My Issues with Feminism

Puffinstuff · Mar 22, 2013

McScribe said:
But do you see how the parts of this document that I disagree with taint the whole of it and suggest lack of goodwill towards men? And btw, which feminist writers do you admire?

Lack of goodwill towards men by some.Just like their is lack of goodwill towards women by some.And no not for me it doesn't "taint the whole".I would not judge the whole of men by running into and knowing that plenty of men who are misogynist.You are talking about just that..judging a "group" based on a few.

All I know is I walk around in the real world.With real women.They are "feminist" who are not misandrist.Sure I have bumped into a few.They aren't my friends.Just like I have bumped into a few men and women who are misogynist.

Puffinstuff · Mar 22, 2013

And btw, which feminist writers do you admire?

I admire and don't admire possibly different aspects and view points of most writers Feminist or otherwise.I can even find a "truth" or a point I agree with within the writings of a clear woman hater.I stomach through the parts of blatantly proclaiming they are superior.Usually if I read long enough I find something I can agree with.So whom I admire or don't admire is too black and white.And I'm not interested in "picking apart" any specific book today.Especially when lets face it.The goal would be to criticize a "bit" of it you could find to tear down.Not in the interest of pulling the jewels and agreeing with it.

McScribe · Mar 23, 2013

When a woman approaches a man, or a man approaches a woman, about working together, being in a relationship together, and they lend their strengths to one another to cooperate, that is partnership and that is in line with what the Bible proposes for relations between men and women. I don't see that in this manifesto. I don't see that the women who wrote it want to cooperate with men.

These women are not proposing that they should be Proverbs 31 women; they aren't proposing that they should be Ephesians 4 women who are part of the Body. They're simply saying that they are envious at and angry with men.

I realize that for women who have been very hurt by men, for women who have had to go their own way that such writings sound good. I think that is part of why they have a hard time realizing how this manifesto blames men for everything, has women take responsibility for nothing, and how that is actually the core of the principles involved.

mkgal1 · Mar 23, 2013

McScribe said:
When a woman approaches a man, or a man approaches a woman, about working together, being in a relationship together, and they lend their strengths to one another to cooperate, that is partnership and that is in line with what the Bible proposes for relations between men and women. I don't see that in this manifesto. I don't see that the women who wrote it want to cooperate with men.

These women are not proposing that they should be Proverbs 31 women; they aren't proposing that they should be Ephesians 4 women who are part of the Body. They're simply saying that they are envious at and angry with men.

I realize that for women who have been very hurt by men, for women who have had to go their own way that such writings sound good. I think that is part of why they have a hard time realizing how this manifesto blames men for everything, has women take responsibility for nothing, and how that is actually the core of the principles involved.

But.....the purpose of this manifesto *was* to right the wrongs of women (and men, too) being hurt by the injustice.....the oppression......the imbalance of power. That oppression and injustice is what's being blamed---not men (in general). IOW....a person that's talking about something that's broken is going to sound a lot different than a person talking about loving treatment (which is what these women want----Prov 31 or Eph 4 type treatment). That is what they sound like they are working towards (although not specifically....as this wasn't a "Christian" movement----it was secular (I'm presuming).

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

They're simply saying that they are envious at and angry with men.

Who is simply saying that and if its true and you can characterize it as "envious and angry" how and why did that come about?Are you implying that one day "they" who harbored "envy and anger" towards men it was because they weren't men themselves?

That is very similar to saying that the civil rights movement led by African Americans which to this day is still in action and very well justified IMHO the manifesto is "simply saying they are envious and angry with white people"Because they are white".And they aren't interested in cooperating with white people either.They are just simply "envious and angry".

And name how please an example that "they" aren't cooperating with men?

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

I think that is part of why they have a hard time realizing how this manifesto blames men for everything, has women take responsibility for nothing, and how that is actually the core of the principles involved.

Please give an example of how "men are blamed for everything" and "women take responsibility for nothing".

Everything and nothing are very big words.Encompassing ...everything and nothing.

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

I will say I live in the U.S.A and I'm familiar with to an extent how our society operates.I am more than willing to give many examples of how "men" are in fact not blamed for "everything" and women take responsibility for "nothing" is untrue. In each perspective life of that male and female.

Could you narrow down everything and nothing to at least one particular area of life?Because every area I can think of both individual male and female are held accountable (take responsibility) ..and the blaming thing that confuses me too again blamed for what?Everything how?And again responsible for nothing what "nothing" ?

I know women are responsible to pay their debts if not they (like men) have various repercussions including reposession/ foreclosures /leans/and yes even imprisonment for failure to pay taxes or child support. .Women are responsible for their crimes(they go to prison for theft/murder/child abuse fill in violent crime)women can be taken to court for a child truent from school...they have to get to work on time or they get fired..I guess I'm flailing when you say ''responsible for nothing".

I'm equally perplexed on the opposite end what you mean by "men blamed for everything".

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

old man said:
He who can create awesome military weapons which only like minded people can use, can subdue their enemys and create a new reality for themselves.

That is true.Equal power ironically reasonably ensures no war.Unless its the "wild west" and you are dealing with whoever can draw and shoot fastest.But that would at least be fair.

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

Because fault is not determined in a divorce women can leave for little or no reason without any consequences, in fact in most cases the woman can be the one to have caused the break down in the marriage and shift the conseqeunces on to the man.

But so can men.Men can leave for little or no reason without any consequences.Even if the man is the cause of the break down in the marriage and he can shift the consequences onto the woman.

Men are disproportionatly slammed with alimony and especially child support. No one is saying there are not cases where a woman may have to pay child support but the number of men paying child support is statistically huge compared to woman and the total dollars payed out by men is huge compared to women.

Because women still are disproprtionately more likely to have given up her career /job however you call it so the couple could have children either made sense because of the high cost of childcare or because of the individuals belief a parent should be home so therefore if he leaves or she leaves she is at a disadvantage under him as to ability to earn.Fact women still (whoever divorces" ) not matter child support or not are still disprorportinately "poorer" after divorce than men.Thats a fact.If you can find evidence to the contrary that women hand over fist after divorce aren't poorer than men please I will be more than happy to review that and change my mind.But as of today whoever files women suffer more financially than men due to divorce.The fact that men pay (or ordered) to pay child support more "frequently" so that amount adds up "statistically" does not mean women on average are not the ones to take a bigger hit economically due to divorce.No matter who filed or who's "fault " it is.Women (and children) suffer more economically due to divorce than men.

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

Its not about who is poorer, its about the one NOT at fault should be able to walk away without liability, if the woman can not support her kids without support from the man and the divorce was HER fault she should loose custody and have to get a job and SHE should pay support.

I disagree.And you said to "if the woman can not support herself"..? As I mentioned she is less likely to be ABLE to because "disproportionately" she is more likely the one to have gotten out of the workforce over the man t be home with kids at the very least stalling her career.So "women" unless none ever gave up career to SAH with children would be in the position to stay married due to financial disadvantage.At that point you would be discouraging all parents(both men and women ) to ever give up or even stall career to be home with the children even for a few years.If that kind of sacrifice is made to only then lock you into marriage that you don't want in for whatever your reason by rendering you completely unequal in earning ability because of it is wrong.

seeingeyes · Mar 23, 2013

old man said:
Its not about who is poorer, its about the one NOT at fault should be able to walk away without liability, if the woman can not support her kids without support from the man and the divorce was HER fault she should loose custody and have to get a job and SHE should pay support.

I can see in extreme circumstances where the woman gave up a 6 figure income to stay home and the fault was fairly equal where there would be child support and all that but thats a vast minority of cases. If the man makes enough money he can just hire a nanny to watch the kid and the mom can come visit when she gets off work.

What would prevent the injured spouse from counter filing for a fault divorce?

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

Its not about who is poorer,

And yes it is about who is poorer when you get into "men paying child support"..that is about the money.and even with that she is poorer than he is.the way its laid out because no one mentions she is poorer its sounds like she is living high and he can barely afford to eat... fact is she leaves regardless she will be poorer.He is not left "poorer" than her because she is taking his money and he has to live below her standards to keep paying her to live above him.Many make it sound that way.She doesn't leave and become "better off than him financially"..that I would be against.But that is not the case but many try to make it sound like that.Fact is she leaves and has to lower her standard of living below his even with child support from him and the few states who award alimony .

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

What you would be promoting? Is both parents no matter how well they are doing in the money working world never quitting their job.I guess a woman has to do it at least from time of birth (working until she goes into labor) then a month if she is healthy.Back to work.So that way if she ever wants to divorce (of course for "no cause) she hopefully has made sure her husband too has taken days off sick for sick child (equally) to her and early for whatever child need (equally) ..she should never get out of the work force if she wants the freedom to divorce .Oh and also sounds like either one (if you are fair) that divorces without "cause" loses custody and the other pays child support.

So re-cap.Both need to work full time advancing their careers school etc..Children (for both your protection ) should automatically go in day care after birth.. or get a nanny (for both your protection)..so you are both "stuck" and only there for the sake of the kids and if one leaves they have to leave the kids behind and pay child support.Sounds like 3rd world.

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

Because adultry, prudishness, etc are not crimes so trying to initiate a "fault divorce" is generally futile,

Actually I think fault divorce is still an option..you just have to be able to prove it.Oh and "prudishness" was never cause..but adultery is.In most states (to my knowledge) if you so chose you can sue for divorce with cause.(causes as listed in the state )..its just you have to hire a lawyer and have evidence..to PROVE it..

For instance I can catch my husband in my bed with another woman.I can divorce him "with cause" (adultery) ..but it cost more..divorcing him "no cause" is easier ..and the "split' ? Is about the same anyway..our country doesn't punish anyone for adultry..Physical abuse? A police record (proof) might get me a retraining order..

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

old man said:
I am not interested in my net vs her net I am interested in having tons of money I EARNED to engage in engineering and science experements and hobbies that I EARNED through education, training and experience and pain. She is the one that chose to get married and leave her job to raise the kids, just like the courts say he decided to impregnate her.

You didn't want to raise your children nor your wife the mother of your children?You wanted someone else to?

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

She is the one that chose to get married and leave her job to raise the kids, just like the courts say he decided to impregnate her.

Who did you think was going to raise your kids?(start at say when they were 3 weeks old from 7am untill 6 pm for the first 5 years?)

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

80-90% of women are the ones that want kids, men want sex (and sometimes want kids too).

Show facts on this please.I personally know many men who wont marry if kids aren't an option.

But if your facts are true? Good reason why men should be less awarded custody of children.Since they want sex not children.And its the woman that want kids.Keep stating these "FACTS'.. less and less will feel sorry for you that you claim you have your kids" taken away" through divorce ..sense you don't want kids anyway..

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

[QUOTE80-90% of women are the ones that want kids,][/QUOTE]

And in comparison what % of men want kids?

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

80-90% of women are the ones that want kids, men want sex (and sometimes want kids too).

You your self have claimed that an overwhelming rate of women "want "kids" as opposed to men (who just want sex)..but then complain that women are awarded custody more than men(of children).If you are telling the truth,.Maybe the courts look out for children not your wallet???And men who just want sex?

Puffinstuff · Mar 23, 2013

80-90% of women are the ones that want kids, men want sex (and sometimes want kids too).

Also why don't men take reproductive responsibility/.Please don't tell me "women wont let them"..

My Issues with Feminism

Newbie

Newbie

Me

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency