I worry about feminism. It seems to rob so many women of simple joy.

[Richard.20.12]

I wonder if we didn't look around to see what others have (which often morphs into idolization) wouldn't we be so much more content? Feminism is good at this. Sure there are some bad males out there and they hurt women but there are plenty of women doing bad things to men. I guess the real problem is financial as if the woman isn't financially solvent she may feel she is trapped and couldn't support herself and the children if she left. If she works her children don't see her most of the day and there's a chasm that grows. Then they don't respect and listen to her as much as before. This encourages the woman to lie and hide money for her escape. I wonder how many women have started businesses for the sole purpose of support when they leave. It might be much higher than we realize. A sad situation.

Getting back to looking around at others to see what we're missing, that always leads to discontent. Men are usually in control so women want that control. Its that fear of missing out thing that controls us so much these days. Yet when I see women at work and hear them talk amongst themselves in a break I never hear them talk about work. Its always about their children or family or home or friends. Or prospective men if they're unmarried. This isn't the case nearly as much with men. This says much about women working. This is what they spontaneously talk about after all.

When I see women in management they look not content at all, rather joyless. Are all men joyful in management? Of course not but a lot more seem far more comfortable in it.

To the women out there: Beware of the "fear of missing out" longing we all feel once in a while. Its a lie almost all the time. Focus on what you have and treasure that. That breeds contentment and a life without contentment is no life at all. No money can buy contentment. Look at the faces of people on the street in Manhattan. Most are very wealthy - you have to be to live there - yet their faces display angst, tension and stress. Its a constant striving against others. Now think of faces in small towns. You see beaming smiles, helpful attitudes and compassion. Who has a better life? Who looks forward to their day when waking up? "Lots of stuff" doesn't cut it. Never has, never will.

The Bible is a male centric book. But God, the author, is not putting women down. He wants women to more align themselves with mankind, with society. Doesn't mean they have to get married. Many upstanding women in the Bible weren't married. But it does mean humility. Not that men don't need a healthy dose of humility too of course. Feminism is not humble in the slightest. Its self centered to the max. Its all about "What can I get" and this is a 1 way road to psychological discontentment on so many levels.

 

[Fantine]

Have you talked to women about your theories?
Have you looked at any surveys?
How do you define a feminist?
I don't know any women who label themselves as such.
I just know women who want to respect and fairness.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Well it would be helpful if you were more specific on the points I addressed. Then we could actually talk about something.

My "survey" is 50% of the population all around me every day everywhere I go, for several decades as an adult.

Feminists today in the media are often angry and resentful. These are not contented women in the slightest. I realize many have been treated badly by men and of course that's sad and wrong. But the way to deal with that is not revenge or ignoring your human nature. Its actually forgiveness and moving on. The Bible is filled with examples of this. Cover to cover. Feminists are most often atheist and very pro abortion. I'm pro baby. Nobody asks the baby if they want to die, do they? And if they could, what would the answer be? 99.99999999999999% of the time it would be "I want to LIVE". They never talk about the baby, only their inconvenience. It matters not how she got pregnant. If you learned your unwed father had raped your mother and that was when she got pregnant with you would you instantly commit suicide? I think not. If you were sane and rational you'd try to understand this tragedy and move on, realizing that guy probably had some pretty bad abuse himself that he was working with and was probably drunk or high when it happened so he wasn't thinking straight at all. Ever been drunk? Its not your best moment, right? Nobody thinks well when drunk. Sometimes we make tragic errors. The point is you would still continue on with your life.

When it comes to equality in the workforce this is a mirage. As women are very rarely suited for management, this is also a fallacy. What they can do very well is manage emotions of people within the company. Women tend to be far superior in the areas of communication than men and this is sorely needed in any company.

But you have to realize there really is no fairness in our lives for either sex. Men serve their families but can only do that if they listen to the needs of their family. Women serve their families. We also serve God. I'm reading a fascinating book called "The Attitude of a Servant" by Landsman. It explores this concept well and how rooted it is in the Bible. It really is the key to our sense of fulfillment. This concept is grasped at by feminism but they hopelessly fail because the movement is so self centered.

I don't know the answer to a work life balance. I do know that people are buying houses much larger than they need so they have to work a lot more than they should. This just steamrolls into a whole host of problems. And they are grounded in the "fear of missing out" syndrome. We need to ignore our neighbors and start treasuring our own lives. We have so much to be grateful for and it starts with our Heavenly relationships.

 

[PloverWing]

Some thoughts about the OP and the followup.

1. I suppose that, yes, if we never saw the full range of life's possibilities, then we wouldn't know to explore those possibilities. If I'd never been exposed to mathematics, for example, I wouldn't know I was good at it. That doesn't mean I'd be content with a domestic life, but I wouldn't be discontent at being barred from mathematics, not knowing it existed. Maybe I'd just be vaguely unhappy, with no idea of what to do about it.

2. I'd adjust the sentence "Men are usually in control so women want that control" to say: "Men are often in control, and many women want not to be controlled by them." That is, it's not necessarily wanting to control men, but rather not wanting to be controlled by men.

3. I have no way of knowing what men talk about when no women are around, I suppose. Do men really never talk about their outside lives during breaks -- their hobbies, their families, their favorite sports teams? They only talk shop during breaks?

4. I'm not sure that female managers, deans, bishops, business owners, etc., are as joyless as you've described. And I've worked with a number of women in these positions who are quite good at their jobs. I don't know why you believe that women are "very rarely suited for management".

5. Manhattan vs small town life isn't about male/female or patriarchal/feminist. It's about urban/rural.

6. I agree that financial independence is one element in the mix. Being financially dependent on another person gives that other person a lot of power.

7. I agree that contentment is good.

8. I will also note that there is a place in Scripture and in the Christian faith for rectifying injustice.

 

[Richard.20.12]

> If I'd never been exposed to mathematics, for example, I wouldn't know I was good at it.

I bet the same parts of your brain that favor math would favor something else along the same lines. These are not abilities strictly limited to just math or math in our day and age. These are basic mental strengths we all possess in different areas. Different environments draw out different types of strengths.

> Maybe I'd just be vaguely unhappy, with no idea of what to do about it.

I would think you'd pursue things that intrigued you in that environment.

> I'd adjust the sentence "Men are usually in control so women want that control" to say: "Men are often in control, and many women want not to be controlled by them." That is, it's not necessarily wanting to control men, but rather not wanting to be controlled by men.

At first that does seem to be a reasonable wish or request. But we are all under someone else unless we work for ourselves and even then we inevitably have clients who we service so we work for all of them. Instead of working for one manager we may work for 50 clients/slavemasters all expecting everything done yesterday at rock bottom prices, ever negotiating lower and lower. We are all controlled by someone. Does it matter what sex they are? I can tell you absolutely that clients are not fair or rational all the time! So we shouldn't expect our manager at work to be fair and rational all the time. If they're human they're emotionally unbalanced, sometimes very much so. And if they are not up to the worker's standard they should fire that company and seek other employment. Of course if they are like most people they are living hand to mouth and this is terrifying if another job isn't lined up.

> I have no way of knowing what men talk about when no women are around, I suppose.

Just listen. Voices carry. You can also derive much from the voice intonations and mood of the voices. One thing men waste time on is sports. Not sports they participate in of course. That would be challenging! That's the huge modern male weakness. Watching others doing things we are too timid to engage in ourselves.

> Do men really never talk about their outside lives during breaks -- their hobbies, their families, their favorite sports teams? They only talk shop during breaks?

No but the difference in talk between the sexes is dramatically different. One sounds like they care about the business/work they are involved in and the other's focus is almost totally outside work. Its a stark difference. If I talk to women that work there about deficiencies at the company its obvious they don't have the slightest interest in making suggestions to their manager unless it benefits them directly in some way. Well, 95% of the time. Men tend to have a very different approach. "If its good for the company its good for me" type of thinking. As long as they respect the company of course. They can't hold grudges. And of course grudges are not uncommon.

> I'm not sure that female managers, deans, bishops, business owners, etc., are as joyless as you've described. And I've worked with a number of women in these positions who are quite good at their jobs. I don't know why you believe that women are "very rarely suited for management".

There is a huge difference between good at your job in terms of accomplishing tasks needed by the company and wanting to go in for work and showing inner satisfaction working there. Girls are generally better than boys in elementary school because they follow orders/tasks more studiously. This brings better results. This continues right into high school and beyond. All through school females outperform males generally.

Now to be fair, a LOT of the problems we're discussing of women at work are because women naturally miss their children when at work. If one just looked at single women this would be less so I'm sure. But it would still be there. A woman's focus is on her brood. And if she doesn't have a brood she's aiming to get one somehow. At least 95% of females at least. And those 5%, most have probably been abused or mistreated so they've lost their trust in the male gender completely. Quite understandable. Men have a different desire for family life but children are also primary in focus. We just approach it differently and we can shut off family far more at work than women can. It makes work easier I believe for men. Especially upper level management and extensive responsibility where their focus has to be not divided for their best output.

> Manhattan vs small town life isn't about male/female or patriarchal/feminist. It's about urban/rural.

Yes. I brought that into the conversation to demonstrate the "fear of missing out" syndrome so prevalent in competitive urban areas and how it erodes our inner joy of life, instead directing our focus on what we lack instead of what we have. Feminism seems to use this a lot.

> I agree that financial independence is one element in the mix. Being financially dependent on another person gives that other person a lot of power.

This is the worst trap of women I see today; when they can't leave or are terrified of not being financially comfortable. If someone grows up poor, going to bed hungry, getting fed garbage food, always feeling deprived compared to the other kids, well this can really color someone's values for life. The chance she turns in to a gold digger is so much higher. This is not for greed though. This is where people are very mistaken. Its a fear of poverty and lack that drives them to sacrifice so much for affluence. And often when they marry they are looking for leverage for a divorce and to get their hands on a fat payout or comfortable alimony for life. And when that is done they are looking for another telling themselves "I need love" when really they're just trying to "marry up".

The only answer is for a woman to devise a way of making money on her own and squirrel it away safely so in the event of an emergency she has funds to draw from. But for many this is very difficult to fathom after they have spent 20 years chasing little kids around. Though that does qualify them to open a daycare and every city seems to be short on daycare!

> I will also note that there is a place in Scripture and in the Christian faith for rectifying injustice.

Yeah but its not really for us to do the rectifying. If someone is under the grips of alcohol or drugs separation is needed until they've put that behind them. If they don't nothing can be healed because they are being controlled by forces no one can combat, plus they're not even listening to reason anymore. Separation makes the heart grow fonder. Perhaps the answer is to separate soon after substance abuse problems start. The more ingrained it is the harder it is for them to climb out of that rut. If its financial as in gambling or frivolous spending and he is the sole breadwinner and he is not willing to let her manage the money, then separation is probably warranted. The danger of separation is he may seek other female company. Of course then divorce can occur and it would be Biblical but she still wouldn't be allowed to marry again unless he dies. That's heavy. Its interesting how the Biblical way always leaves reconciliation possible.

This is why its so crucial never to get unequally yoked. Its all so perfect and glorious in the beginning. Then the walls start slowly closing in.....LOL.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I wonder if we didn't look around to see what others have (which often morphs into idolization) wouldn't we be so much more content? Feminism is good at this. Sure there are some bad males out there and they hurt women but there are plenty of women doing bad things to men. I guess the real problem is financial as if the woman isn't financially solvent she may feel she is trapped and couldn't support herself and the children if she left. If she works her children don't see her most of the day and there's a chasm that grows. Then they don't respect and listen to her as much as before. This encourages the woman to lie and hide money for her escape. I wonder how many women have started businesses for the sole purpose of support when they leave. It might be much higher than we realize. A sad situation.

Getting back to looking around at others to see what we're missing, that always leads to discontent. Men are usually in control so women want that control. Its that fear of missing out thing that controls us so much these days. Yet when I see women at work and hear them talk amongst themselves in a break I never hear them talk about work. Its always about their children or family or home or friends. Or prospective men if they're unmarried. This isn't the case nearly as much with men. This says much about women working. This is what they spontaneously talk about after all.

When I see women in management they look not content at all, rather joyless. Are all men joyful in management? Of course not but a lot more seem far more comfortable in it.

To the women out there: Beware of the "fear of missing out" longing we all feel once in a while. Its a lie almost all the time. Focus on what you have and treasure that. That breeds contentment and a life without contentment is no life at all. No money can buy contentment. Look at the faces of people on the street in Manhattan. Most are very wealthy - you have to be to live there - yet their faces display angst, tension and stress. Its a constant striving against others. Now think of faces in small towns. You see beaming smiles, helpful attitudes and compassion. Who has a better life? Who looks forward to their day when waking up? "Lots of stuff" doesn't cut it. Never has, never will.

The Bible is a male centric book. But God, the author, is not putting women down. He wants women to more align themselves with mankind, with society. Doesn't mean they have to get married. Many upstanding women in the Bible weren't married. But it does mean humility. Not that men don't need a healthy dose of humility too of course. Feminism is not humble in the slightest. Its self centered to the max. Its all about "What can I get" and this is a 1 way road to psychological discontentment on so many levels.

With all due respect this post well...... I will humble myself and not say how I really feel about it.
Best of luck with your analysis.

 

[WolfGate]

Yikes.

 

[PloverWing]

Let's try it this way. You think I'd experience more joy if I gave up being a feminist and (I guess this is the alternative) embraced a more patriarchal lifestyle. What, exactly, would that look like? Which of feminism's achievements should I give up?

Should I continue to vote?

Should I resign as senior warden at my church, since that's a leadership position?

Should I give up my job at the university?

If I do give up my job, what are some good ways for me to express my enjoyment of formal logic and theoretical computer science in the day-to-day domestic tasks of a household, as you suggested in post #5?

How would retreating from active adult life in these ways bring me more joy?

 

[disciple Clint]

Let's try it this way. You think I'd experience more joy if I gave up being a feminist and (I guess this is the alternative) embraced a more patriarchal lifestyle. What, exactly, would that look like? Which of feminism's achievements should I give up?

Should I continue to vote?

Should I resign as senior warden at my church, since that's a leadership position?

Should I give up my job at the university?

If I do give up my job, what are some good ways for me to express my enjoyment of formal logic and theoretical computer science in the day-to-day domestic tasks of a household, as you suggested in post #5?

How would retreating from active adult life in these ways bring me more joy?

Well done

 

[jhwatts]

Feminism is a eugenics tool used to ensure only the higher end earners maintain the species. Women on average and as a whole exercise hyper-gamy and will only date a guy who is socially and economically more viable than herself or her current partner. Feminism constantly tries to push women up the socioeconomic ladder and this is no accident or is done to actually better women.

This is why when you look at the data from all the dating apps you will find women seek after only six digit salary guys. A women making a six digit salary wants a man making as much as her or more. When you look at the data the top 80% of women on the dating apps are only interested in the top 20% of the men that are the highest income earners, strongest, fastest, smartest, etc. This ensures the upper tier of men (upper 20%) get their selection of the upper 80% of women and also ensures the top 20% men procreate and maintain the species. This is a statistical fact that can be backed by dating app data. The lower 80% of guys only have the lower 20% of women to find as a mate and procreate. These women are the least desirable to the lower 80% of men and the majority of these guys will not reproduce. These men are the slowest, weakest, poorest, etc. and feminism ensure they are removed from the gene pool.

Most realize that the upper tier of society control the wealth, but they control many other things by culture norms that most don’t understand.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It was reported on my local news station that women in management positions are
leaving their jobs in high numbers. The reason why is the women say there is more
to life than having a job which requires working 60 hours or more per week. They
see the need their families have and decide to serve that need instead of the status
and economic levels they once sought.

The data shows that the most egalitarian societies as in Scandanavia, have the greater
division between men and women. They found that despite pushing women into STEM
careers, most choose the humanitarian areas of profession and most seek to work less
hours than their male counterparts.

I believe if you leave women to choose their own career paths, we'll see a better
society. Currently in my area, they're pushing girls into STEM careers and now
even construction careers. Boys are being rejected for trade schools in order to
let more females in.

There is a study conducted by Warren Farrel and a book called; "The Boy Crissi: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What Can We do About It," which he co-wrote with John Gray.

Boys, especially white males, are being pushed aside in academics and trades, in order to
make room for females and minorities. The result in the near future
will be a violent male underclass.

Here's a 12 minute video by Dr Warren Farrel gabe at TedX Marin
(1) The Boy Crisis: A Sobering look at the State of our Boys | Warren Farrell Ph.D. | TEDxMarin - Bing video

 

[PloverWing]

Feminism is a eugenics tool used to ensure only the higher end earners maintain the species.

In the old patriarchal system, where a woman's wealth depended on the wealth of her husband, it made sense for women to seek partners who could provide well financially. This dependence is less true today, as women are now permitted to earn significant income of their own, but sometimes the old patriarchal habits linger. A woman's mother or grandmother may well have lived under the patriarchal system, and her attitudes may have been shaped by their advice (which would have been realistic for the times they lived in).

Feminism, practiced well, should free up both men and women to marry for love and companionship, and should give families the freedom to shape their household finances in a variety of ways, but sometimes progress is slow.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In the old patriarchal system, where a woman's wealth depended on the wealth of her husband, it made sense for women to seek partners who could provide well financially. This dependence is less true today, as women are now permitted to earn significant income of their own, but sometimes the old patriarchal habits linger. A woman's mother or grandmother may well have lived under the patriarchal system, and her attitudes may have been shaped by their advice (which would have been realistic for the times they lived in).

Feminism, practiced well, should free up both men and women to marry for love and companionship, and should give families the freedom to shape their household finances in a variety of ways, but sometimes progress is slow.

The so-called "patriarchy" system is a lack of understanding on how things actually
were.

Life was hard for both men and women. There were no washing machines, clothes driers
or dish washers. Birth control and tampons were not invented, until the 20th century and
both were invented by men. Work in the house was hard, outside was even harder. Men did backbreaking work, fought wars and protected their wives and family. Women took care of the household, raised children and taught them to have respect for adults.

Feminism, brought what is believed to be equality, but in reality, it brought us, abortion, same sex
marriage and now transgenderism, which is predominated by preteen and teen girls getting themselves mutilated with sex change therapies and surgeries. In other words, the WOKE
culture was predominately brought to us by women.

Women always married up or sideways in the economic and social standards. The result was
that for a man to attract a mate, had to establish himself economically and socially. Women rarely
married someone below themselves, even in modern days. So, what feminists call patriarchal was
the result of the desires of women to mate with a desirable man. It was the way of life, not the means to oppress women.

Things are far less equal today that in the past when feminists describe it as being a patriarchal system, which again, never really existed according to feminist's descriptions.

 

[PloverWing]

The so-called "patriarchy" system is a lack of understanding on how things actually were.

I agree that life was harder in many ways before modern technology and modern medicine, for both men and women.

It would be nice to be able to claim that women were responsible for the anti-racism movements in the US, but I don't think we get to claim that. A lot of Black Americans of both sexes did a lot of work to fight racism, accompanied by some white allies of both sexes.

The invention of tampons wasn't just one man in a lab all by himself. This article (Menstrual Tampon | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia) describes some of the history. Women have been experimenting with various ways to manage menstruation for a very long time.

If you're claiming that, in earlier times in European and North American history, women had the same access to education, government and church leadership positions, and employment opportunities that men had -- it's an interesting claim. It's different from what I've read, but I'm open to new historical evidence.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I agree that life was harder in many ways before modern technology and modern medicine, for both men and women.

It would be nice to be able to claim that women were responsible for the anti-racism movements in the US, but I don't think we get to claim that. A lot of Black Americans of both sexes did a lot of work to fight racism, accompanied by some white allies of both sexes.

The invention of tampons wasn't just one man in a lab all by himself. This article (Menstrual Tampon | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia) describes some of the history. Women have been experimenting with various ways to manage menstruation for a very long time.

If you're claiming that, in earlier times in European and North American history, women had the same access to education, government and church leadership positions, and employment opportunities that men had -- it's an interesting claim. It's different from what I've read, but I'm open to new historical evidence.

Actually not the "tampon" itself, but the sanitary pad was invented by a man.


Arunachalam Muruganantham (Padman) is a social entrepreneur from Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, India. He is the inventor of a low-cost sanitary pad-making machine and is credited for innovating grassroots mechanisms for generating awareness about traditional unhygienic practices around menstruation in rural India. His mini-machines, which can manufacture sanitary pads for less than a third of the cost of commercial pads, have been installed in 23 of the 29 states of India in rural areas. He is currently planning to expand the production of these machines to 106 nations.[1] The movie Period. End of Sentence. won the Academy Award for Best Documentary (Short Subject) for the year 2018. The 2018 Hindi film Pad Man was made on his invention, where he was portrayed by Akshay Kumar.
Arunachalam Muruganantham - Wikipedia

It was from his invention that the tampon evolved into existence.

Why would a man invent something for women, if males were supposed to oppress women?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I agree that life was harder in many ways before modern technology and modern medicine, for both men and women.

It would be nice to be able to claim that women were responsible for the anti-racism movements in the US, but I don't think we get to claim that. A lot of Black Americans of both sexes did a lot of work to fight racism, accompanied by some white allies of both sexes.

The invention of tampons wasn't just one man in a lab all by himself. This article (Menstrual Tampon | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia) describes some of the history. Women have been experimenting with various ways to manage menstruation for a very long time.

If you're claiming that, in earlier times in European and North American history, women had the same access to education, government and church leadership positions, and employment opportunities that men had -- it's an interesting claim. It's different from what I've read, but I'm open to new historical evidence.

Both men and women didn't have the same access to education as the wealthy. However, even
wealthy women had more access than the average man.

Men, supported their wives and children, as what it took to care for a home and family, could not give enough time to earn a living outside of the house. The male was responsible for supporting his wife and children, and men use to be thrown into jail for failing to do so. It wasn't until the welfare
state was invented in the 1960's, that males stopped being arrested for failing to support their children and wives.

Before the welfare state, men were also obligated to pay alimony in divorce cases, even if the wife was employed. I recall my friend's father paying alimony to his ex-wife. That changed when the welfare state allowed men to walk away from their responsibility toward their wife and children.

 

[PloverWing]

Actually not the "tampon" itself, but the sanitary pad was invented by a man.

Arunachalam Muruganantham (Padman) is a social entrepreneur from Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, India. He is the inventor of a low-cost sanitary pad-making machine and is credited for innovating grassroots mechanisms for generating awareness about traditional unhygienic practices around menstruation in rural India.
...
It was from his invention that the tampon evolved into existence.

I applaud Muruganantham's work. His invention makes affordable sanitary pads available to low-income women in India, and that's a wonderful thing. However, commercial sanitary pads and commercial tampons were both being sold before Muruganantham was born.

Why would a man invent something for women, if males were supposed to oppress women?

Feminism does not claim that all men oppress all women. Of course not. Rather, the point is that there have been various restrictions (some official and legal, some cultural and more subtle) placed on women that were not placed on men, and these should be removed so that women can live more fully and freely. I'll add that there are also cultural restrictions placed on men (e.g., in some places being a full-time dad and househusband is frowned upon), and as a feminist I'd like to see those restrictions removed as well.

 

[Thomas White]

When it comes to equality in the workforce this is a mirage. As women are very rarely suited for management, this is also a fallacy.

You believe women are inherently unequal to men. I can't take anything else you write seriously.

 

[The Barbarian]

You believe women are inherently unequal to men. I can't take anything else you write seriously.

It's possible for a person to be otherwise rational, and still have an odd delusion or two. I, for example, still hope libertarians will start winning elections.

 

[Thomas White]

It's possible for a person to be otherwise rational, and still have an odd delusion or two. I, for example, still hope libertarians will start winning elections.

No other reply other than yours could have made me feel anything positive about this thread.