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?
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.
I agree with you. Feminism would be fine as long as the crazy fucking lunarics stayed out of it.
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.
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.
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.
Negative because overblown. They went from just wanting equal rights (perfectly legitimate) to bra burning, hating men etc.
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?
Gender spread is interesting but not surprising
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
Feminazis...lol, no. 😋
It was a positive movement. It gave women the opportunity to stand against sexist traditional societal rules.
Is that why women's lib failed?
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.
Brandon is right, I would never have the opportunities I have now in the 1970s
The Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination, was signed in 1964.
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.
Thinking just because an anti discrimination law is signed makes discrimination go away is incredibly ignorant and childish.
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.
Women's lib was for social liberation. Maybe that's something you wouldn't be able to understand, but that's important.
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."
And where do you get this from? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not a raging sexist)
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.
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!
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.
And late marriage rates and low marriage rates don't really matter. It just means people have shifting priorities.
It means higher poverty and lower satisfaction with life, which, in turn, are conditions often connected with higher substance abuse and higher crime.
So women working instead of staying home causes poverty and crime. That totally makes sense 😂
Lower marriage rates cause poverty and male crime.
Explain that to me.
The numbers or the logic behind the numbers?
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.
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.
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.
There's a massive body of literature on this topic. Here's just the first paper that pops up on the internet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. Getting married is not a natural state. Humans are not naturally monogamous. The 50% divorce rate proves that.
The 50% divorce rate proves that society is sick.
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.
You think a couple who divorces is sick?
Yup. d6410 is 100% correvt
As if women can afford being single.
Absolutely we're fine being single. And you're the one who said men need a woman to "temper" them.
It's a mutualistic relationship.
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.
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.