BF2S Forums For those that believe in the Happy Housewife myth...

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

What makes the two separable in your eyes? Libertarianism isn't some set of ideals completely divorced from everything else. There is a lot of overlap.

Are you against the destruction of Jim Crow laws too?

The thing that separates them is : one deals with LAW and one deals with CULTURE. Libertarianism and equity feminism isn't about culture, it's about law. A Jim crow law violates the "legal and civil equality" idea in equity feminism and in the larger libertarianism framework.

You're OP was about a cultural trend or view. It falls into the gender feminism which is the preach professorially QQ feminism.

And you're trying your damnest to make it fit in with your world view. Which it won't.

Uzique wrote:

all the pubs around here stop serving at 1am

11 Bravo wrote:

Uzique wrote:

all the pubs around here stop serving at 1am

wat

Jay wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Barefoot and pregnant amirite?

Totally missed my point there, Jay.  Feminism has not fostered increased respect for anything regarding men.

As to your question, sure, if she wants to be.  If not, then have a career.  7 yrs ago my wife quit her job at the biochemistry department of our local university to stay home with our children.  Is she happier?  Guess you'd have to ask her to know for sure.  She's her own boss throughout the day and gets to set her own schedule as she pleases.  Sounds better than the deal I have at work tbh.

Have you studied anything related to feminism or do you think of it simply as angry man-hating-women who burn their bras? It's about women's empowerment and the fact that they should be treated as equals. Nothing wrong with that.

In this regard, the article is entirely correct. Kids were previously left to women to raise while the men went off to work. Some men actually want to spend time with their kids so this dynamic was just as detrimental to what they wanted as it was to the women forced into the role. The societal dynamic was pigeonholing people into predefined roles based on their sex. Surely you can see how that lack of freedom is a bad thing, no?

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It seems like in the 50s the gender stereotypes were so entrenched in society that to be different as a couple would be frowned upon by your friends and neighbours. I guess the social pressures of conformity had to have its bubble burst eventually, hence the social revolution of the 60s.

Yep. And the social conservatives in this nation would love nothing more than to turn back the clock to that very same repressed time. They've built up a mythology in which the strong (white) male goes off to work with his lunch pail in the morning, works in his office or factory job, and returns home to have dinner on the table followed by TV time in the family room before bed. The woman stays home to take care of the house. The kids are well adjusted and work hard in school (and of course, stay away from drugs and alcohol).

If you've ever seen the movie Pleasantville it's a good representation of what these types of people believe we should be trying to return to. Nevermind that the system broke for a good reason: it wasn't sustainable, people aren't robots.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2011-05-09 17:37:33)

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The thing that separates them is : one deals with LAW and one deals with CULTURE. Libertarianism and equity feminism isn't about culture, it's about law. A Jim crow law violates the "legal and civil equality" idea in equity feminism and in the larger libertarianism framework.

You're OP was about a cultural trend or view. It falls into the gender feminism which is the preach professorially QQ feminism.

And you're trying your damnest to make it fit in with your world view. Which it won't.

So as a libertarian I shouldn't fight against what I view as culturally restrictive thought? I should just let it go because it doesn't directly impact my life? That's absurd. Everyone is free to express their opinion, even if my opinion is to tell someone else that they are wrong for behaving a certain way. I would be violating my world view if I then went and tried to do more than voice that opinion by enacting laws to enforce it etc.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-05-09 17:42:03)

Uzique wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The thing that separates them is : one deals with LAW and one deals with CULTURE. Libertarianism and equity feminism isn't about culture, it's about law. A Jim crow law violates the "legal and civil equality" idea in equity feminism and in the larger libertarianism framework.

You're OP was about a cultural trend or view. It falls into the gender feminism which is the preach professorially QQ feminism.

And you're trying your damnest to make it fit in with your world view. Which it won't.

macbeth is schooling you here on something you clearly know little to nothing about. he obviously took a class that you didn't. like i did, too! (and im not even american!)

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-05-09 17:46:26)

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

So as a libertarian I shouldn't fight against what I view as culturally restrictive thought? I should just let it go because it doesn't directly impact my life? That's absurd. Everyone is free to express their opinion, even if my opinion is to tell someone else that they are wrong for behaving a certain way. I would be violating my world view if I then went and tried to do more than voice that opinion by enacting laws to enforce it etc.

"as a libertarian" If you're referring to yourself as a libertarian and not "someone with some libertarian views" you are already somewhere far from what libertarianism is and means. If you were a libertarian then yes you shouldn't care about what happens within your soceity as long as laws aren't broken. You know allow people the freedom to live and decide their lives.

Basically you are being a moral jihadist in response to moral crusaders with this "women had it rough back then" thing.

No, I'm not Macbeth. I'm not stone. No one is stone. No one except a dude living in a shack in the middle of Montana could ever live up to your ideal of a guy that completely minds his own business and puts forth no opinions. By your line of reasoning, if I see a murder committed I shouldn't go to the cops because it didn't directly impact me and I should stay out of it.

Libertarianism is not the personal isolationism you wish it to be. What you're describing is simple misanthropy coupled with severe introversion.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Genders aren't created Equal at all. The woman gets paid less because "Guess what?" she could get pregnant and be out of work for a month or two. Also working with allot of women, they get paid less cause they deserve less. Rampant Alcoholics and drug abuse? are you kidding me, I'm pretty sure those statistics are higher now then they ever were in the 50's.

Also if they want to be treated equals lets do away with alimony, stop giving dead beat moms children because they're the woman and start treating them as equals. Oh yeah we can't because of sexual harassment or they might be in a bad mood.

You can't have all the perks of the moment with none of the negatives.

For the first time, American women have passed men in gaining advanced college degrees as well as bachelor's degrees, part of a trend that is helping redefine who goes off to work and who stays home with the kids.

When it comes to finishing college, roughly 20.1 million women have bachelor's degrees, compared to nearly 18.7 million men — a gap of more than 1.4 million that has remained steady in recent years. Women first passed men in bachelor's degrees in 1996.

Unemployment for men currently stands at 9.3 percent compared to 8.3 percent for women, who now make up half of the U.S. work force. The number of stay-at-home moms, meanwhile, dropped last year for a fourth year in a row to 5 million, or roughly one in four married-couple households. That's down from nearly half of such households in 1969.

Uzique wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

I never took any feminist studies either but as a poli sci major, feminist studies and how they relate to IR and comparative politics and history and whatever is mentioned along with everything else

i have a friend that graduated from my uni in english lit last year and went to cambridge to do gender studies

she can argue anyone under a fucking table

feminism is a bottomless pit of bullshittery and boredom

Macbeth wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Genders aren't created Equal at all. The woman gets paid less because "Guess what?" she could get pregnant and be out of work for a month or two. Also working with allot of women, they get paid less cause they deserve less. Rampant Alcoholics and drug abuse? are you kidding me, I'm pretty sure those statistics are higher now then they ever were in the 50's.

Also if they want to be treated equals lets do away with alimony, stop giving dead beat moms children because they're the woman and start treating them as equals. Oh yeah we can't because of sexual harassment or they might be in a bad mood.

You can't have all the perks of the moment with none of the negatives.

Funny thing, if you're a man in the U.S. you're statistically more likely to be unemployed right now.

For the first time, American women have passed men in gaining advanced college degrees as well as bachelor's degrees, part of a trend that is helping redefine who goes off to work and who stays home with the kids.

When it comes to finishing college, roughly 20.1 million women have bachelor's degrees, compared to nearly 18.7 million men — a gap of more than 1.4 million that has remained steady in recent years. Women first passed men in bachelor's degrees in 1996.

Unemployment for men currently stands at 9.3 percent compared to 8.3 percent for women, who now make up half of the U.S. work force. The number of stay-at-home moms, meanwhile, dropped last year for a fourth year in a row to 5 million, or roughly one in four married-couple households. That's down from nearly half of such households in 1969.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_ … ated_women

Really read some stuff by Christina Hoff Sommers. She's an equity feminist who is highly critical of modern feminism. She concludes that the modern feminist movement is about gaining preferential treatment since women have already achieved legal and civil equality.