Show of HandsShow of Hands

Arkansas123 July 25th, 2015 1:35am

Last night, I watched a show on CNN about the women's liberation movement (1970s). In general, do you view women's lib positively or negatively?

5 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
07/26/15 4:56 pm

Very negatively. That's based on the loudmouthed, chip-on-the-shoulder, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," "the only good baby is a dead baby" Feminazis, who, I'll admit, are the minority, but the TOO VOCAL minority.

Reply
Sammmmm Was Weddellii
07/27/15 11:49 am

I agree with you. Feminism would be fine as long as the crazy fucking lunarics stayed out of it.

Ailuro49 Just MY own opinion
07/25/15 4:25 pm

No matter what this younger generation thinks, they've always had the "power" to go out & purchase a car, a house, & have major surgery WITHOUT their husbands or parents written signature! That's why your Grama was willing to burn her bra.

Reply
Ailuro49 Just MY own opinion
07/25/15 4:30 pm

We had laws on the books for "equal rights to vote, etc." but until NOV. 1, 1974 women were financially invisible: NO CREDIT! Think about that ladies, your apt, your car, your Nordstrom card, student loans. Things YOU don't even consider.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 9:30 pm

Interesting. The people who were alive during women's lib have a negative opinion. The youngest age group, likely brainwashed by liberal history textbooks, views the national outbreak of radical feminism fondly. It ended with Stop ERA and Reagan.

Reply
Praetorianus Fair enough.
07/24/15 8:37 pm

Negative because overblown. They went from just wanting equal rights (perfectly legitimate) to bra burning, hating men etc.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 9:19 pm

You mean you don't think it's acceptable for wives to go on strike from caring for their children and from having sex with their husbands?

d6410 Texas
07/24/15 7:54 pm

Gender spread is interesting but not surprising

Reply
evan2048 Michigan
07/24/15 7:29 pm

If abortion wasn't tacked onto it and if it didn't evolve into what it is today and if it didn't try to use state aggression to achieve their goals, then yes

iPolitix Political Party Animal
07/24/15 6:50 pm

Feminazis...lol, no. 😋

Reply
Brandon1995 San Francisco
07/24/15 6:40 pm

It was a positive movement. It gave women the opportunity to stand against sexist traditional societal rules.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 6:46 pm

Is that why women's lib failed?

Brandon1995 San Francisco
07/24/15 7:30 pm

How did it fail? Look at all the women in position of power today. Look at all the female cops, lawyers, and CEOs. I believe it was successful.

d6410 Texas
07/24/15 7:53 pm

Brandon is right, I would never have the opportunities I have now in the 1970s

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 9:17 pm

The Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination, was signed in 1964.

d6410 Texas
07/24/15 9:32 pm

You do realize that laws don't mean anything if societal values don't match up. After the day that document was signed we were still thought of as only good for house duties. Discrimination still existed/exists because it's hard to prove.

d6410 Texas
07/24/15 9:33 pm

Thinking just because an anti discrimination law is signed makes discrimination go away is incredibly ignorant and childish.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 11:21 pm

Women's lib wasn't the force behind workplace equality. It was second-wave feminism. Of course, discrimination didn't end overnight; but it's been a gradual process ongoing since the 1960s (not the 1970s). It was largely inspired by WWII.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 4:28 am

Women's lib was for social liberation. Maybe that's something you wouldn't be able to understand, but that's important.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 2:31 pm

No, I understand it. I just disagree with it. The "liberated" woman works 40-hour weeks and is still left with the chores, or she's a welfare recipient with three kids whose fathers bailed out on them because "women can take care of themselves."

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 3:22 pm

And where do you get this from? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not a raging sexist)

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 3:32 pm

Rising illegitimate birth rates, high child poverty, high single female poverty, low marriage rates, late marriage, and surveys that show that half of working women would rather be homemakers.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 3:37 pm

Forget about inner city poverty, increased teen birth rates, and generally higher sex before marriage rates, and let's blame on the women who actually want to do something their lives besides raise kids!

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 3:38 pm

I looked up your statistic and it said most British women would rather be housewives than engineers, and more than half of women would divorce their husband before becoming housewives.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 3:40 pm

And late marriage rates and low marriage rates don't really matter. It just means people have shifting priorities.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 4:14 pm

It means higher poverty and lower satisfaction with life, which, in turn, are conditions often connected with higher substance abuse and higher crime.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 4:32 pm

So women working instead of staying home causes poverty and crime. That totally makes sense 😂

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 4:42 pm

Lower marriage rates cause poverty and male crime.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 4:48 pm

The numbers or the logic behind the numbers?

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 4:48 pm

Because what it sounds like you're saying is that because women are now working instead of marrying early and working for their man, men are committing more crimes.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 4:50 pm

Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean they're related. Explain that logic, you need to be able to explain it in words, not just with two stats that changed at the same time.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 5:07 pm

Men are more likely than women to engage in risky behaviors of course. When a man marries, that risk factor is tempered by the wife. Controlling for other factors, populations with higher marriage rates have lower crime rates.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 5:10 pm

There's a massive body of literature on this topic. Here's just the first paper that pops up on the internet.

scholar.harvard.edu/files/sampson/files/2006_criminology_laubwimer_1.pdf

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:11 pm

We as women aren't responsible for controlling a man. That's not why we're here. We are allowed to have a life that doesn't involve tempering a husband.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 5:15 pm

The most natural and fulfilling state for the average human being is being married. Women's lib subverted that norm, inflicting harm on American men and women alike.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:17 pm

And I don't agree with that last point. In Denmark 61% of kids are born out of wedlock, they're in the top 10 for lowest crime. In Iceland they have the highest divorce rate and the highest amount of women working outside the home. Very little crime.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:18 pm

That's bull. Marriage is a man made institution. It's not a natural state for everyone. Some yes, some no. And a lot of women don't want to live in a society where we're viewed as less than men.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
07/25/15 5:20 pm

I agree. Getting married is not a natural state. Humans are not naturally monogamous. The 50% divorce rate proves that.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 5:22 pm

The 50% divorce rate proves that society is sick.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:24 pm

No, it proves that monogamy isn't for 100% of everyone. Divorce rates used to be lower only because it wasn't acceptable to get a divorce and women couldn't afford it.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
07/25/15 5:25 pm

You think a couple who divorces is sick?

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/25/15 5:26 pm

As if women can afford being single.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:38 pm

Absolutely we're fine being single. And you're the one who said men need a woman to "temper" them.

d6410 Texas
07/25/15 5:49 pm

Since society has changed and we're all actuality equal. Women don't have to marry, and neither to men. People should do what they want. Whether that's marrying, staying single, or divorcing if they must. And women should have that choice.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/24/15 6:39 pm

CNN was very sympathetic of course.

It mentioned bra burning, women's strikes, open marriage, free abortion, state-run 24/7 daycare, and other causes that women's lib promoted before it crashed and burned with the defeat of the ERA.

Reply