or self... As I said most USA innovation & scitensts & development belong to men from old fashion years, they just has the good atmosphere for making USA to what it's now

[Anonymous]

No because the way family is viewed as is by the image of a man. Which is a man being in charge of everything and a woman just being a second class citizen. Feminism is kinda breaking that image men made up so if anything its doing the opposite. Men are to blame. If women were considered a person to begin with, we wouldn't need feminism

[Pat8707]

I accidentally up voted you count that one as a downvote. Women were always considered people anyway.

[Opinion Owner]

@Pat8707 Seriously lmao? Then why are feminism here? Women were slaves basically. Feminism are the reason women have some rights

[Lonewolf_1296]

His profile clearly states he likes pissing people off over the internet.

Don't bother, he also talks a lot and says nothing.

[brain5000]

Thanks for reading my myTake, I can see you read more than the headline and thought carefully about what I wrote before posting your comment.

[brain5000]

Oops, I had wrapped my previous comments in fake "sarcasm" tags, which don't show up once it is posted.

[brain5000]

I posted this for you.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23827-could-feminism-save-the-american-family-abridged

[Opinion Owner]

@Lonewolf_1296 I love pissing people off too and proving them wrong, I'm good

[Opinion Owner]

@asker LMAO yup, you're surly right I didn't read your opinions. I'm tired of reading ridiculous sexist crap so when I respond to questions like these, I answer the headline question :)

[mrsjnlwatson]

I am for equality for all people. With that being said, I am a proud wife and mother. I take pride in raising my son. I want to be the one creating the man he is to be not someone I pay. I also take pride in being a military wife and holding down the home front. I might not be being in 💲💲, but I have a blessed 👪🏡💒💍💑. I'm tired of people shaming people for being a traditional wife.

[imnotcrearive]

Wrote a full mytake as a response:
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23822-why-feminism-is-ruining-our-society-yet-another-feminism-take

[brain5000]

Your myTake is about feminism, but doesn't address family issues at all. Thus, you win this:

I posted this for you.

www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23827-could-feminism-save-the-american-family-abridged

[rjroy3]

I was raised in a home where both parents worked. So for me it's always been what I considered normal. It makes the most sense, I spent plenty of time with both parents. They just setup their work schedule so that they rarely would need a baby sitter.

Me personally I want to be successful enough so that my wife doesn't "have to" work, but that's fine if she wants to. I'd love for her to be free to follow her passion if she isn't already when I met her.

[9mfeo]

It's very true that it's not economically feasible for most families for the wife to stay at home. The economy is crap all around.

Hey, if you can afford that and that's what you want to do, go for it. It's not what I want, but the way I live my life doesn't have any bearing on anyone's life but mine.

[9mfeo]

Also that first photo is hilarious.