Feminism & The Downfall Of The Traditional Family

Originally posted by Cuervo
First of all, this is not true of every culture in history. Second of all, do you really want to model our society on what cavemen used to do in the paleolithic era? Is that our template for family structure?

I'm not sure, perhaps we do. From what we are discovering, they had a far better division of labour between men and women, and were far less stuck to 'roles', everyone pulled together and helped out. The women joined the hunting groups, the men helped gather as and when such joining together was needed. In fact, right up until the 19th century, that is how most working people did things. It was only with the increase in class divisions, and the social aspirational model of the sedentary, stay at home female became widespread that women were seen as being in charge of the child raising and household maintentance that this began to change and men were seen solely of 'providing'.

There is, in reality, no such thing as a traditional family. Just families. And what works for one family, doesn't necessarily work for others. Let's face it, up until fairly recently, a huge number of women didn't even survive childbirth...so who raised those children?

I'm all about choices. And I love that more men are exercising their nurturing abilities and staying at home to raise the kids while the mother goes out to work. Why should men have to be 'leaders' all the time? Women can be great leaders, and men can be great nurturers, and fortunately, we are moving into a time when we understand that biology does not predispose us to such roles, it is about who we are and what skills we bring to the table. About making choices and not having to answer to anyone else when we exercise them.

Great posts in this thread by the way Thank you for seeing women as the multi-dimensional beings that we have strove so hard to be recognised as.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Let us all take a really good look at feminism:

1. The first people/group who championed woman's rights were...the SPCA. They wanted the government to recognise woman as...wait for it...PEOPLE, HUMAN BEINGS

2. Let us talk about the days when men were in control. If a woman was raped and became pregnant, the rapist had to pay her father for his loss of her labour.

3. Men didn't have to get a divorce, they only had to incarcerate their unwanted wives in insane asylms for however long they wanted!

4. The law prescribed legal ways in which a woman might be beaten. Very very few men were arrested for breaking those laws.

5. In my lifetime, all leases, rents, mortgages, credit cards, utilities were in the husband's name. A woman could be earning $50,000 per year and still not be able to apply for credit in her own name.

6. No matter how many children a woman had, her husband and male doctor had to agree to get her tubes tied. She couldn't do it on her own.

7. If a woman left a man who beat her ....no means of enforcing child support or alimony

8. Woman could not get a beer without a male escort.

Really guys - you kind of pushed it to the limit didn't you?

While I can certainly agree that there are femnazi's that go to ridiculous lengths, most woman, working or not are still very family orientated.
Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Jepic








I'm assuming you think a confident woman apparently walks all over a man...

BUT...

A man is confident in his masculinity and the dominant figure in a family (This

could be seen as walking all over a woman?]


There is no room for dominance in a partnership (marriage)


As for being led ...Horses and dogs are led not women

What I try to teach my children (I have male and female kids), is that we are all equal and should be paid the same if doing the same jobs. I know in the past, and possibly in the present still, a lot of women were paid less than their male counterparts for doing the exact same job. This is just downright unfair.
However, I also teach my kids that it is not a case of boys are better than girls or girls better than boys. We are like two halves of a whole and because we are wired differently to take on each of our half of the whole roles we find that boys are better at some things and girls better at others. And this is perfectly ok and normal. Love and respect, from both sides to each other... always and it is perfectly charming for gents to hold a door open for a lady or carry the shopping just as it is a nice thing to do for the woman to get a beer from the fridge for the man.
Equal but different, it is not a competition it is team work.

I was a stay-at-home mum in the face of other mums going off to work, because I felt it was the best I could do for my kids. Although now separated my kids are not out doing drugs, getting into trouble or being little horrors. All reports say they are well behaved. So I do not believe that just because you are from a broken home you will turn out to be on the criminal side of life. I think it is more to do with parenting skills and how you are brought up that really makes the difference.

...Harleys and quilted blankets...

What?, you say.

Here's my opinion, and it's one coming of much thought as well as conversation.

Men are weak because they cannot rely on each other for support and protection, unless they join a motorcycle gang or some other unsavory option... Women are weak because they cannot rely on each other for support and protection, unless they join a sewing circle or some other type of unsavory option...

It is the lack of these type of support groups that leaves us lost and unable to relate to each other within the family unit. It is these support groups that teach us how to be men and women, to keep us in check and give us the examples we need to be able to build a healthy strong family at home. We need these groups outside of the home in order to bring our problems and lay them at the feet of respected peers and elders that help us deal with life. This type of intimate support from others of the same sex is essential to certain parts of our psyche, both as women or men. It is these groups that give us the perspective, guidance and foundation we need to be the kind of men or women that can hold a family together.

Before you write off my argument take a really good long think about how we have evolved.

Unless you take a look at this idea, you will never get to the bottom of the issue. The downfall of the family is happening all over the world. It is the old divide and conquer trick. Those who would exploit our skills and energy keep us separated so that we do not become a threat. Without the foundation of the family we are like beasts of burden, living and working for others who would take advantage of us. Civilization has grown stronger and stronger while the family has become weaker and weaker, the two are directly related. Civilization needs the support of humans that do not have a family system that comes before all things. It needs mules.

It has been proven that women live longer healthier lives if they have a small group of women that they regularly spend time with throughout their whole lives. Men will naturally form gangs if allowed to, we work better and have less stress if we can belong to a group that has a sole purpose of protecting their families. Whenever men build these kinds of groups they always become successful, but they are almost always targeted by the other dominant groups in society such as government or religion.

Nowadays these types of groups (at least the healthy kinds) mostly only exist in places where the communities are small, usually in a rural environment.

My point is that men and women are wired to exist in groups outside of the immediate family, it is in these same sex groups that the identity is formed, nourished and used as a means for success in the community. These groups must stay intact for a lifetime, and their foundation has to be based on support of the family. When the group does not exist or falls apart, the family at home suffers.

We can complain about the deterioration of the family unit, and divorce and feminism etc. all day long, but the root of these problems starts elsewhere, and without basing the conversation at the root of the problem, our efforts will go nowhere.

...Harleys and quilted blankets...

To me these sound like rich people problems.

I don't know many men like the ones described by the OP. Most families I know of would be male dominated or on an equal footing. I really can't think of any where the female wears the pants.

I do agree that feminism is wrong on a lot of things like shaming women who don't chase the dirty green dollar and instead value their family, but most of the complaints I hear are huge exaggerations.

Functional, even, loving families exist. I've seen them for myself. There are many that don't work, but you can't blame feminism because your male friends have no spine. If people allow themselves to be walked all over, they will be walked all over, that goes for men and women and it has bugger all to do with feminism.

Don't blame feminists because the men you know are spineless.

A friend of mine took this photo a month or so ago.

Can you guess who the woman eating her dinner alone in this NYC restaurant is?



That's Ms. Gloria Steinem. One of the leaders of the feminist movement.

She looks kind of lonely if you ask me.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

Let us all take a really good look at feminism:

1. The first people/group who championed woman's rights were...the SPCA. They wanted the government to recognise woman as...wait for it...PEOPLE, HUMAN BEINGS

2. Let us talk about the days when men were in control. If a woman was raped and became pregnant, the rapist had to pay her father for his loss of her labour.

3. Men didn't have to get a divorce, they only had to incarcerate their unwanted wives in insane asylms for however long they wanted!

4. The law prescribed legal ways in which a woman might be beaten. Very very few men were arrested for breaking those laws.

5. In my lifetime, all leases, rents, mortgages, credit cards, utilities were in the husband's name. A woman could be earning $50,000 per year and still not be able to apply for credit in her own name.

6. No matter how many children a woman had, her husband and male doctor had to agree to get her tubes tied. She couldn't do it on her own.

7. If a woman left a man who beat her ....no means of enforcing child support or alimony

8. Woman could not get a beer without a male escort.

Really guys - you kind of pushed it to the limit didn't you?

While I can certainly agree that there are femnazi's that go to ridiculous lengths, most woman, working or not are still very family orientated.
Tired of Control Freaks

And yet the women who lived during these times were in general happier, more capable, and more suited to build a strong healthy family and keep it all together. They had bigger more reliable support groups and they had better control of the home. Maybe some of the things you list had become an abomination over time, but they were initially just a means of protecting the family unit. They were not meant as a strategy to weaken women or keep them in their place. People tend to look at these kinds of things in the wrong light. There are women in the world who live in countries where the same ideals exist in their culture, but given the opportunity to view how the modern woman lives her life, they could not be persuaded to trade their ways for ours.

reply to post by Cuervo





There has been much mention on this thread about 'marriage' and 'traditional family values'

and i'm glad you mentioned morals...


During a marriage ceremony, among other promises the couple make is:-

"and forsaking all others keep yourself only unto him/her for so long as you both shall live"


Most of my single separated or divorced female friends are in this position because their

'other halves' were unable to keep their end of this promise

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks





I well remember those times


I too had to fight through most of that inequality...but then I discovered 'what doesn't

kill you makes you strong

reply to post by Ireminisce

OK, my bottom line: I feel that society is more productive with a worker and a nurturer. I feel we wouldn't have as many problems today if more mothers with young children stayed home and took care of them, at least until school aged, while their husbands went into the work force. I believe divorce rates, teen pregnancies, and drug use would decline. I also believe we'd have higher paying jobs to be filled.

No, your wrong. If what you said was true than educational, technological, and social progress would have increased significantly faster under these "traditional" social conditions. History shows us however that was not the case. When women started leaving the household and became "equal" (I use that word loosely) to men in the social, economic, and political environment, world progress started to increase exponentially. We have made more progress in the last 100 years, than the last 1000. Is that not telling?

The reason it worked better was because each parent had their own job. The father went to work to provide financially, and the mother nurtured her children and taught them right from wrong.

Human beings are human beings, by applying the scientific method (you know that thing that helps us distinguish fact from illusion) through the schools of psychology and sociology, we have discovered that a man is just a capable of raising a child as a women is.

What I am saying is that something is obviously wrong with our society and the problems we have today did not get this out of control until the traditional family fell apart. There is no denying that.

Well I am denying that, you have yet to demonstrate that this "traditional family" actually exists. If such a thing was so natural than why in the past were there Matriarchies? Why were there societies who raised children as a group instead of just the parents of the child?

The idea of the "traditional family" is quite honestly a Abrahamic creation, as Eve was created second to Adam, and as men were imbued with the priesthood and were allowed to act in God's name and women were not. It is an idea based upon the patriarchy, which the bible condones.

To act as if the "traditional family" is a truism, is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

ETA:

The divorce rate was not nearly as high as it is today.

And do you know what caused those divorces? They could range from abuse to overall unhappiness. Divorce rates are likely higher in the modern day due to the fact that women were quite commonly afraid of filing for divorce back in the "good ol days".

Amazing.

Let me quote my wife, from just this morning.
"Feminism did NOT create choices for women, it reduced the number of choices"
"it is sadly unfinished business, that left a left of women out in the cold"

that's what she said.

i pretty much agree with that sentiment too.

reply to post by Quauhtli





Are you so sure that those women you refer to in the world who live in countries

where those archaic ideals still exist given the opportunity could not be persuaded

to live with ours?


Shame you can't ask the teenage girl recently shot by the Taliban for going to school or

the girl who died after being raped by six men in India

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Quauhtli

 

Are you so sure that those women you refer to in the world who live in countries

where those archaic ideals still exist given the opportunity could not be persuaded

to live with ours?


Shame you can't ask the teenage girl recently shot by the Taliban for going to school or

the girl who died after being raped by six men in India

edit on 18-1-2013 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

For another example, the Amish people still live in that "archaic" world. Anyone of them has the opportunity to trade their world for ours, but very few make the trade. If the Amish people, or people like them dominated most of the worlds cultures we would not be facing a future where all life is in jeopardy.

The OP's point has merit. The modern trends of empowerment have only diluted the strength of family. Our natural instincts for shelter and comfort will bring our demise. Picking out an easy target in my post may be easy, but finding the truth in it may take some effort. I have talked about this subject many times with both men and women, it is an interesting one for me. It eventually puts you at conclusions that are hard swallow, I know.

There is a deep rooted double standard in feminism that is very apparent. These feminists in this video infringe on the rights of others with basic bully tactics. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If a woman would rather be a feminist than feminine, that's her decision.

I however, take pride in being a woman. I don't try to be a man. I celebrate that I'm different from men. I don't insist that I'm better. I acknowledge that my feminine qualities are a huge part of who I am and I don't try to hide them or apologize for them. They are the reason my children come running to me when they're upset or hurt, or when they just want hugs and kisses. Those qualities are also the reason that my husband turns to me when he needs love and affection. They're the reason my husband opens doors for me and feels compelled to protect me from danger. My femininity is what makes me beautiful in my family's eyes, because without it I wouldn't be who I am.

This interview explains exactly how I feel about this issue. Even if you only listened to the first ten minutes you'd get the picture. It also clarifies that most women against feminism are mainly concerned with the major changes that have taken place since the 1960s.

reply to post by Ireminisce





I am sure everyone who has read this thread has got your message....I have to wonder

who you are trying to convince Because I think we all heard you the first time, That's

your choice and you are welcome to it - I haven't noticed anyone trying to change your mind


I am a woman - I take pride in who I am, and I am as good as (no better and no worse)

than any man on this planet!


The reason your children seek you out is not because your feminine but because

you are their Mother. You could look like the back of a bus for all they care, you are their

Mother and that's why they love you

For 97% of human history, men and women have been equals. In hunter gather tribes women played an equal role in decision making and in collecting food - they could even hunt when not pregnant. When farming moved from the hoe to the plough, the strength required to operate it increased significantly and the work was dominated by men. Even when animals such as oxen began to be used to pull the plough the work rearing cattle was also dominated by males. The men then became the primary bread winners for the first time in history, while the women began to spend more time in the home and became more dependent on their husbands. As a result the men came to dominate their wives in the home.

But the most important factor in the rise of patriarchy was the start of class societies. Prior to farming their was no surplus, and people tended to move about so one could not carry much material wealth on their backs. When farming began to turn a surplus (which was stored in a granary) the keepers of the granary began to gain a status, and became like an early priest or nobility. When the ruling class was established they began to find that the greater the surplus the more wealth they could leach for themselves, so they began to find ways to increase it. One way was to ensure that the men were fit, fed and ready for the next days work - and to do this they would encourage women to give their labor servicing their husbands.

With modern technology like vacuum cleaners, washing machines, microwaves etc. the ruling class realized it is now too inefficient to have women staying at home, especially if they are only raising 1 or 2 next generation workers. It is best to exploit their labour in the factory by day, then still get them to do the housework when they come home - or even share it with their husband. Having women work means a 50% increase in the labour supply.

So now you have the ruling class behind feminism, but only now that it suits them, not because they care about women's rights.

reply to post by eletheia


First of all being feminine is not about the way you look. You can look feminine but not act feminine at all.

Second, you're right. I think I have gotten the message across. I guess it just bothers me that so many women (not all) feel that I am moving the female race backwards simply because of the way I live. I have expressed my opinions in this thread, but I never tell other women that I know how to treat their husbands, or that they should stay at home. I do however get lots of judgement and snide remarks when I tell women I meet what I do. It's almost always "Oh, so you're just a mom?" As if that's not important enough to be proud of.

I can respect everyone's opinions though,and I realize that what works for some doesn't work for all. I'm pretty sure I've beat this issue to death, so I'm going to leave it at that.