I did not like Edna!!!

[Shea]

I just finished 'The Awakening' by Kate Chopin in one of my classes (unfortunately, I have to study it again *sigh* for another class starting Monday). I like Chopin's style of writing, but I was so disgusted by Edna. She was so selfish and irresponsible! Sorry, I definately am against the feminist movement, and almost wish we could have skipped over that part of the seventies. Incedentally, I had to read "The Yellow Wall-Paper", and though once again, I liked the style, I hate what the work stood for.

Sorry for ranting. :oops:

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Not all feminists are insane-phyco "I hate men cause they rule the World" types. There are a good deal of different types of feminism unfortunatly most people don't ever hear about them. See ifeminists.com (http://www.ifeminists.com)

Jonus

[Shea]

The trouble is, that women are not equal to men at all. Look at Genesis 3:16. My husband has an average decent job. We're not loaded, but we're comfortable even as we try and pay off our bit of debt. But if we want a family, then that means I will have to work in order to for us to go on living without great financial stress. I credit that wonderfully stupid idea to our feminist friends, even your ifeminists. Because all the women went to work, our economy dosen't allow for many single income homes. My parents tried that when they were still married and we lived in a dump. So who is supposed to raise our children if I go to work? Some stranger? I would give up all my rights as a woman that has been granted to us in the last century for a society that expects me to stay home with our children, which is my natural inclination anyway.

So most of our children are being raised by the TV, and that is why I really don't like going out to places where there are a lot of people. To much cleavage and not enough skirt. That's what TV teaches, isn't it? I can't even stand to watch it anymore. I can hardly go to the grocery store without seeing some girl taking advantage of this "women's lib" by wearing next to nothing "just because she can."

I hate living in a society where I'm insulted daily by advertisments, media, or people who just pass me on the street.

[Robert E Lee]

Originally posted by Shea
The trouble is, that women are not equal to men at all. Look at Genesis 3:16. My husband has an average decent job. We're not loaded, but we're comfortable even as we try and pay off our bit of debt. But if we want a family, then that means I will have to work in order to for us to go on living without great financial stress. I credit that wonderfully stupid idea to our feminist friends, even your ifeminists. Because all the women went to work, our economy dosen't allow for many single income homes. My parents tried that when they were still married and we lived in a dump. So who is supposed to raise our children if I go to work? Some stranger? I would give up all my rights as a woman that has been granted to us in the last century for a society that expects me to stay home with our children, which is my natural inclination anyway.

So most of our children are being raised by the TV, and that is why I really don't like going out to places where there are a lot of people. To much cleavage and not enough skirt. That's what TV teaches, isn't it? I can't even stand to watch it anymore. I can hardly go to the grocery store without seeing some girl taking advantage of this "women's lib" by wearing next to nothing "just because she can."

I hate living in a society where I'm insulted daily by advertisments, media, or people who just pass me on the street.

I completely agree with you. As someone in my English class pointed out: Edna typifies paltry bourgeois social issues. It's not the working family that has to struggle to put food on the table that's going to include a wife who complains because she can't cheat on her husband. You should see the film Taxi Driver.

[apstudent]

I agree with dumblikeapoet on this one.My proffesor defined a feminist the other day as one who believes woman should be equal to men in all senses. I sat there and just thought about that for a second. That means that I am a feminist. It is sort of ironic because this I had pictured a feminist in my mind as the insane psycho men are ruling the world type, but once again that is just an overblown stereotype. In fact, I have been a feminist for as long as I could remember. Both of my parents worked equally as hard at work and at home. So, it was not untul tv that I realized that there was any other way. But I just think it is funny that I have been making fun of feminists for as long as I thought I knew what a feminist was, but when it came down to it, I was a feminist.So, now that I said that, I have another question for you, but I will start another thread on it.

[AbdoRinbo]

Feminism is idiotic.

[apstudent]

Thank you abdorinbo for your intelligent response. Way to go kid. Really taking this thread to a new level.

[AbdoRinbo]

Feminism is idiotic because it does nothing whatsoever to change the social framework of gender. Under Feminism or Maculinism one identity is favored over the other and the marginalized gender (in this case, 'woman') suffers whatever form of repression, be it religious, political, economical, &c., because the belief that a person is born a boy or a girl still exists. In other words, the feminsts merely attack an existing problem head on without uprooting it.

[AbdoRinbo]

apstudent, if wanted your opinion I would beat it out of you.

[Munro]

I couldn't believe it when I heard that militant feminists used to exist in the 1960s! This reminds of a play by Steven Berkoff I recently read called Greek, based on Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, where the Sphinx is this *****y feminist who threatens to bite the main character's balls and **** off (and she says a lot more). If you want a vicious attack on feminists, check it out by all means. Some might say it's misogynistic, it all depends.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Feminism is idiotic.
and there it is. the first post i completely disagree with abdo on.

wait a sec, better read the rest of the thread....how do u suggest we uproot it? the idea is that of equality. appreciation of differences between the sexes, but overall equality. the majority of feminists are NOT man-eating, butch lesbians who try to castrate guys. hardly. we'll never change the ideas and stereotypes that surround the diff genders, but we can improve on the inequality that exists between them. (i'm not talking about western society so much as middle eastern. uh-oh. politics. it seems to follow apstudent wherever he/she goes.)

[apstudent]

Honestly, I believe that there exists a difference between the current equality of men and woman only because of religion. Unfortunately, the religions of the Middle East are what oppresses woman's rights as opposed to men's. I believe as long as such religions teach these philosophies, then the gap will exist. And, just because we mention Middle Eastern society does not make it politics.

[Shea]

I think the thing that upsets me most is the fact that these movements to "liberate women" have made it completely impossible for me to reverse the problem and get things back the way they were. If I were to draw up all kinds of committees, meetings, etc., I would be doing exactly the opposite of what I would be "preaching". I don't want to be a great hero to anyone but my own family. But something like that hardly ever gets heard.

[AbdoRinbo]

Originally posted by den
Ohhh here I go with some generalisations which I'm usually loathe on... :p but I feel that, in general, `feminism' is undermining `masculinism'. Matriarchal and patriachal societies work on the assumption that one or the other is `weak' and needs commanding dictatorial control over the other. I'm all for `equality', but I can't stand these `labels' .

You're all for equality, but you can't stand labels? That's redundant.


In regards `equality', I'm still backwards, I like to see the differences in cultures, languages, societies, religions etc. I don't think people care about this enough anymore.

When those differences rest on an arbitrary view of nature (the question arises, what exactly does gender signify when you take into account those born with neither and those born with both sexual organs?), the cultural, social, linguistic, and religious aspects of gender become irrelevant. It's all a social costruct, like mental health.


The University here banned any Remembrance Day services, because the Central Students' Association advocates `equality' for all... and they suggest that RD services are `glorifying' war. There are less than a dozen men and women left in Canada who served in the first world war. I think it's pretty sad that, in the name of `equality' and politically correctness, soon enough, they will be forgotten. :(

Weren't there only a dozen Canadian men and women who served anyway?


Another example... the Muslim Student's association here also shout that they should be treated `equally', just like everybody else, but by their own cultural differences demand special priviledges and considerations for prayer and other religious expression. How can you have it both ways? Democracy will implode, everyone wants to be treated under the `equality' umbrella, yet demand specific rights for themselves. [/quoe]

Religion is the probem then, not Democracy.

[quote]There should be more emphasis on differences and less on homogenising every aspect of our lives. grr

Differences are going to exist no matter what, natural ones. Why not rid ourselves of the repressive ones? What do we have to lose?

[Munro]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo

Weren't there only a dozen Canadian men and women who served anyway?

You're ignorance on this topic, whether intentional or not, annoys me. I feel I have to correct it. Canadians, along with further thousands of Australians and Indians fought bravely in World War One for the sake of the British Empire, at the mercy of the stupidity of their commanders who sent them over the top of trenches only to be mown down by German machine guns.
For a fact, it was the Canadians who discovered at Ypres in 1917 how to protect themselves from the increasing mustard gas attacks (by pissing in their socks and holding it to their noses, in all seriousness).


Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Differences are going to exist no matter what, natural ones. Why not rid ourselves of the repressive ones? What do we have to lose? [/B]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but immediately I see this as another example of the Western Fundamentalism that I have to read about in the paper every day. At the moment we are discussing (or at least I'm watching the discussion) feminism within our own society in the West - not of that in the Middle East. You once said that Thom Yorke had no right to speak on behalf of starving Africans in his position. In this same way you have no right to speak on behalf of a culture you don't belong to. The Muslim culture should be respected utterly, because our society has no right whatsoever to dictate how other cultures should function. It's this cultural righteousness that has destroyed so many cultures in the past hundreds of years, and with it the cherished 'diversity' that den has been arguing for. It is diversity that we will lose, in answer to your question.

I believe that men and women should have equal rights, equal pay and equal job opporunities within our own culture, because as a whole it is something that we value. If feminists are fighting for this, then I support them. If they are fighting to have me castrated, then I do not.

[AbdoRinbo]

Originally posted by Munro
You're ignorance on this topic, whether intentional or not, annoys me. I feel I have to correct it. Canadians, along with further thousands of Australians and Indians fought bravely in World War One for the sake of the British Empire, at the mercy of the stupidity of their commanders who sent them over the top of trenches only to be mown down by German machine guns.
For a fact, it was the Canadians who discovered at Ypres in 1917 how to protect themselves from the increasing mustard gas attacks (by pissing in their socks and holding it to their noses, in all seriousness).

It's alright, Munro, I was just giving den a hard time. She knows I was only joshing. We both laughed.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but immediately I see this as another example of the Western Fundamentalism that I have to read about in the paper every day. At the moment we are discussing (or at least I'm watching the discussion) feminism within our own society in the West - not of that in the Middle East. You once said that Thom Yorke had no right to speak on behalf of starving Africans in his position. In this same way you have no right to speak on behalf of a culture you don't belong to. The Muslim culture should be respected utterly, because our society has no right whatsoever to dictate how other cultures should function. It's this cultural righteousness that has destroyed so many cultures in the past hundreds of years, and with it the cherished 'diversity' that den has been arguing for. It is diversity that we will lose, in answer to your question.

Actually, I was arguing the contrary, diversity is a good thing (I never said it excludes equality). Technically I might not have been discussing Feminism, as a matter of fact I was leaning more towards Gender Theory, which is different from the Women's Rights movement, but if I did stray a bit it was to point out some of the major flaws in Feminism. The problem as I see it is that the whole theory operates in the same exact manner as Masculinism, it just turns the tables around. Gender theory on the other hand takes the table and smashes it to pieces, henceforth not only resolving the issue concerning power but making sure that neither side gains control over the other. Gender is shown to be a purely social phenomenon and is dismissed, so the dichotomy (male/female) becomes impossible to justify.

By the way, I never acknowledged apstudent's eurocentric comments (for my part, I believe that if you were to count all of the atrocities that all the Eastern religious institutions have committed in the the last 2,000 years and multiply that by 500, you might get an estimate close to that committed by the Catholic and Protestant churches).


I believe that men and women should have equal rights, equal pay and equal job opporunities within our own culture, because as a whole it is something that we value. If feminists are fighting for this, then I support them. If they are fighting to have me castrated, then I do not.

In my opinion the feminists are calling the kettle black. Besides, the equality they are seeking with men would be too unstable, I can't see how it would ever work; it would be a futile struggle to keep both sides balanced, to not tip the scales. Solution? Believe that everything in the world is equal, shares a common ground, because everything exists. 'Gender', like 'race' is just a framework in which the insincere exploit others for power.

[fayefaye]

dam. back to sharing abdo's opinion. that's irritating. one day i'd like to debate with u abs.


Originally posted by apstudent
Honestly, I believe that there exists a difference between the current equality of men and woman only because of religion. Unfortunately, the religions of the Middle East are what oppresses woman's rights as opposed to men's. I believe as long as such religions teach these philosophies, then the gap will exist. And, just because we mention Middle Eastern society does not make it politics.

it's not only because of religion. it's sociological and cultural factors as well. u can't just blame their religions. like they must be wrong or something. i agree with munro-ppl overly criticize them without having the right. (maybe i sorta did that at the start unintentionally)

i think the equality ideals of feminism are good.. but i spose it does become a bit mangled somewhere along the way. u know what i'd like? to hear some middle eastern critiques of western society. that'd be interesting. but also.. despite not having the right to criticize their society.. i'm going to do it a bit anyway.. and say that they do need to stop such things as 'honour killings' just like we need to completely revamp so many factors of our society (but i wonder if and when we ever will)

[=Monkey_King=]

Femnism was a just cause, Industrialization (Materialization) took over and now its messed up. (Not saying that it is wrong)

In Canada women earn 68% of what men earn for the same job
In my humble opinion you cannot take the bible literally, if you do so then it will conflict in so many places (seeing that it was written by men, then published by a crude council of early christians that had a lot of their faith messed up when the Roman empire made christianity their offical religion, and did some now unknown "changes" to the bible.

I cannot agree that God directly said that. (Not that I completely disagree with it.)

REmember that was a tough age to live in, survival was a real issue back then, unlike our modern lives, and therefore its natural the strong "men" become heads of households?

The society has changed now, I can humbly say that men are not as smart as women (Me (im a guy) and three other girls in my grade are the only smart ones, and i just came from Korea just to mess things up for them :D )

[fayefaye]

yes. the average female does seem smarter than ur average guy. :) *pause to allow abdo to collect arguments* :)either way, females should earn the same amount as a guy for doing the same job. but they shouldn't be promoted just so there are token females on the board of directors. (same thing with race, etc) the problem is when the idea of equality slips over attempts at female superiority instead. that messes with the whole idea of feminism.

[AbdoRinbo]

Ideally, there should be a ratio of twenty attractive women for each male.

[Shea]

You know what's interesting, when I was a server, I noticed that the guys would walk out at the end of the night with more tips than the girls. It's because women tend to carry thier personal problems into every thing they do, guys don't so they're able to focus better.

[piquant]

I have a course this semester on feminism, so I've been thinking a lot about feminism, and what it means to be feminist.

First, I'd like to say something about Shea's comment that feminism ruined it for stay-at-home moms.

They wave of feminism that you are talking about was headed by white, upper-middle class females. These women went to college and earned degrees, and then were expected to marry well and stay home with their children. They felt that their tallents weren't being allowed to develope. However, during this time lower class women worked, and have always worked. Putting food on the table is more important than preparing the house for a soiree while a nanny watches the children. Women who had to work never really understood this feminist movement because it did nothing for them. It was kind of ironic because upper-class women considered working a privilage while lower-class women considered it a necessity.

Now, feminism is something different. It is consierned with getting women equal pay for equal jobs, helping single mothers stuck on welfare to change their position, and to work towards chaniging the incredibly high numbers of women raped and abused. Also, it is concerned with making sure that talented women, in all fields, have the same opportunities as men. The majority of the literature we read, paintings we look at, and classical music we listen to is composed by dead white men. Women's voices are not being heard. Quite possibly, if we listened, they have something valuable to say.

Also, most of the leaders of the United States (my country) are white, upper-class men. The majority of our population is not represented. How can they really be looking out for the best interests of blacks, hispanics, women, and the poor. They can't. Feminism isn't about forcing women to be the same as men, it is about not allowing those differences to put us in a position where we are seen as secondary to the ruling class (white males). We wnat the right to be different, and to be respected, even valued, for our differences.

[Shea]

I'm not talking about wanting to "plan a soiree while nanny watches the children." What happened to the class of women who raised thier own children, visited the sick and took care of the house? That dosen't seem to be around anymore except among those few where the husband makes enough to live like that.

The trouble is, it used to be that a woman married to a man who makes the kind of money(for his time period) my husband does, would be able to stay at home. I don't really know much about economics, but am I wrong in thinking that the value of the dollar went down so far, in comparrison to the previous hundered years, because women wanted to work? It makes sense to me.

Sorry, I'm just upset about the whole thing. I feel like your women suffering from undeveloped talents were just selfish and ruined things for people like me. By the way, one of my sister-in-laws has a masters in Engineering Management and a Bachelors in Chemical Engineering and chose to be a stay at home mom. Another sister-in-law has a Bachelors in Industrial Engineering and choses to homeschool her 6 children.

[piquant]

There actually is almost a movement of reverse feminism. There was recently an article in the Times about wealthy, upper-class, women who are doctors and lawyers, and are dropping out of the job market to become mothers.

I am completely okay with this. Everyone should be able to do what they want with their career. My only concern is that we may loose sight of other important women issues, like I listed in my previous post. Also, I think that it is important that just like women should be allowed to stay at home if they want to, they should also be able to become the next Einstein, Shakespeare, or Mozart.

Also, I don't think that it is feminism that prevents women from staying at home if they want to, it is the economy. One huge women's issue is that single moms who can't afford day care have to work, and are leaving their young children at home alone. One goal of feminism is to help these women so that they can spend more time with their family, and provide for them without endangering them.

The current women's movement is more about embracing what it means to be a woman, accross race and class distinctions, and allowing women to make choices...whether to stay at home, or work, without punishing them for that choice.

[Shea]

Originally posted by piquant
The current women's movement is more about embracing what it means to be a woman,

Yeah I happened to see those episodes of Oprah on an unusual rare quest to find something worthwhile on TV. I liked the one where women were learning to pole dance, so much, that I felt compelled to pick up our TV and hurl it out the closed window.

[piquant]

:mad: Hey! I happen to be a pole dancer, and I don't apprecitate you insulting my job!

Just kidding!;)

I agree to disagree. The debate was fun!

[=Monkey_King=]

Hmm... with girls being smarter than boys, I wonder where this will lead :eek:

[Isagel]

I´ve just finished reading this thread.
I think Piquant has said almost everything I would like to say about feminism, and eloquently at that. But still I wanted to add something off my own to the debate.

Feminism is changing the society. A lot has changed this hundred years. Women are allowed to vote. We are at least closer to equal pay for equal work.

Shea - If you are happy staying home and raising children that is good for you. Seriously , that is good for you. It would not be good for me, though. We are different. Although we are both women our wants and needs are different. That we are women do not make us alike. It does not mean that we need the same things, or want the same life. The way of life that you described as your dream would feel like a prison to me. I do not know what you would think about mine. Perhaps you would find mine as a prison as well. Right now children are not a possibilty for me, I´m working all the time and I plan to do research beside my work.

For me feminism is movement towards freedom for both men and women. A freedom to be individuals, not stereotyped parts of groups called men and women. I want to be judged by my actions, not by preconceptions because of my gender. I want us all to be able to have as many choices as possible, and not to be limited to a few.

I´m sorry that the economic structure makes your goal hard to reach. In that aspect we are somewhat alike. My goal is hard to reach as well. I wish you best of luck.

[Shea]

I guess I just need to wait for somebody to invent a time-machine.

[Isagel]

Wouldn´t you miss computers?
And forums?
:D

[piquant]

Represent, Isagel, Represent.

The whole prison thing is exactly what I feel. More than anything I want to escape that being trapped. No one really succeeds though I guess; At least I'd like the freedom to choose my walls.

What are you researching? Just curious.

Girls smarter than guys....I'm not really sure about this one. Girls do statistically succeed more in elementary school, but by high school supposedly this turns around. Boys also do statistically better on the SAT's, and are far more likely to make it through grad school. I really don't think that either girls or guys are smarter. But then, we're sliding into the nurture vs. nature debate.

[Isagel]

Thank you.

Right now I´m not researching anything :(
I did research on "Acute effects of paklitaxel -carboplatin on episodic memory of patients with ovarian cancer" - that is how/if chemotherapy effects the brain. Our conclusion was that it might.
It depends on the dose and the period of time with medication. If it´s a short time the effects wears off. If it´s a long treatment - like for children with leukemia, you sometimes find longterm effects on memory and attention. Our project was a part of a bigger one where they try to find a medicine that will protect the braincells from the chemotherapy.

Right now I would like to do research on how people with mental retardation perceive reality, specifically their perspective on time. Another thing that would be interesting is the longtime effects on memorytraining for people with braindamage . To busy working though. And what I would like to do research on changes a bit over time...

Nature/nurture is an interesting debate. Might go on forever.

Represent? Sorry - don´t understand. My english is flawed :( .

[piquant]

Whenever someone is speaking publically for a cause they are "representing". If someone tells you to represent, it is kind of like standing up and shouting "preach on!" at a preacher during church.

Your research sounds really interesting, what is your job? Sounds like that took a lot of schooling.

People's perception of time is a very intriguing subject. I heard a statistic that people percive every year as being way shorter than the one before it, so that a year to a child is much longer than a year to an adult. Also, I once heard an argument that geniouses percive time as passing much slower (or faster, I can't remember) than other people. Do you think there is any truth in that?

I vote for nature. I think that there is a certain amount that intelligence can be affected by the environment, but the really amazing people were born with their talent. You can't tell me that if you just grabbed some kid off the street and plugged him into Shakespeare's life he would be just as good as Shakespeare.

[Isagel]

I´m a neuropsychologist. A psychologist that specialices in matters of the brain and thought processes.
I have to think about your questions and I will be back.

[Blade]

bah...meh...solid arguments on boths ends, i cannot bring myself to take a side

[fayefaye]

u're a neuropyschologist? that sounds interesting.

[Blade]

do i sense a hint of sarcasm in that post??:D

[fayefaye]

nope.

[fayefaye]

-explanation-sometimes i use too many exclamation marks.

[Blade]

ah ic

[fayefaye]

i hope isaqel wasn't offended. i really DO think that sounds interesting.

[Isagel]

Nope , not offended. :D

Actually my poor research project got the informal price for "most boring subject" amongst my collegues... Put it ´s got pictures! Well, graphs...beautiful lines and curves in three different shades of grey.

[fayefaye]

well, i think the environment does have quite a large impact on someone. I mean, they're born the way they are, but society's what shapes their values and beliefs. I guess it depends on how people decide to respond to things that happen in their lilfe. Of course that 'taking a kid off a street and putting him in Shakespeare's life' wouldn't work, but then again what if you took Shakespeare as a kid and put him in the life of someone who lacks opportunities in our time? I don't think his writing would be quite as good. Maybe he wouldn't write at all.

As for feminism, Shea, it really isn't feminism's fault. I suppose it has something to do with society's changing expectations, not the ideal of equality. Feminism should allow women the right to do what they want with their life: I thought that was the whole point. I have to say I agree with all of isaqel and piquant's statements. We should just choose our own prison walls.. if only I knew what I wanted them to be.