Feminism Online

19 Comments Add your own

• 1. Juke  |  March 8, 2007 at 2:04 pm

  “…feminism did introduce women into the work force en mass.”

  I’m not sure that this is true – at least in respect of my own country, the UK. Prior to the industrial revolution peasant women toiled in the fields etc alongside peasant men – survival depended upon it.. During the industrial revolution, working class women (and children) toiled in cotton mills and factories etc. During the World Wars women were drafted in to work in munitions factories and to keep the country’s infrastucture in tact.

  From my understanding of history, for no substantial period, if at all, did working class women (the vast majority) simply stay at home tending to husband and family.

  Feminism may have brought rights for women but women have always been exploited for their labour.

• 2. stellar1  |  March 8, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Juke,

  World War II did present women with the opportunity to work outside the house in the US, too. However, it wasn’t until the late 70s/early 80s that women started to infiltrate career opportunities such as the medical profession as doctors, the legal profession as judges and lawyers and the education profession as university instructors.

  In fact, before this time, women were expected to stay at home and care for the kids and the house – and the husband – whether that is what she wanted or not.

  When I think of all the intellectual capital lost over the centuries to this societal barrier toward women, it makes me wonder where this world would be today if women were always allowed to function to their full capacity.

• 3. Juke  |  March 8, 2007 at 5:46 pm

  I think that Britain is slightly more progressive than the US in this respect – but only just. And that’s probably because we began the process of throwing off the shackles of Christian values sooner.

  There is evidence that In pre-Christian Britain women enjoyed far greater equality with men – the tribal leader, Boudica, being a case in point. Moreover, many strands of our pre-Christian religions have women in pre-eminent positions. This indicates that the inequality that women currently endure is not the ‘natural’ position that our Christian masters would have us believe.

  But then you knew all that already

• 4. Michał Augustyniak  |  February 1, 2008 at 5:21 am

  The only think feminism has allow to happen is the decline in fertility in women. The west will disappear in 20 years. Congratulations you stupid piesces of shit!

• 5. Michelle Molner, MSW  |  February 6, 2008 at 3:31 am

  I do not think that feminism destroyed anything at all, and especially not the family unit. It certainly dismantled the false pretense of a happy and functional nuclear family with the husband being the “head of the household” and the wife being submissive. We now know that behind those women’s tentative faces were deep longings, missed opportunities, and the sorrow and regret that are unmistakenably caused by oppression. Feminism allowed women to assert their inherent right to self-actualize and fulfill their highest potential. Feminism did not eradicate the desire or ability of a woman to nurture a family. Now that a woman has choices, she will certainly be a happier mate and mother to her children. The current challenge is to re-build the family, moving forward with true equality, not only respecting but valuing each gender for it’s unique strengths and differences. The traditional gender roles need to be more fluid and adaptable, with each partner making their own unique contribution to meet their families needs.

• 6. Anonymous  |  December 27, 2008 at 12:47 am

  “If people want to blame the breakdown of the traditional family on feminists, I for one will gladly accept the blame.”

  Really? Cause traditional families sure as hell functioned a lot better then modern ones. Feminism has destroyed the american family…look around you. Men are natural leaders, women are natural nurturers…its what god intended and has been that way since the begininning of time…deal with it and stop trying to fuck with human nature.

• 7. stellar1  |  December 27, 2008 at 2:26 am

  Nonsense. Pure nonsense. I know tons of women who are not naturally nurturing and tons of guys who are not natural leaders.

  Moreover, the “traditional family” might have been great for guys, since they had god-ordained slaves (women) to wait on their every need. It wasn’t working for the majority of us women though.

  When will people get it in their heads that men and women are equal. It is that simple, but for some reason it is still resisted even today.

• 8. Dante D'Anthony  |  December 29, 2008 at 3:35 pm

  What a pile of manure.

• 9. Dante D'Anthony  |  December 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-5.htm

• 10. Dante D'Anthony  |  December 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm

  “Moreover, the “traditional family” might have been great for guys, since they had god-ordained slaves (women) to wait on their every need. It wasn’t working for the majority of us women though.”

  What a stupid thing to say.

  http://www.angryharry.com/reTributetoMenofTitanic.htm

  “Eighteen years ago, two TV producers and two directors at NBC were having a drink when Jim Silman mentioned his latest discovery in Washington. It was a memorial to the men on the RMS Titanic who had surrendered their places in the liner’s too few lifeboats so that women and children could be saved when the great ship went down on April 15, 1912.”

• 11. Dante D'Anthony  |  December 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0506/englandImage1.jpg

  Millions of MEN layed down their lives to protect women and children at home.

  How absurd that you systematically review the social organizations traditional society with such a one sided hysterical assessment.

  The men you accuse of making slaves of women were in fact working in mines and factories to support them and the children.

  You cows are a disgrace to reason and an afront to humanity.

• 12. stellar1  |  December 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm

  Hee, hee. Looks like we hit a sensitive spot. Poor Dante don’t want his world to change. Poor baby.

• 13. Cisco  |  January 8, 2009 at 9:46 am

  Well, although Dante made a few valid points, he lost all credibility when started insulting cows.(Sorry, had too)

  In all seriousness, woman are equal. That does not mean they are the same. I agree they should be afforded every right to succeed in life that any other human being has. But they are not emotionally or physically the same. That part of the equation no feminist can change.

• 14. Dan  |  January 10, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  ‘In all seriousness, woman are equal. That does not mean they are the same.’

  You people are muppets with no idea what world actually means – equal does mean the same – equal to, the same as. Have a look at the equal sign on your computer – what do you see? Its two parallel line, equal size, shape and colour = the SAME.

  Feminism is the cancer eating away at the strength of our society. We will soon find out what it’s all been about when the riots start. Few men to defend their families, loads of single mums looking to the gov for protection. The feral beasts raised on welfare will be the brown shirts used to terrify what’s left of our society into accepting the new order.

• 15. stellar1  |  January 10, 2009 at 10:59 pm

  Like it or not, women will have equal rights – and it is about time. Men can pout about it all they want, but as humans continue migrate away from barbarism and slavery, the natural progression is a society in which sexism is putrid and misogyny is reviled. As it should be.

• 16. Demosthenes  |  January 28, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Hmm…equal, eh?

  Fine. I worked in the steel industry for years. Funny that while I saw many women working in the steel mill, very few were the ones working on the blast furnace floor. How about mining? How many women are rushing to get jobs there?

  How about a concerted effort by feminist groups to force the military to get women in front line combat units?

  Here’s another one; feminists are calling for less federal funding toward infrastructure jobs because they employ mostly men. I also worked in the construction industry. My local allowed and encouraged women to apply for trade apprenticeships. Many did apply and the moment that the work got “dirty,” they quit. There were a few who stuck it out and they have proved to be hard workers and skilled tradespeople. We had a few men who applied and quit under the same circumstances, but that’s normal.
  These women did not wash out, they were not “driven out;” they quit because they did not like the work. They were fine when we were doing houses, but into the fourth month when we started doing industrial work, they all began to complain about the conditions of the work areas and then finally just quit.

  If you want to be equal then be equal.

  Here’s the best example of your so-called equality; the toilet seat. If as a man I have to demonstrate the wherewithal to raise the toilet seat to urinate, why can’t women demonstrate that same awareness to lower it before they sit down?

  Think about it.

• 17. Silverarrow  |  February 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm

  I think that certain industries will always be dominated by men, like construction, police, etc, but that doesn’t mean that individual women can’t tough it out, that they can’t succeed in the field. It doesn’t mean that women can’t be equal in political and intellectual fields. Why can’t a woman have the same rights in many fields as men? I still haven’t heard a valid arguement from those guys who just want women to stay in the home.

  “Feminism has destroyed the american family…look around you. Men are natural leaders, women are natural nurturers…its what god intended and has been that way since the begininning of time…deal with it and stop trying to fuck with human nature.”

  If women are more naturally nurting and whatnot, shouldn’t there be more women leaders in the political areana? Wouldn’t there be fewer wars? Sorry, I”m just trying to understand this; if women are more nurturing, why shouldn’t men like yourself support the right of women to be political leaders? Moreso than women? Wouldn’t there be fewer wars?

  All of you guys complaining about feminism, what should be done then? Should women be forced back into the houses whether or not they like it? Should they be nothing but mothers and wives and little else? Should women just be born to please men and nothing else? What happens then, if the man abandons the wife and leaves her with the children? What should be done then? What if she’s being faced with domestic abuse? What then? If she has no right to work or education, should she just put up with it?

  All of you guys crying about feminism, biggest whinners ever! Women have rights, that’’s life, get over it. Most of you guys have mail order brides, don’t you?

• 18. Charlotte  |  March 16, 2009 at 11:58 am

  There’s a very good reason the traditional family works, and since women have abandoned their children to have careers, well, that’s why we have so many ASBO kids.

  If women want equality they should be prepared to let go of the privelages they have that men don’t, but of course, no, they want it all.

  I do not agree with feminism when it is twisted so much from the original point.

• 19. Dreamer  |  March 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  Feminism has indeed killed of the family,. just look at fathers are seen today. Fathers today are so demoralized that no one seems to notice it anymore and as more and more men become less and less interested in a family. The west is going to have massive problem.
  In the UK, the IVF mother can put ANYONE as the father of the child on the birth certificate.
  They’re less men as role models and how to be a good father to younger boys because lets face it, chivalry is dead. And hell, being a male is a bad thing to society. Boys being boys isn’t good as more and more people sigh up to be political correct.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed