Originally Posted By friendofdd It occurs to me that WE topics are better referred to as THEM and US topics.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> That may be your perception of it, but "modern feminism" isn't about that at all. I wonder what it is about, then? Feminism used to be a positive thing. People in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony wanted women to have equal rights with men. They were interested in equal responsibility. They didn't go around pretending to be like men in every way, or bashing them. Modern feminism has these themes: Women don't need men to do anything (including parenting), women are just as good as men at everything, men are utterly useless at a lot of things, criticizing a woman is sexist, and insulting men is fun. Does anyone really think this assessment is extreme? Look at what goes on in the media: Men and fathers are often depicted as weak, clueless, bumbling idiots. Women are told they can say and do anything. Men are criticized for being absentee fathers and neglecting the duties of home and family. (Rightly so.) But women who similarly achieve in their careers, even if it means leaving the kids with a nanny or day care all day, are made into heroes. The idea that men can do things without women is judged as offensive. (And should it be.) The idea that women can do things without men is portrayed as liberating. This doesn't at all mean that women haven't themselves been the victims of shabby treatment. They've endured a lot of garbage for millenia. But the remedy isn't to turn the tables and dismiss men as useless, boorish, power-hungry tyrants. The fact is that women and men are different. Each has strengths and weaknesses. These differences are wonderful. And we need each other ... in the community, in the schools, in government, and in the home. Modern feminism has never taught this, and still doesn't, as evidenced by the gleeful reaction to the "statistics" than now more than half of all women are living without a husband. (A contrived statistic, because girls age 15 and over are counted in the report.) The ugliest part of modern feminism is that it turns the other way when women are abused ... when it suits their political agenda. When our last president (and I won't even say his name, because I'd be saying this even if he was in the other party) had woman after woman after woman after woman accuse him (credibly) of everything from unwanted groping to assault, the nation's womens' leaders ignored it. They continued to support this president because he supported their political agenda. The man's female enablers even included his wife, who now seeks to become the nation's first woman president. She got props from her feminist friends when she once said she was wasn't going to "stand by her man" like some Tammy Wynette. But when she does just that (her "man" being a serial abuser of women), she was lauded for her "courage." If it wasn't so disgusting, it would be funny. Again, this isn't political. I know a few women who are Democrats in my neighborhood and work, who do credit to women because they have integrity. They don't trash men or their husbands. They honor them. They don't seek for power or glory. They seek for what's right, and THAT makes them powerful. (And, yes, one is my boss ... and at truly great one.) If modern feminism wants to really be something amazing, it has to change its core values. Right now, they are power, image and money. There is little talk in feminist circles of things like courage, integrity, honesty, respect for both genders, and the other attributes that have made history's true female standouts. Right now, they measure their success based on seats in the senate, CEO positions and salary. It's superficial and completely ignores what makes any person, man or woman, a person of true character.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Modern feminism has these themes: Women don't need men to do anything (including parenting), women are just as good as men at everything, men are utterly useless at a lot of things, criticizing a woman is sexist, and insulting men is fun. Does anyone really think this assessment is extreme?> Yes. And inaccurate. Are there some feminists who are over the top? Sure. Do they characterize feminism in general? Hardly. But it is a favorite tactic of conservatives to try to define feminism in this way so that they can then demonize it. <I wonder what it is about, then? Feminism used to be a positive thing. People in the tradition of Susan B. Anthony wanted women to have equal rights with men. They were interested in equal responsibility. They didn't go around pretending to be like men in every way, or basing them.> That's interesting. Because conservatives of the day said just the opposite about Susan B. Anthony. They said she "wanted to be a man." That she "didn't understand the difference between the sexes," and on and on. We often see this with conservatives after a safe distance has passed. Martin Luther King, for instance, is now lauded by just about everyone as the man of courage and vision that he was, but at the time most conservatives viewed him with suspicion at best and excoriated him at worst. I was reminded of this just last week, when one of my childhood friends' mothers, now something of a town elder, was helping put together a little MLK Day tribute at the local library. She said nothing but good things about him today, and no doubt felt good about herself in the process. But during the 60's? I was over at my friend's house more than once when Dr. King was on TV, and heard things like "Oh great, another march from Martin Luther King. Oh yeah, Mr. King, whitey's the devil! Whitey's the devil!" Of course, Dr. King never said that, but try telling her that. It has been much the same with Susan B. Anthony and feminism. You don't have to do a lot of research to see how fighting for women's suffrage was seen to be women "wanting to be men" or would lead to the breakdown of our society in general, or to see how she was villified during her lifetime. Now, of course, she's safe to laud. These are the thoughts I got reading the above little "some of my best friends are women" diatribe.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> That's interesting. Because conservatives of the day said just the opposite about Susan B. Anthony. The conservatives of yesterday aren't the conservatives of today. Back in the day, conservatives were found among the Republicans AND Democrats. Now ... they are dead. All of them. >>>Yes. And inaccurate. How is it inaccurate? In the interview that prompeted this topic, female senators and a female journalist sat around discussing how women are better than men. Now, picture Brit Hume sitting with all the male senators, discussing how men are better than women. How would that go over? We all know it would never happen today, for starters, and even if it did,we would never hear the end of the backlash. Just as racism works both ways, so does sexism. What really cracked me up is how the women said that women are better at reaching consensus. Really??? From my experience, it is just as possible for disagreements to get nasty with women as it is with men, and female politicians are no exception. Men fight it out in the open. Women present an image of civility on the surface, but are more prone to whisper campaigns and gossip. And from where do I get such an outrageous statement? From women! They tell me it how it works with women. "Mean Girls" isn't just teen Hollywood fiction. Hillary Clinton can't bring herself to say one polite thing about the president, despite the many public compliments he has offered her. There are plenty of women who are above that kind of behavior, but women most certainly do not have a corner of the market on civility as was implied the other day. Tactics may differ, but women can be just as vindictive as men. But we'll have no discussion of that in the media anytime soon.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>How is it inaccurate?<< Your entire portrayal is a stereotypical conservative outlook. It's largely invented in the conservative mindset of what they want feminists to be so they can rail on them. It's no different than conservatives saying Democrats want to lose the war. Rather than respond to real arguments about the war, they invent the Democratic Demon who loves Saddam Hussein, hates America, and wants to lose the war.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The conservatives of yesterday aren't the conservatives of today.<< They're not nearly as different as you'd like them to be. I have no doubt that if Sean Hannity was around and commentating in 1955, he'd be denouncing desegregation as a threat to 1,000s of years of social order and labeling Martin Luther King a dangerous instigator. He'd also happily be opposed to women's suffrage, offering the same arguments that were heard then.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> That's interesting. Because conservatives of the day said just the opposite about Susan B. Anthony. >> <The conservatives of yesterday aren't the conservatives of today. Back in the day, conservatives were found among the Republicans AND Democrats. > That is correct. But what united the conservatives of the day, of both parties, around women's suffrage was their opposition. My issue has never been with Republicans, a party which claims my parents along with plenty of great people, but conservatism of a certain stripe. <Now ... they are dead. All of them.. But their ideology lives on, with new targets. >>Yes. And inaccurate.>> <How is it inaccurate? > ecdc answered nicely, but I'll add a thing or two. < In the interview that prompeted this topic, female senators and a female journalist sat around discussing how women are better than men.> First of all, I wouldn't characterize the interview that way, though I'm not surprised that's how it seemed to you. Second, even if it was an accurate characterization of that one interview, that hardly is large enough sample to apply it to "modern feminism," which is what you did. <Now, picture Brit Hume sitting with all the male senators, discussing how men are better than women. How would that go over? We all know it would never happen today, for starters, and even if it did,we would never hear the end of the backlash.> Again, you mischaracterize what the women's interview was. It's quite permissible to talk about how men and women differ. It's a staple from everything from best-selling books (Men Are From Mars...) to stand-up comics. You yourself insisted on there being differences. You seem to object to women having the attitude "women are better than men at certain things, but the reverse is not true." But I saw that interview and didn't see that attitude except at most in jest. And you're just going to have to get over the fact that sometimes a group with less power can get away with making fun of a group with more power. It's why Jewish comics can poke fun at Gentiles (and themselves), but Gentiles can't do the same with Jews unless they're very careful, blacks can do so to whites, etc. It's one of the tradeoffs of having less power to begin with. <Just as racism works both ways, so does sexism. What really cracked me up is how the women said that women are better at reaching consensus. Really??? From my experience, it is just as possible for disagreements to get nasty with women as it is with men, and female politicians are no exception. Men fight it out in the open. Women present an image of civility on the surface, but are more prone to whisper campaigns and gossip. And from where do I get such an outrageous statement? From women! They tell me it how it works with women.> You've talked to all 3 billion, have you? Neither sex is immune to incivility or gossip. Although I've seen more than one study that says men gossip just as much or more than women, they just don't tend to call it "gossip." <"Mean Girls" isn't just teen Hollywood fiction. Hillary Clinton can't bring herself to say one polite thing about the president, despite the many public compliments he has offered her. There are plenty of women who are above that kind of behavior, but women most certainly do not have a corner of the market on civility as was implied the other day. Tactics may differ, but women can be just as vindictive as men. But we'll have no discussion of that in the media anytime soon.> Really? Is "Mean Girls" somehow magically not part of the media? Are the many women I've seen on talk shows being critical of the tendency of women to back-bite each other magically not part of the media? Like many conservatives, you see the media bias you'd like to see.
