The Failure of Feminism?

When you turn on the tv or open a magazine i still see the same sexist sterotypes being played off
I don't know when feminism was unearthed but it seems to make little progress than outside of the home.
Last night i turn on tv and switch from CNN showing usaian oscars and asking the chikas where the got their cleavage dresses and flipped over to some reality gogo thing about girls getting into sportsil0strated.
Around me men still rule the basics, the entrepeneurs who make it still are men, the womenare yes doing so much beeter beeter, aand yes they are more intelligent, more knowledgable and should in utopian dreams rule the world but when it comes to making impulsive decisions which count - they fail
objectivity?

thread inspired from this article - http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php...tfR4qnjmpj85xm

I think (my opinion), that they dont try hard enough to change their image. Or, if they are trying, they're not being heard. I mean, honestly, when watching survivior or fear factor, I'm staring the the breasts when they wear bikinis and shit.

feminism is killed by easy money? (pose)
we all try in life to get through the work, bills, taxes etc
money kills alot of principles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

feminism is killed by easy money? (pose)
we all try in life to get through the work, bills, taxes etc
money kills alot of principles

---

I didn't mean that that money is killing them( it might be?), I'm trying to explain that the first thing I see in a women is breasts. I dont know why. But, I do believe that they shouldn't be treated like that. I cant explain myself. It's hard to exlpain.

feminism died out in the last generation cause the feminists refused to get on their knees for the men

.


I n s t i n c t




.
hungre, lust,need
vs
buddishm
vs
taxevasion
vs
parlementary fears of releaving yourself
vs
western sales techniques
via
ads

in real life i see little glimpses of the sexist, nor of dominant - neither of the contrary
but
in real life she knows more and is more aware than the man, yet the man knows how to take control, instantly
you cant beat that
but it would require men to aquire a new digestive system to understand the concept of swallowing spite.
I apologise for focusing on the negative, but presently i am taking care of a 6 month year old baby,and show him life, while she goes off to work in suit and efficiency and all at 7 am and questions my achievements after a days work with our little baby.
I love the baby
I love her

i will do anything for both

Zed, what you describe isn't feminism, it's a female in pants.

The alternative is you hire day-care (don't you dare!) or she stays with the kid and you work.

Tell her to mind her Ps and Qs or you'll kick her in the balls.

Maybe you could exercise your rights by taking the kid and filing for child support...like the girls do. ;)

I don't think feminism has failed so much as evolved. The early proto-type involved hairy armpits and dungarees and in many respects was a distraction from genuine issues of the vote, equal pay, maternity rights, sexism in the work place, harrassment, property rights etc., etc.,

The world has moved on a long way from a wife being little more than a chattel and any property she owned becoming her husbands. In less than 100 years an awful lot has changed and thankfully it doesn't particularly need to involve dungarees.

Sex and the use of sex to sell products is unlikely to change as it panders to fairly primal instincts. It is route one for the advertisers (to borrow from football). However, just compare modern adverts to ones from the 40s 50s and 60s. These might demonstrate how far things have moved on. I guarantee they will make you cringe.

What is far more prevalent today is sexuality in advertising rather than pure sexist nonsense. Some would argue that this is more insidious - perhaps so, it is certainly more demanding. One could potentially be the perfect housewife if one bought Fairy - it is bloody sight harder to look like Halle Berry.

Of course modern feminists point out that there are still inequalities of opportunity. How one looks is also still a significant factor. However, this is something that is becoming increasingly important to males too. In that sense a degree of equality is developing - although it may be equality of misery.

In summary, Feminism is a work in progress and moves by small degrees rather than big leaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't think feminism has failed so much as evolved. The early proto-type involved hairy armpits and dungarees and in many respects was a distraction from genuine issues of the vote, equal pay, maternity rights, sexism in the work place, harrassment, property rights etc., etc.,

The world has moved on a long way from a wife being little more than a chattel and any property she owned becoming her husbands. In less than 100 years an awful lot has changed and thankfully it doesn't particularly need to involve dungarees.

Sex and the use of sex to sell products is unlikely to change as it panders to fairly primal instincts. It is route one for the advertisers (to borrow from football). However, just compare modern adverts to ones from the 40s 50s and 60s. These might demonstrate how far things have moved on. I guarantee they will make you cringe.

What is far more prevalent today is sexuality in advertising rather than pure sexist nonsense. Some would argue that this is more insidious - perhaps so, it is certainly more demanding. One could potentially be the perfect housewife if one bought Fairy - it is bloody sight harder to look like Halle Berry.

Of course modern feminists point out that there are still inequalities of opportunity. How one looks is also still a significant factor. However, this is something that is becoming increasingly important to males too. In that sense a degree of equality is developing - although it may be equality of misery.

In summary, Feminism is a work in progress and moves by small degrees rather than big leaps.

---

So, feminism is in it's, um...infancy, so to speak? :(

Just how conservatives like their women to act.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images...oty%20copy.jpg

edit: i'll get the video link sorted

edit 2: can't get a direct link working, here is the address

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/09.html

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Han...rine-Booty.wmv type into media player

How does this play with your "stereotype" theory kev ?

I wonder what the "family values" brigade made of it :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Just how conservatives like their women to act.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images...oty%20copy.jpg

edit: i'll get the video link sorted

edit 2: can't get a direct link working, here is the address

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Han...rine-Booty.wmv



How does this play with your "stereotype" theory kev ?

I wonder what the "family values" brigade made of it :P

---

Theory?

What theory? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Theory?

What theory? :huh:

---

the way to get equality/acceptance is to avoid highlighting the differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Theory?

What theory? :huh:

---

the way to get equality/acceptance is to avoid highlighting the differences.

---

I don't follow...do you posit that highlighting the differences between the sexes grants her the exception to berate Zed for his "lack of accomplishment", but, if the roles were reversed, this would be forbidden?

If the roles were reversed, I'd think him a cad for behaving so loutishly, but in order to preserve the "differences", we should overlook her making such a comment?

Is this another example of the liberal propensity for "reparations"?

I call "bullshit". ;)

Nothing to do with her talking and everything to do with her thrusting her breast out and pouting like a bimbo (or whore as the old fashion "mens club" calls them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Nothing to do with her talking and everything to do with her thrusting her breast out and pouting like a bimbo (or whore as the old fashion "mens club" calls them)

---

This is a theory?

Of mine?

WTF are you on about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I has been my experience that perhaps....oh, say, less than 10% of the gays I've known are of the "flaming" variety, evincing all of the flamboyance and behaviors heretofore regarded as stereotypical.

Now, if such characteristics are not the norm among gays, why is it that either these characteristics or the sexual behaviors inherent in the lifestyle constitute the bulk of the lobby's presentation?

It's the same phenomenon that allows us to be aware the Log Cabin Republicans exist, but also ensures the spotlight never illuminates them.

The lobby chooses the most narrow and stereotypical image, and dares middle America to deny them, to the overall detriment of their cause.

---

Harris wants to be taken seriously..agree?
Now I admit that she would deny being a feminist as the right wing like to portray them but the fact that she runs for office makes her a believer in equality by default.

I dunno vid, the look on Katherine Harris' face, the way she was talking, and the turning of those big bressessus ready to burst out that tired grey suit with every delicious syllable tells me that she wanted to fuck.

I could be wrong. :idunno:

Oh and about feminism...

I know when I get home from work my bitch better have a warm plate of food on the table and afterwards have her legs open ready to receive me.

I'm so understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh and about feminism...

I know when I get home from work my bitch better have a warm plate of food on the table and afterwards have her legs open ready to receive me.

I'm so understanding.

---

So you're down to 30lbs and masturbate a lot then.......:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh and about feminism...

I know when I get home from work my bitch better have a warm plate of food on the table and afterwards have her legs open ready to receive me.

I'm so understanding.

---

So you're down to 30lbs and masturbate a lot then.......:lol: :lol:

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good one!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I has been my experience that perhaps....oh, say, less than 10% of the gays I've known are of the "flaming" variety, evincing all of the flamboyance and behaviors heretofore regarded as stereotypical.

Now, if such characteristics are not the norm among gays, why is it that either these characteristics or the sexual behaviors inherent in the lifestyle constitute the bulk of the lobby's presentation?

It's the same phenomenon that allows us to be aware the Log Cabin Republicans exist, but also ensures the spotlight never illuminates them.

The lobby chooses the most narrow and stereotypical image, and dares middle America to deny them, to the overall detriment of their cause.

---

Harris wants to be taken seriously..agree?
Now I admit that she would deny being a feminist as the right wing like to portray them but the fact that she runs for office makes her a believer in equality by default.

---

I'm sure the gay and feminist lobbies would appreciate the comparison, but it's a bit of a stretch here.

Katherine Harris probably assumes she can do the job, that is why she aspires to reach higher, but whether she does so out of an allegiance to other women is a matter of fit and form, don't you think?

By your reasoning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, hell, even Margaret Thatcher are feminists.

By my reasoning, such women achieve high station by eschewing the requisite feminist idea, rhetoric and compulsion to get ahead by continuously (and mainly) stating all men are assholes.

See the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm sure the gay and feminist lobbies would appreciate the comparison, but it's a bit of a stretch here.
Get off the homosexual bit. The comparison was about equality, acceptance and not highlighting differences.

Katherine Harris probably assumes she can do the job, that is why she aspires to reach higher, but whether she does so out of an allegiance to other women is a matter of fit and form, don't you think?

By your reasoning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, hell, even Margaret Thatcher are feminists.

At whatever level, be it individual or as a whole

By my reasoning, such women achieve high station by eschewing the requisite feminist idea, rhetoric and compulsion to get ahead by continuously (and mainly) stating all men are assholes.
That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.
See the difference?

---

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I don't think feminism has failed so much as evolved. The early proto-type involved hairy armpits and dungarees and in many respects was a distraction from genuine issues of the vote, equal pay, maternity rights, sexism in the work place, harrassment, property rights etc., etc.,

The world has moved on a long way from a wife being little more than a chattel and any property she owned becoming her husbands. In less than 100 years an awful lot has changed and thankfully it doesn't particularly need to involve dungarees.

Sex and the use of sex to sell products is unlikely to change as it panders to fairly primal instincts. It is route one for the advertisers (to borrow from football). However, just compare modern adverts to ones from the 40s 50s and 60s. These might demonstrate how far things have moved on. I guarantee they will make you cringe.

What is far more prevalent today is sexuality in advertising rather than pure sexist nonsense. Some would argue that this is more insidious - perhaps so, it is certainly more demanding. One could potentially be the perfect housewife if one bought Fairy - it is bloody sight harder to look like Halle Berry.

Of course modern feminists point out that there are still inequalities of opportunity. How one looks is also still a significant factor. However, this is something that is becoming increasingly important to males too. In that sense a degree of equality is developing - although it may be equality of misery.

In summary, Feminism is a work in progress and moves by small degrees rather than big leaps.

---

So, feminism is in it's, um...infancy, so to speak? :(

---

I think so.

Of course there are many strands to the feminist argument and some are driven by broader socio-political interests with very big axes to grind (and fondly retain their dungarees :ph34r: ) However, I do not think many would argue that we should return to 19th century inequalities between citizens of different class, gender, or race or, indeed, these days, sexuality.

I would agree with Vidcc that there is tendancy to try and demonise political debate by holding up a complete numpty like Pat Robertson and say he is all Christianity is about. Likewise, feminists with somewhat scary views regarding scythes and male genitalia are held up as representing those who fought hard to obtain very legitimate rights such as the vote and who still work to correct remaining inequalities. Feminism has become something bete noire by some commentators but if pressed I doubt they would advocate the institution of a Taleban style regime (well some might :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm sure the gay and feminist lobbies would appreciate the comparison, but it's a bit of a stretch here.
Get off the homosexual bit. The comparison was about equality, acceptance and not highlighting differences.

Katherine Harris probably assumes she can do the job, that is why she aspires to reach higher, but whether she does so out of an allegiance to other women is a matter of fit and form, don't you think?

By your reasoning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, hell, even Margaret Thatcher are feminists.

At whatever level, be it individual or as a whole

By my reasoning, such women achieve high station by eschewing the requisite feminist idea, rhetoric and compulsion to get ahead by continuously (and mainly) stating all men are assholes.
That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.
See the difference?

---

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

---

Okay, to be blunt:

Get off the "equality" bit-insofar as I am concerned, the only salient fact is, can you (with no reference or deference to sex, skin color, or life-style orientation) do the job or not?

Never mind laws, quotas, or any of the other crap; that is all I want to know.

Now, I fully realize your response is going to be along the lines of, "...but protections are needed, because bias exists!"

My response is, in turn, that from the point-of-view of the "offended" party, his/her attitude must change, or the bias will continue.

I'm not going to change your mind about conservatives, but it's only because conservatives such as myself are not so thoroughly rooted in society that you have no gripes left.

That day is approaching, however.

BTW-don't ask me to assume your proper intent in referring to another thread, the relation to which exists only in your own mind.

You dragged in the gay angle apropos of no apparent context, a suspect tactic in any case, as it begs ideological simplification while also abhoring it.

You've strewn clouds upon an issue which had no need of them, and called to mind a quote from Samuel Clemons, which is approximately thus:

"Many commentators have shed much darkness upon the subject, and, if they persist, we shall soon know nothing whatsoever about it."

After all this, I still don't know how you excuse/dismiss the comments of Zed's child's mother, which was my entree to this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Feminism is about equality.

---

Not according to those who proudly wear the label of Feminist.

Feminism today is defined by the predominant presenting media image, and is still personnified by such as Gloria Steinem.

Women who genuinely look to get ahead should look to the examples right before their eyes, like Secretary Rice or others I've mentioned, but when have you ever seen or heard them quoted or queried on matters of upward mobility as they apply to women?

It doesn't happen, because they merely achieve, while eschewing the label.

Amazing, huh?

It's quite funny, actually...at this point in time, I'm hoping Dr. Rice will at some juncture run for President.

She would have my enthusiastic support, but somehow, casting my vote for her would be construed as anti-women, wouldn't it? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

After all this, I still don't know how you excuse/dismiss the comments of Zed's child's mother, which was my entree to this thread.

---

I don't believe I have made any comment about your entree on the above.

I'll respond to the rest a little later, I have to go out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Feminism is about equality.

---

Not according to those who proudly wear the label of Feminist.

Feminism today is defined by the predominant presenting media image, and is still personnified by such as Gloria Steinem.

Women who genuinely look to get ahead should look to the examples right before their eyes, like Secretary Rice or others I've mentioned, but when have you ever seen or heard them quoted or queried on matters of upward mobility as they apply to women?

It doesn't happen, because they merely achieve, while eschewing the label.

Amazing, huh?

It's quite funny, actually...at this point in time, I'm hoping Dr. Rice will at some juncture run for President.

She would have my enthusiastic support, but somehow, casting my vote for her would be construed as anti-women, wouldn't it? ;)

---

so after I said this (and biggles seems to agree)

Quote:

---

That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

---

you go ahead and do exactly that.:rolleyes:

I get the impression that you view equality movement as being about purely legal things. This I have to say is an impression I get with most of my conservative friends. They seem to think any "liberal" that talks about equality is talking numbers and laws.

It is not just about having laws where someone cannot be barred from applying . It's about educating that precisely the same worth applies and showing that "isms" are based on misconceptions and flawed thinking.
With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

so after I said this (and biggles seems to agree)

Quote:

---

That goes with how right wingers frame what feminism is. The "militant manhater" isn't part of feminism except in the right wingers mind. what it is is an attitude or reaction born from frustration at constant obstacles and similar "militant feminist hater" or "woman hater" attitudes, which were the reason feminism started.

Your definition of "right-winger" is a caricature, vid, and your "militant man-hater" is a term a caricuture would use.

That said, the standard-bearers of the "feminist movement" (the ones the media recognizes) are caricatures also.

Why they are so recognized, to the detriment of more worthy models, is a constant enigma.

Feminism is about equality. The behaviour of certain feminist is no more indicative to feminism than the behaviour of a drunk male wifebeater is to men or that pat robertsons rants are indicative of christians.

In answer to that, I would merely say that feminism (the reasonable and proper brand) is not popularly represented in the media.

What the right tries to do is demonise and discredit groups and undercut causes by attributing personality to causes.

The left doesn't do this? :P

---

It's about educating that precisely the same worth applies and showing that "isms" are based on misconceptions and flawed thinking.

-Isms?

Are you sure you want to go there?

I subscribe to conservatism.

You subscribe to liberalism, but pay lip service to, um...let's see...Independentism.

Yes-let's talk some more about isms!

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

---

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Your definition of "right-winger" is a caricature, vid, and your "militant man-hater" is a term a caricuture would use.

That said, the standard-bearers of the "feminist movement" (the ones the media recognizes) are caricatures also.

Why they are so recognized, to the detriment of more worthy models, is a constant enigma.

---

I think you may actually be getting my point, I'm not so sure you realise it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

-Isms?

Are you sure you want to go there?

I subscribe to conservatism.

You subscribe to liberalism, but pay lip service to, um...let's see...Independentism.

Yes-let's talk some more about isms!

---

I have no doubt you know the "isms" given the context of the thread refer to sex,race, etc.etc.etc. isms, but sure. even with your "isms" ignorance of said groups holds sway far more than ideological disagreements.
Liberals misrepresent conservative views and conservatives do likewise with liberal views. Many conservatives think rush speaks for liberals, that is where they go to find out what liberals think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4 but was my words

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

---

give me an example of what you are thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I have no doubt you know the "isms" given the context of the thread refer to sex,race, etc.etc.etc. isms, but sure. even with your "isms" ignorance of said groups holds sway far more than ideological disagreements.

My isms ignorance?

BTW-precisely how do "ideological disagreements" take place in the absence of a minimum of two (2) isms?

Many conservatives think rush speaks for liberals, that is where they go to find out what liberals think.

He may indeed provide a forum of sorts for liberals, but if you mean to say you have conservative friends who think he speaks in the liberal tongue, then either you don't have the slightest idea what a conservative is, or (more likely) your friends who claim to be conservative are actually morons who have managed to hoodwink you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4 but was my words

With sexes there are some jobs that women could do but probably shouldn't just as there are jobs that men could do but probably shouldn't but on the whole the only prevention for equality (no matter the subject) is ignorance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

That last is a rather unfortunate construct, don't you think?

I'll give you a go at re-phrasing before I address it.

---

give me an example of what you are thinking.

---

Your point might be better served if you'd said simply that, ignorance is the cause of IN-equality.

Much better, I'm sure you'll agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

He may indeed provide a forum of sorts for liberals, but if you mean to say you have conservative friends who think he speaks in the liberal tongue, then either you don't have the slightest idea what a conservative is, or (more likely) your friends who claim to be conservative are actually morons who have managed to hoodwink you.

---

when rush says/rants "but but liberals think this.... or liberals want this.... certain people believe that is what liberals actually think or want. They don't listen to what liberals say, they listen to what rush says they say.
You have only to listen to his callers to confirm this...

I think you can get his show online

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Your point might be better served if you'd said simply that, ignorance is the cause of IN-equality.

Much better, I'm sure you'll agree.

---

preventing equality / causing in-equality blah blah blah blah blah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

blah blah blah blah blah

---

Your best post today...:P

It is fair to say that the media loves the "rent a quote" crowd be they from the right or the left.

I am not particularly familiar with US feminists but I do recall seeing a programme involving Andrea Dworkin. :ph34r: Scary lady. I believe another commentator on the left held the view that she was the best thing that happened to those that opposed the Feminist movement because of her somewhat militant style of speaking. She has passed away and I am sure I read somewhere that she had a less than happy life, and consequently may have had reasons to be strident. She apparently got a lot of media space for her views, which were often seen as fringe even by other Feminists. Likewise Rev Phelps gets far more airtime than he deserves. His Church is small (and largely related to him from what I can gather). He is barking mad and, likewise, does not represent main-stream Christianity.

Consequently, which Feminism are we considering has failed? The fringe, strident "chop his goolies off" sort or the genuine work undertaken to see equality of opportunity? It would have been unthinkable for a black person to have held high office in the US 100 years ago. It would have been equally unthinkable for a woman to have held high office. For a black woman to have such status would have had the fiery cross makers working nights. The world has moved on. If the battle in 08 is between Hillary and Condaleeza it will not raise too many eyebrows nor pose Kevin with too many hard choices :)

In short, yes there is less of the Dworkin style radical feminism about but perhaps this is because many women feel the world has moved on, not because they have given up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

It is fair to say that the media loves the "rent a quote" crowd be they from the right or the left.

I am not particularly familiar with US feminists but I do recall seeing a programme involving Andrea Dworkin. :ph34r: Scary lady. I believe another commentator on the left held the view that she was the best thing that happened to those that opposed the Feminist movement because of her somewhat militant style of speaking. She has passed away and I am sure I read somewhere that she had a less than happy life, and consequently may have had reasons to be strident. She apparently got a lot of media space for her views, which were often seen as fringe even by other Feminists. Likewise Rev Phelps gets far more airtime than he deserves. His Church is small (and largely related to him from what I can gather). He is barking mad and, likewise, does not represent main-stream Christianity.

Consequently, which Feminism are we considering has failed? The fringe, strident "chop his goolies off" sort or the genuine work undertaken to see equality of opportunity? It would have been unthinkable for a black person to have held high office in the US 100 years ago. It would have been equally unthinkable for a woman to have held high office. For a black woman to have such status would have had the fiery cross makers working nights. The world has moved on. If the battle in 08 is between Hillary and Condaleeza it will not raise too many eyebrows nor pose Kevin with too many hard choices :)

In short, yes there is less of the Dworkin style radical feminism about but perhaps this is because many women feel the world has moved on, not because they have given up.

---

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

The media needs to forego the fire-breathers of all camps.

There are many spokespersons "in waiting" who are ignored owing to misguided ideological considerations...

I'm sure such as Dr. Rice could hold forth for hours, days, even, about how it works, without uttering a single identifiable ideologism.

If the media were not itself biased, it could already be happening.

Tsk, how sexist. Not a single girl in this thread.
My two cents:

I think the progess of feminism has been slowed down my certain feminist movements who wanted equal rights for men and women all the way.
Let me ellaborate on this;

In my opinion, men and women are physically and mentally different beings. Even the structure of our lungs differs.
We both have different talents and skills. It often annoys me when people act condescending towards 'typically female' professions such as nursing, midwivery etc...
I think we all know that women simply are better carers, so why should it be a disgrace to act out that talent?
Most of the men I know have got more analytical minds than most of the women I know so how can it be sexist to accept this?

It has now come to a point where, if you don't juggle your career with a couple of kids, a nice house and ca and a loving husband BEHIND you, you didn't succeed as a woman.

Where's the sense in that?
Why would it be a disgrace to choose between your kids and your career?
It seems that these days, being a full time mum is old fashioned and disrespectuful towards yourself.

Yes, of course I am glad that women and men have the same rights now, but this idea of women HAVING to do the same things as men do is more sexist than anything else.
It doesn't acknowledge femininity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

When you turn on the tv or open a magazine...

---

I hope you don't base all your thoughts on what you see in the media.

They've been known to skew thimgs just a wee bit to sell advertising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skweeky1

Tsk, how sexist. Not a single girl in this thread.
My two cents:

Well, to bully a female response would have been, let's see....uh, sexist, wouldn't it?

Actually, we've just been waiting for you.

I think the progess of feminism has been slowed down my certain feminist movements who wanted equal rights for men and women all the way.
Let me ellaborate on this;

In my opinion, men and women are physically and mentally different beings. Even the structure of our lungs differs.

Believe me, we've noticed. :naughty:

Sorry.

We both have different talents and skills. It often annoys me when people act condescending towards 'typically female' professions such as nursing, midwivery etc...
I think we all know that women simply are better carers, so why should it be a disgrace to act out that talent?
Most of the men I know have got more analytical minds than most of the women I know so how can it be sexist to accept this?

These are all true, albeit only generally, Skweeky; it is important to point that out, otherwise....sexist.

It has now come to a point where, if you don't juggle your career with a couple of kids, a nice house and ca and a loving husband BEHIND you, you didn't succeed as a woman.

Exactly and precisely right-on.

Where's the sense in that?
Why would it be a disgrace to choose between your kids and your career?
It seems that these days, being a full time mum is old fashioned and disrespectuful towards yourself.

Yes, of course I am glad that women and men have the same rights now, but this idea of women HAVING to do the same things as men do is more sexist than anything else.
It doesn't acknowledge femininity

---

I stand foursquare behind the idea of acknowledgementing femininity!

Huzzah!

Skweeky, J2

I agree, vive le difference!

The important thing is that people are free to choose what they want to do, be it a career or a more traditional caring role. No one has any business gainsaying their choice - from whichever side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

The important thing is that people are free to choose what they want to do, be it a career or a more traditional caring role. No one has any business gainsaying their choice - from whichever side.

---

Aye-that, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skweeky1

Tsk, how sexist. Not a single girl in this thread.
My two cents:

I think the progess of feminism has been slowed down my certain feminist movements who wanted equal rights for men and women all the way.
Let me ellaborate on this;

In my opinion, men and women are physically and mentally different beings. Even the structure of our lungs differs.
We both have different talents and skills. It often annoys me when people act condescending towards 'typically female' professions such as nursing, midwivery etc...
I think we all know that women simply are better carers, so why should it be a disgrace to act out that talent?
Most of the men I know have got more analytical minds than most of the women I know so how can it be sexist to accept this?

It has now come to a point where, if you don't juggle your career with a couple of kids, a nice house and ca and a loving husband BEHIND you, you didn't succeed as a woman.

Where's the sense in that?
Why would it be a disgrace to choose between your kids and your career?
It seems that these days, being a full time mum is old fashioned and disrespectuful towards yourself.

Yes, of course I am glad that women and men have the same rights now, but this idea of women HAVING to do the same things as men do is more sexist than anything else.
It doesn't acknowledge femininity

---

Great post! :)

What's important today is equality and freedom of choice.