Thursday, June 2, 2011

Feminists - cont.

Please read this excellent article in Newsweek: The Failure of Feminism.

Now, look at the date the article was written! 1990!!

Given our benefit of hindsight, most of us recognize that the author had only the benefit of half of our experience with the Feminist experiment.

Societies the world over came up with systems for ensuring the successful launch of the next generation. Western Feminism attacked those systems as being incompatible with equality.

Fair enough. Now, shouldn't they need to show the systems that they envisioned would be an improvement for all concerned?

Can any of you point to a system(s) for raising children that has been proposed by the Women's movement/Feminists to replace those that evolved over the eons?

Look, I get it. These individuals felt the system did not serve their needs... but clearly, given their own peculiar demographic, they were NOT considering an offspring generation as one of their needs... it seems that their solution was either a childless competition with men in the Corporate and Government world (the current women on the Supreme Court, and there are 3, are all childless!) or an only child born at an age (the mother's age) advanced enough to require scientific input after excreting in petri dishes... and sans a man in the house.

And for the millions of women who did marry... from my perspective, the "Movement" absolved them of ALL responsibility in keeping their home intact.  For those that doubt this:

What, exactly, are the requirements of a woman in a marriage? I often hear "to be loving". OK WTF does that mean, again EXACTLY? We can see clearly from the Arnold/John Edwards case that men are expected to be sexually faithful to their wives... what are the responsibilities of their wives? Do they have any? Look, show me a bed hopping spouse of either sex... and I will show you a contra party that is simply not taking care of business at home - and "not taking care of business" comes in many, many formats.

Do people have a responsibility to their spouse to reasonably maintain their physical attractiveness? Do we have a responsibility to keep it fun? To fulfill our partner's needs? And do this while working and providing for the children? I think we do, and well, we all know with little doubt what will happen if an individual's needs for food, shelter, sexual gratification et al are not met... the individual will do what needs to be done. For some reason Americans just can't seem to come to grips with this in open dialogue (with the exception of Chris Rock... warning, very UN-pc... yet in his own vulgar way, h captures the truth of it... if you deny this, why does it seem to ring so true to his audience?).

Lastly, and this one is really gonna hurt...

Do we have a responsibility to forgive? To accept human frailties and the various shades of a very, very grey, as opposed to a black and white, world?

Absof**kinlutely.

Is there anything in the Feminists dogma that would lead you to believe the world is anything but black and white, right and wrong... and that they are always right?

Not a f***ing thing.

For better or worse, none of their positions matter in the long run. No one, the Shakers, the Feminists, whoever... can win a multi-generational political battle by not breeding. The danger is that they take a society down in between here and said long run.

The Feminists have left us with 2, rather unpleasant "accomplishments" (their words, not mine) - Divorce (and now a generation of men refusing to marry) and abortion "rights". I say this to the unrepentant Feminist:

In your search for Truth and Beauty in the world... I respectfully submit that neither will be found in a divorce lawyer's office nor the sterile, heartless and cruel environment of an abortion clinic. It is axiomatic that Life is better than Death, Love better than Hate, and Peace of Mind and Heart a damn sight better than a life dedicated to an anger that can never be satiated.

Yours for a better world,

Greg

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Greg-
You raise some good points here. May I again play the devil's advocate and inject some complication?

The feminists of the 60s & 70s were a pretty hard-headed and often militant group. Women of today have largely rejected feminist militarism and want to live their life as it suits- ie women are free to be Moms or careerists. Many women are chosing Mom. Many modern women are choosing a traditional marital relationship again.

Some women are just crappy mothers and have virtually NO instincts in this department. Other women as teenagers dream daily about having their very own baby. Maybe some women are better off not being parents. Sometimes the Dads are better full time parents- not a big deal.

I dont' think we can impute the divorce process to feminism. Lots and lots of men divorced their wives in order to marry a much younger secretary- leaving the older wife to live out her life in poverty. I rented a room in college from a divorcee who had been dumped by her lawyer husband- Mom turned into a drunk. Teenage son a neighborhood burglar. I chased 6 guys out of the 14yo daughters bedroom one night. All while lawyer Dad partied it up with his newfound sex queen. One time boozed up new wife arrived with a gun to kill ex-wife. Ex-wife walked straight up to her and took the loaded gun right out of her hand. Talk about brave. Lots of fallout from lawyer Dad's actions.

Oh yes- the "double standard" where men were screwing everything with a skirt while the women were supposed to be as faithful as the virgin Mary. Prime evidence here is the Kennedy clan of Hyannisport. The Kennedy men (devout Catholics all)- Father Joe Kennedy, Jack, Ted etc were ferocious womanizers while the wives were supposed to put up with the womanizing and not become pitiful drunks like Ethel Kennedy. Lets not forget Ahh-nold and Maria here.

What's wrong with a woman who has great talents wanting to contribute to her society on a different level instead of being a full time stay-at-home Mom? As long as the kids are taken care of- and hopefully not in an institutional daycare center. Especially if she is a piss poor Mom who cannot stand staying at home and making baby talk all day long- which drives some women (or men) nuts.

My opinion
Marshall

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Marshall:

You raise no unreasonable points... to what where you devil's advocating?

The data says that 1/3 of college graduate women over 40 are CHILDLESS. Is there something ambiguous about that data point?

Of the remaining 2/3, half are divorced... is there something ambiguous about that data point.

Look, this is a very, very touchy subject. NO ONE EVER tackles it in the MSM. Why not?

WHy is this off limits?

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Marshall:

You see, I am being selfish... I expect my children to become educate AND provide grandchildren! WTF is so special about them they do not have to contribute child raising to our family and the world? Is it all about THEM? All of the TIME?

PioneerPreppy said...

Marshal comes across as the typical Beta male, feminist enabler.

He doesn't think feminism had anything to do with divorce? Feminist cheered and fought for no fault divorce and since then over 75% of all divorces are initiated by women. Even if the old trade in divorce farce was true the data is very clear that once the feminist got their no fault divorce the divorce rate skyrocketed.

As for what is wrong with a woman contributing to society we see what is wrong all around us. They require special legislation and rules to "contribute". At the very least they lower the bar in many fields eating up valuable resources and also create very dangerous situations in other fields. Firemen, police, and male soldiers especially are placed in much greater danger and forced to work harder to accommodate the slack and lesser requirements placed just to get the female quota.

We waste Billions and billions of dollars on such nonsense. We could be colonizing Mars by now if we didn't waste so much time, effort and money on such crap.

If a woman can do the job more power to them. But feminism isn't about equality, feminism is about artificial outcomes and socially engineered success with wealth, power and ability redistributed to get it.

The total cost of the female superiority utopia is now coming due and this country nor any of the other Western countries can afford it anymore.

Anonymous said...

That was a line that Robert Bork took, Liberated from what? Women became liberated by becoming disposable, and generally not worth having or risking anyway.

Also, there is an opportunity cost to a family and a career. A woman can generally have one or the other but if she goes for both she is going to fail at least one, probably both. I suppose one of those alternate living arrangements with a kept man could work, but there is no way two people are going to have two careers and a family without something failing because children can’t be managed. They have to be raised and that takes time. Hell, supervising adults takes a lot of time and coaching; at least if you want them to do their best and work their ass off for you, it does.

Finally, there is a world of difference between Schwarzenegger and Edwards. I have no idea what was going on in the Schwarzenegger household, nor do I care. However, we all know Edwards’ wife was dying of cancer. When one’s spouse is in agony there will be no nookie and one would be a ridiculously selfish to expect otherwise. If it won’t quit standing at attention give it a spanking, shish. There are times to think of someone other than oneself, and maybe even try to comfort someone else, however clumsily. This isn’t a case of a neglected spouse stepping out; this is someone who could think only of themselves regardless of the circumstances. You are probably right about the illegitimate child being the only thing that matters to the raging feminists, but Edwards is still scum.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

PP,

Cheers!!! That was some good stuff.

Jeffers,

This series is a good one, keep up the good work. I don't really have much to add, you have pushed this to the logical end.

Dex

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Dan:

You don't know what the arrangement was between the Edwards'.

I know someone well whose spouse has been unwell for years, with no hope of getting better... this individual has cared for their spouse in ways I am not poetic enough to describe... the individual has also discreetly taken a lover... I look at this person in awe.

What does one do when one's spouse is chronically ill? As in from now on? Is there no compassion for all concerned? We don't know what it is to be in someone else's shoes.

For my part, I refuse to judge people EXCEPT in their use of violence or significant wrongdoing. Sex does not rise to that level to my mind.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

And I am no fan of Edwards the politician!