5
   

"The Flipside of Feminism"

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 01:38 am
Here it goes an intriguing video to shake the status quo...
I would appreciate woman's input on it...

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 01:50 am
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 01:56 am
Not taking any sides here I was just wondering if she did n´t spotted a brilliant way to make a quick buck world wide...what are your immediate thoughts about it ?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 01:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
YOu dont care what men think, I see.....
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 02:01 am
@hawkeye10,
...of course man´s perspective is also welcomed...
...it just is a matter which immediately concerns what woman really want and unless you are a woman at heart you cannot quite provide an answer can you ???
...I don´t know you tell me, I respect everyone...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 02:25 am
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 02:25 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Need to take care of yourself and those close to you first....check

feminism has been distructive..check...but your need to destroy before you build so that is not a deal breaker

Feminists want to completely change society...check

Feminists want to rub out the old ways even if the old ways work..check

feminists are not honest...check


Cant talk about women and the feminists without gaining the scorn and wrath of the feminists..check

Women say one thing but the truth is something else often..check

feminism pushes for stuff that women dont want...check

Equal= the same according to the feminist, feminism wants to rub out the genders but women do not really want this...check

Feminism wants to rub out human nature...check

Men are the losers in feminism...of course

Feminism has lost women...check

Feminist care most about abortion and day care...false, the US feminists dont care much about this, European feminists are another story. US feminists want to get rid of sex, and no abortion and no day care helps to instill fear and thus promote their goals

Men are not invited into the conversation, nor allowed into the coversation..check

feminist dont want women to stay home with kids,,,,,check

Women are taught that being a full time wife and mother is a failure...check

Men are devalued..check

Men are lost...check

masculinity is now bad...check

Men either go along or suffer in silence, we dont speak out and demand what we need..we give up...check

family has been turned on their head...check

Men are not allowed to even say that they want to live by the old ways...check

men have no voice...check

men have caved...check

Masculinity is taboo...check

Concversation is not taking place...true..but we have been able to do it at A2K over the last year


A2K IS GREAT!


I only did the first 19 minutes.....













Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 02:44 am
@hawkeye10,
...you still did n´t reply to my observation, I mean can you answer for woman ?
...the point being to really know what woman want and not a classical full fledged debate on feminism at large...at least present us some of the opinions woman around you have on this topic if you have any and we will go from there...as I said I am not taking any sides on this one...(back in south Europe we don´t have a problem)
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 02:55 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...you still did n´t reply to my observation, I mean can you answer for woman
Why, do only womens opinions matter to you? Feminism aims to remake society and remake the interaction between the sexes...men are equal stake holders in humanity, we have as much right to speak as do women when political pressure groups aim to remake humanity into their will.

Quote:
as I said I am not taking any sides on this one..
You most certainly have...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 03:26 am
@hawkeye10,
...no I most certainly did n´t ! I am just saying that as an US outsider (European) I would like to know if American women fill there some truth to this book...man are welcome to give their two cents of wisdom...
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 03:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
I am just saying that as an US outsider (European) I would like to know if American women fill there some truth to this book..
You have noticed I am sure the silence...American women largely dont support what they know of the feminists actions, are ignorant of most of what the feminists do, and by code are not allowed to criticize the feminists. What you are asking is about equivalent to expecting a European of year circa 1400 to give you a profound educated and honest appraisal of the Church...on the public square. IT. AIN'T. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

This book is the work of heretics...it is best to keep walking with your eyes averted if you want to avoid trouble...
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 04:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
American women largely dont support what they know


should read

American women largely support what they know

While most women feel no need for what the feminists are selling they none the less think that many of their sisters do. The are fully invested in the women are victims and men are abusers motif that the feminists have crafted over a couple of generations. The feminists dont want what they claim they want however, which is when you get to the point where you realize that what the feminists are really trying to do is to create something that women on the whole have never asked for and do not want.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 12:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's a rather typical right-wing conservative, and essentially religious, view of gender roles---it advocates returning to a traditional model of having women cloistered at home raising children, while men are out in the world bringing home the bacon. And that idealized 1950's scenario is promoted as being the "natural order of things".

Except that, when Betty Friedan's book, "The Feminine Mystique" appeared in 1963, many women, not happy with the prospect of being confined in only the roles of wife, mother, and homemaker, embraced it, and found in it the voice of their own dissatisfaction and feelings of frustration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique
No one, including Friedan, told women to abandon the roles of wife and mother or to discard the importance of the family structure. The women's movement simply urged women to realize they had options, that they had their own identity, beyond just being Mrs John Doe, and told them they were entitled to seek fulfillment in their lives beyond the confines of hearth and home. That was the message that resonated in 1963 and it still resonates today. And that's not a message that Suzanne Venker even essentially disagrees with, despite all of her assaults on feminism.

Blaming all of society's ills on feminism or left-wing liberalism (and Venker seems to see them as one and the same) fails to address the fact that, for the past 40 or 50 years, women have pursued educational and vocational goals because that was what they wanted to do, and they have not done so because they did not want husbands and children in their lives. Women have continued to marry, and they have continued to have children. And they have also continued to graduate from college and graduate school in increasing numbers and to make increasingly significant contributions in the workforce. And married women who wanted to remain at home, or devote a significant part of their time to child-rearing, have done that. Women have been able to evaluate their options and obtain all kinds of balances in their lives, and that includes women like Venker and Schlafly, neither of whom has given up pursuing a career.

All of the women I am good friends with are all highly educated and successful women and most have been in long term marriages to successful men. Simply because there is no "designated breadwinner" in these marriages is absolutely irrelevant because these are firm partnerships and collaborations without rigidly defined traditional roles. And not a single one of the men in these marriages feels marginalized, or unmanly, or lost in terms of his importance in the family unit. And not a single one of the women in these marriages considers her roles as wife or mother as secondary in her life, although they don't exclusively define themselves by those roles.

So, if you asked me if Venker and Schlafly's message would resonate with anyone I know, the answer would likely be, "No". These women are not unhappy with the choices they have made and neither are their husbands or children.

Gender and cultural gender roles are quite different things. There are some gender differences that make us uniquely male and female, neither gender is inherently superior to the other, and, overall, we tend to balance either other out nicely. But, cultural gender roles can change depending on the prevailing societal winds, and, certainly over the past 50 years, we've seen quite a bit of expansion in the roles of women, and I think that's all for the good. Women are more self sufficient now, and less of a financial burden on men, and, logically, that should relieve men of some stress in that regard, and it should take some of the pressure off women to find a husband who is mainly a meal ticket.

Both Venker and Schlafly are as opposed to the sexual liberation of women as they are to women being liberated from their traditional cultural roles. Schlafly has long railed against pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, and casual promiscuous sex, as well as pornography, blaming both feminism and liberalism for these "evils" as well. So, she would not only return women to the home, she would also promote keeping them virginal prior to marriage since sex only within marriage is part of how she sees the "natural order" of things. As is the case with other choices, I am glad that women are now freer to express their sexual natures, and I think decisions about sexual behaviors should be left up to the individual woman. I'd urge neither promiscuity nor virginity.

We can't put the genie back in the bottle and go back to some idealized version of the 1950's with mom in her ruffled apron spending all of her time in the home, because that's just not how many women want to spend their time--and that wasn't how they wanted to spend it back then. All feminism did in the 1960's was to give women permission to do what they had already wanted to do, it gave voice to their longings, it did not push them where they did not want to go. And it was not feminism that devalued their role in the home, that was the demeaning male view of "women's work". If anything, feminists worked to have the contributions of women as wives and mothers viewed more favorably and with greater importance. And they still advocate to improve the lives of mothers, particularly single mothers, for whom affordable day care is a real necessity.

With a divorce rate of 1 in 2 marriages, we no longer have long term stable family units, and that's due to many factors and hardly attributable to feminism. There are significant issues about raising children with enough parental attention--issues that must be resolved by both mothers and fathers. There are still difficult choices many women face in terms of the demands of career vs family, but at least they have the choices, and each women should be free to base her decision on what she feels is best for both herself and her children, just as her husband should do. The workaholic male, who we have traditionally celebrated for his ambition, has a responsibility to his children beyond just paying their bills--he's got to be around for them too, and a working wife, who helps to pay the bills, also helps to give men more time for that. I think one benefit of the gender role changes in the past 50 years has been to give men more time with their children, and more responsibility in that regard, and that does benefit children.

Feminism doesn't make men unimportant, and people like Venker and Schlafly won't make them more important by trying to turn back the clock. Men, like women, need to feel appreciated and respected and needed--both in their homes and outside of them. If marriages are going to thrive, both partners have to work on them. If people are going to find satisfaction in their work, they need as many options open to them as possible, and they need to be able to get ahead based on their ability. We don't need a division of labor or responsibility based mainly on gender, we need to collaborate, to pool our talents, and interact in a way that results in the least dissatisfaction and frustration for all involved and helps to raise our children in the best possible way. As things continue to evolve, I think we'll find that happy medium.












Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 01:00 am
@firefly,
Two thumbs up on that one, firefly. (Unfortunately the A2k format allows me to give you only one.)
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 01:14 am
Excerpt: The Flipside Of Feminism
Quote:
When it comes to women in America, progress is the operative word. According to the Free Online Dictionary, progress means “steady improvement, as of a society or civilization.” It’s a relative term—how to improve something is entirely subjective. Yet when we talk about women in America, progress is never defined, debated, or qualified. The topic is misleading right out of the gate.

For the past several decades, it has been widely accepted that women in America usually, if not always, get the short end of the stick. According to feminists, women, like blacks, have been oppressed for centuries. We’re told not enough progress has been made and that society still hasn’t leveled the playing field. This philosophy is so embedded in our culture that Americans don’t question it. We don’t even label it “feminist” to think this way; it’s just commonplace to believe women suffer discrimination. Turn on the television, flip through a magazine, or search America’s airwaves, and you’ll be deluged with stories about women who wonder how their needs can best be met, how they can balance their lives better, or how they can deal with the myriad of problems and dangers they face. Women’s grievances dominate the conversation.



But grievances are like crabgrass: the more heat they get, the more it spreads. And that is precisely what has happened with modern women. Feminist organizations even promote the growth of grievances by consciousness-raising sessions, where feminists exchange tales of how badly some man treated them and what government’s role should be as compensation. (See the NOW Resolutions on the Equal Rights Amendment in Appendix C.)

In the meantime, buried beneath the surface lies the truth: American women are the most fortunate human beings who have ever lived. No one has it better. No one.
This is a new twist to an old debate, one that elicits shock. It even sounds wrong on a piece of paper or rolling off the tongue. That’s because Americans have been conditioned to believe otherwise. Millions of Americans think progress requires women’s liberation—from men, from children, from society’s constructs, from just about anything that makes women feel morally obligated to someone or something other than themselves.

The saddest part of this misguided view of human nature is that it hasn’t made women any happier. In fact, it has done just the opposite. According to a 2007 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, “As women have gained more freedom, more education, and more power, they have become less happy.”1

The authors of this report, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, suggest that “the salience of the women’s movement fueled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years.”2 That isn’t surprising. Most women in America are a right-of-center bunch and don’t want what women on the left want. The majority of women in this country are traditionalists and don’t want to change America.

Feminists do. They’ve spent decades trying to convince women that America needs to accommodate them so women can be unshackled, free, and presumably happy. It has been an alluring concept. Certainly women like the idea of being free from their responsibilities from time to time; they may like the thought of being liberated from husbands and children occasionally. Who wouldn’t? Marriage and motherhood require a lot of work and sacrifice. But women don’t want to be “free” if being free means being single, dependent on the government, or even being a big-shot powerhouse with no time for family. Most women in America want what any reasonable person wants: a family to love and—yes—even depend on.

The female left wants something else. “As we approach a new century—and a new millennium—it’s the men who have to break through to a new way of thinking about themselves and society,” wrote Betty Friedan in the 2001 edition of her 1963 landmark book, The Feminine Mystique. “Too bad women can’t do it for them, or go much further without them. Because it’s awesome to consider how women have changed the possibili- ties of our lives since we broke through the feminine mystique only two generations ago.”3

Those powerful words helped to shape a generation of American women. Implicit in Friedan’s worldview—the worldview so many Americans have been raised to accept—is the notion that women are oppressed, and that men are the ones who need to change. Friedan believed the odds are severely stacked against women. The only way to eliminate female oppression, she said, is to change men and society—to create a different America, one that’s more fair and just to women.

Those who are tempted to write off Betty Friedan as a has- been shouldn’t. Her words live on in the minds of influential female leftists whose goals are no different from Friedan’s. In November 2009, Maria Shriver, along with the left-wing think
tank Center for American Progress, produced an exhaustive, four-hundred-page document titled The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything. Its fundamental argument is that government policies and laws “continue to rely on an outdated model of the American family.”4

Shriver and company—which includes Oprah Winfrey—seek to remedy this supposed problem by proving we are no longer living in a “man’s world” but are now living in a “woman’s world.” They consider the traditional family a thing of the past, which is fine with them because what feminists really want is a matriarchy. And now they’ve admitted it. The Shriver Report boasted, “As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table.”5

Every couple of years Time and Newsweek ask, “Is Feminism Dead?” It is not dead. While people associate feminism with the 1960s revolution, since that is when feminism began, feminism and feminists didn’t disappear just because they’re no longer marching in the streets. They simply chucked the loud protests and morphed into the fabric of society. The left offered feminists a home, a place where they could comfortably hang out—along with the Barack Obamas of the world—and plot their strategy to “fundamentally transform” America.


http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/03/18/suzanne-venker
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 01:17 am
Quote:
By Suzanne Venker
© 2011

According to Kay Hymowitz, whose new book, "Manning Up," was featured prominently in the Wall Street Journal in February, "legions of frustrated young women" are dealing with a new crisis in America: modern men refuse to grow up.

It appears the 21st-century male is living a kind of extended adolescence. In the past, it was assumed men would receive a high-school diploma or college degree, then get married and settle down to the responsibilities of work and family life. Today, young men "hang out in a novel sort of limbo," keeping adulthood at a distance as they enjoy a lifestyle that demands few, if any, obligations.

The question is why – and how – did this happen? And the answer is simple: feminism.

One of the many side effects of the American feminist movement is that men's traditional role as family man and provider has been eradicated. Today, men compete with women who are more educated than they and who often make more money. That women suggest they don't need husbands to be happy – or even to have children – rubs salt in an open wound. The result is that men are stuck in a prepubescent quandary.

Rather than focus exclusively on feminism, however, Ms. Hymowitz blames the predicament men are in on something called "The Knowledge Economy." The Knowledge Economy, she says, prolongs the maturation process in part because the kinds of jobs men used to get – the ones that forced them to grow up – have been usurped by women.

But why is that? Why are there now more women in college than men, and why are there more women in the workforce than ever before? Because ever since the 1960s, feminists have been telling women this is where they belong. Marriage and motherhood are passé, they said – a woman's true identity can only be found in the workforce. For today's pre-adults, "what you do is almost synonymous with who you are … starting a family is seldom part of the picture," writes Hymowitz.

Phyllis Schlafly, the original "anti-feminist," teams up with Suzanne Venker in a tour-de-force defense of traditional womanhood -- don't miss "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say"

The reason family life has become an afterthought is because feminism has become thoroughly absorbed in American culture. People don't have to think about feminism or even acknowledge its presence – it just is. "With women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles – fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity – are obsolete, even a little embarrassing," writes Hymowitz.

The result is that the single guy can live in "pig heaven," and women give up on the idea of marriage and "just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man." Indeed, we may recall Jennifer Aniston's pronouncement last August: "Women are realizing more and more that you don't have to settle, they don't have to fiddle with a man to have that child."

(Column continues below)



Wake up, America. If we don't muster the courage to admit the damage feminism has caused – that it has changed the rules drastically and confused the heck out of women and men – we are headed for extinction. Men and women simply don't know what to do with each other anymore. Women's nature tells them sex requires love; marriage is important; children are a blessing; and men are necessary. But our feminist culture tells women to sleep around and postpone family life because that will cost them their identities.

As for the men, they are simply responding to what society expects of them. Contrary to what movies like "He's Just Not That Into You" suggest, most men want to settle down and have children of their own. Countless men would be happy to do so if they did not have sex so freely available and if their girlfriends weren't so willing to cohabit. This is an inconvenient truth, to be sure – but that doesn't make it any less true.

A recent Wall Street Journal asks, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" The answer is simple: Feminists drove them out. The sooner we face this fact, the sooner we will get the good men back.



Read more: Why men won't grow up http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=272173#ixzz1bD4ELsqQ
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 01:24 am
@firefly,
...it smelled conservative right wing to me to...nevertheless I have been told US woman have been finding a hard time getting males to assume a long term compromise, a problem we do not have here so far, at least not motivated to any particular gender conflict reason, any more then the healthy "conflicts" we always will have and have had in the past, so I wanted to check with you guys if there is any validity to this study they say they have...appreciate your input Firefly, thanks for dropping by.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 03:00 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Those powerful words helped to shape a generation of American women. Implicit in Friedan’s worldview—the worldview so many Americans have been raised to accept—is the notion that women are oppressed, and that men are the ones who need to change. Friedan believed the odds are severely stacked against women. The only way to eliminate female oppression, she said, is to change men and society—to create a different America, one that’s more fair and just to women.

And Friedan said that in 1963. It was true then. There was blatant and widespread discrimination against women, and women were being held back. And things then changed, partly due to the civil rights movement, and partly to the advocacy of feminism, and the situation now is considerably more fair and just for women. And, Friedan herself acknowledged how much things had changed and improved when she wrote in the 2001 introduction to the "Feminine Mystique" that, "Because it’s awesome to consider how women have changed the possibilities of our lives since we broke through the feminine mystique only two generations ago."

Venker is beating a dead horse. Thankfully, in 2011, women in America are no longer oppressed, nor are they complaining about being oppressed. Women's lives are now much richer with possibilities than they were in 1963.
Quote:
Those who are tempted to write off Betty Friedan as a has- been shouldn’t. Her words live on in the minds of influential female leftists whose goals are no different from Friedan’s. In November 2009, Maria Shriver, along with the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress, produced an exhaustive, four-hundred-page document titled The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything. Its fundamental argument is that government policies and laws “continue to rely on an outdated model of the American family.”

Shriver and company—which includes Oprah Winfrey—seek to remedy this supposed problem by proving we are no longer living in a “man’s world” but are now living in a “woman’s world.” They consider the traditional family a thing of the past, which is fine with them because what feminists really want is a matriarchy. And now they’ve admitted it.

So, Venker is accusing Maria Shriver as regarding "the traditional family as a thing of the past"? Maria Shriver, the mother of 4 children, who was in a traditional marriage for 25 years, until news of her husband's affair and lovechild finally pushed her to divorce, is an example of someone who doesn't believe in a traditional family, and really wants a matriarchy? Rolling Eyes

Venker is grossly distorting things.
Quote:
The Shriver Report boasted, “As we move into this phase we’re calling a woman’s nation, women can turn their pivotal role as wage-earners, as consumers, as bosses, as opinion-shapers, as co-equal partners in whatever we do into a potent force for change. Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table—at the head of the table.”

The report says "co-equal partners"--that is not proposing matriarchy, and drawing that conclusion is absurd, and quite over-the-top in terms of Venker's hysteria about the alleged threat of the "female leftists". Women should be at the head of the table--right next to men--because that's what co-equal means. And women should try to be agents of change, just as men are.
Quote:
The left offered feminists a home, a place where they could comfortably hang out—along with the Barack Obamas of the world—and plot their strategy to “fundamentally transform” America

This is Venker and Schlafly's right-wing, conservative, essentially religious, political dogma--it has nothing to do with feminism. The notion that feminists are plotting "to transform America" is simply crazy, particularly since Venker comes to that conclusion based on a book written in 1963, at a time when change was needed. And, I think that her statements about her perceived threat to a concept of a "traditional family" also reveals her homophobia and negative view of gay marriage and gay families.

This is all extreme right-wing conservative political propaganda, and it has next to nothing to do with contemporary feminism, it's mostly a diatribe against the left.

Thank goodness that the America of 1963 was transformed, thank goodness that gross injustices in civil rights were addressed and corrected, including the injustices toward women. In 1963, someone of Barack Obama's color would not have been elected President, someone of Hillary Clinton's gender would not have been Secretary of State, let alone have been a serious contender for the highest office in the land. We had to change our society to make those things possible. And we must continue to change in order to keep country as just and fair as possible, for all people.







0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 05:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Phyllis Schlafly is a well known extreme right-wing conservative and proponent of "family values" who has always been an outspoken critic of feminism. She has tended to embrace other conspiracy theories in the past, just as she currently sees feminists as plotting to transform America now by trying to create a matriarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly
Suzanne Venker is Schlafly's niece.

There is so much distortion, and so much political propaganda, involved in their thinking, it is hard to find any merit in what they are saying.

American women, as a group, haven't complained about feeling "oppressed" by men in decades, which doesn't mean they don't complain about sexism or sexist attitudes which still remain in our society, or how hard it is for women to get ahead in certain areas. But there is no general strong anti-male sentiment, in terms of viewing men as "the enemy" from either most women or from contemporary feminist thinkers (most of whom are not well known, or particularly influential, outside of academic circles). So, I find Venker and Schlafly's characterization of feminists to be extremely inaccurate and out of date by at least 40 or 50 years.

And women still want to get married and have children, and most aren't delaying it all that long, even if they want to start careers or go to grad school. So, the notion that women no longer functional in their traditional roles, or that they don't want men in their lives, or that they don't want families, just isn't the case. And a lot of women still stay home with their children, particularly if the children are not yet in school, and they're not pressured by anyone, including contemporary feminists, not to do that. Women no longer tend to lose their identities when they marry because their identities are better formed before they marry these days--they no longer go directly from being someone's daughter to someone's wife.

We certainly do have many more women finishing college and graduate school than we did 40 years ago, and the numbers continue to increase. And many college age women seem better able to delineate and focus on their long range goals than are their male peers. Most young women are not confused about who they are or what they want as Venker claims. But, if young men are still relatively adolescent, that's also going to contribute to the women marrying at later ages--after the men grow up a bit. Venker does make an interesting point that all the available sex these days may delay men in wanting to commit to marriage, but, unlike Venker, I don't see the feminists as the ones pushing women into excessive casual sex, I think the entire culture is somewhat hyper-sexed at this point and both males and females feel somewhat pressured, on all sides, to engage in random and meaningless sexual encounters. But I don't think the solution is to go back to the situation we had in the past, where people got married in order to have sex.







0 Replies
 
SynnGrim
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 06:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I am personally glad someone brought this up, As for a while now us men have been shut down all across the US. I believe we should have equal rights yes, that should have been clear from the beginning of this country as well as freedom for all races. Human rights means human rights after all. But the feminists have great tools they use, the bandwagon and fear are examples. If only the feminist movement would just settle with the damage they have already done and leave the country to fix itself. But organizations like this are to greedy to do so, before long America will be a country where men are enslaved by women who don't even want it.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » "The Flipside of Feminism"
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 01:23:48