Why do an lot of women think they shouldnt have to provide for themsleves but claim to want to be equal to men?
Robot
PatientlyWaiting25 · 46-50, F
I would accept not being equal in return for being provided for but the situation needs to be right for that to happen.
1) He treats me with respect, values and considers my opinion even if he doesn't choose my way after he weighs up all the options.
2)He doesn't harm me, either physically or emotionally and all decisions he makes are proven to be in mine and the families best interests. That way I know I can trust him. I think it's a winning situation with less stress and arguments. I've known some married people to argue about what kind of yogurts to buy which is beyond stupid.
1) He treats me with respect, values and considers my opinion even if he doesn't choose my way after he weighs up all the options.
2)He doesn't harm me, either physically or emotionally and all decisions he makes are proven to be in mine and the families best interests. That way I know I can trust him. I think it's a winning situation with less stress and arguments. I've known some married people to argue about what kind of yogurts to buy which is beyond stupid.
View 2 more replies »
bijouxbroussard · F
@PatientlyWaiting25 Yes, I’m aware that some women enjoy relationships where they’re getting their behinds kicked. 🥺
I admit I don’t understand it—and not just from a feminist perspective (incidentally, there are feminists involved in S&M, but it tends to be a sexual thing rather than an ongoing lifestyle). I have one friend in particular, a feminist who was a dominatrice for awhile.
As for DD, the women involved in that, certainly do have that right as adults.
I just hate when they have kids who grow up seeing Daddy beating Mommy—"but it’s consensual". They may be "happy” but it’s problematic for children in terms of mental health, especially when they go on to think beating or being beaten by their partners is normal and healthy.
I admit I don’t understand it—and not just from a feminist perspective (incidentally, there are feminists involved in S&M, but it tends to be a sexual thing rather than an ongoing lifestyle). I have one friend in particular, a feminist who was a dominatrice for awhile.
As for DD, the women involved in that, certainly do have that right as adults.
I just hate when they have kids who grow up seeing Daddy beating Mommy—"but it’s consensual". They may be "happy” but it’s problematic for children in terms of mental health, especially when they go on to think beating or being beaten by their partners is normal and healthy.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
bijouxbroussard · F
@PatientlyWaiting25 There’s another misconception about feminists, at least myself and the ones I know; that we don’t like men.
We do—at least the ones who like and respect women as people. I grew up with a brother, father, uncles cousins and friends who were allies to me and my sisters, who encouraged us. They weren’t threatened by our accomplishments.
And I witnessed a marriage where I saw trust and love (and kindness) that was a partnership of equals; it lasted 66 years and taught us what was possible. I’m a widow now, but I was also very happily married. My middle sister still is.
We do—at least the ones who like and respect women as people. I grew up with a brother, father, uncles cousins and friends who were allies to me and my sisters, who encouraged us. They weren’t threatened by our accomplishments.
And I witnessed a marriage where I saw trust and love (and kindness) that was a partnership of equals; it lasted 66 years and taught us what was possible. I’m a widow now, but I was also very happily married. My middle sister still is.
4meAndyou · F
I don't know any women like that, UNLESS they are stay-at-home Moms. If a mother has more than two children, day care is not an option because of the expense, and she will need her husband to support her AND the children. When the children are old enough, MOST stay-at-home Moms go back to work.
Women don't have to CLAIM to want to be equal to men, in the United States. They ARE equal. Different, perhaps not as strong physically, but with ALL the same rights.
I had only one child, but I stayed home to take care of him until he was 12. THEN I got a job very, very close to our condo, so that he could very easily walk over to see me if he needed me, or if he got lonely.
AND, my husband at that time became disabled, and couldn't work. We needed an income, and health insurance, and I became the main breadwinner for five years, until he re-trained and was able to do something different.
Women don't have to CLAIM to want to be equal to men, in the United States. They ARE equal. Different, perhaps not as strong physically, but with ALL the same rights.
I had only one child, but I stayed home to take care of him until he was 12. THEN I got a job very, very close to our condo, so that he could very easily walk over to see me if he needed me, or if he got lonely.
AND, my husband at that time became disabled, and couldn't work. We needed an income, and health insurance, and I became the main breadwinner for five years, until he re-trained and was able to do something different.
Mamapolo2016 · F
Let’s analyze that question.
First, are you claiming there are no men being supported by women?
Second, how many is “a lot of women”?
Third, in such circumstances, did the man in the relationship work outside the home throughout the marriage while the woman stayed home to raise the children and cook, clean, shop, drive the kids to school and sports or dance or music lessons? This leaves her with no ‘real’ employment history.
Sure, there are lazy and vengeful women. There are men like that too, my friend.
It’s very easy to claim “foul” without any information.
First, are you claiming there are no men being supported by women?
Second, how many is “a lot of women”?
Third, in such circumstances, did the man in the relationship work outside the home throughout the marriage while the woman stayed home to raise the children and cook, clean, shop, drive the kids to school and sports or dance or music lessons? This leaves her with no ‘real’ employment history.
Sure, there are lazy and vengeful women. There are men like that too, my friend.
It’s very easy to claim “foul” without any information.
TheRealBarbossa · 36-40, T
SUPERVlXEN · F
@TheRealBarbossa
It's a thing other places as well. I don't understand how or why you make this as a part of being a feminist or not. It's all based on laws.
The whole idea behind spousal support [no gender defined] is to ensure a fair economic outcome after a marriage ends, preventing one partner from being left in severe financial hardship while helping both achieve a comparable post-divorce lifestyle to what they had during the marriage, often compensating for career sacrifices or ongoing child-rearing roles that create an economic imbalance. It aims to mitigate unfair economic disparities, support a dependent spouse, and provide resources for self-sufficiency, recognizing marriage as a joint economic venture, not a perfect 50/50 split.
It's a thing other places as well. I don't understand how or why you make this as a part of being a feminist or not. It's all based on laws.
The whole idea behind spousal support [no gender defined] is to ensure a fair economic outcome after a marriage ends, preventing one partner from being left in severe financial hardship while helping both achieve a comparable post-divorce lifestyle to what they had during the marriage, often compensating for career sacrifices or ongoing child-rearing roles that create an economic imbalance. It aims to mitigate unfair economic disparities, support a dependent spouse, and provide resources for self-sufficiency, recognizing marriage as a joint economic venture, not a perfect 50/50 split.
TheRealBarbossa · 36-40, T
SUPERVlXEN · F
@TheRealBarbossa
That's the best response you can come up with? Maybe start learn the difference between arguing and being enlightened. Live in peace, ha det!
That's the best response you can come up with? Maybe start learn the difference between arguing and being enlightened. Live in peace, ha det!
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Capitalism sticks its ugly head into every and all issues.
The problem is systemic not just endemic.
Why did women not have the right to vote just after July 1776?
This "Exclusion from Property Rights:", points back to the fact this is a Republic and not a democracy.
And it gets worse from there. On to education and so forth.
The problem is systemic not just endemic.
Why did women not have the right to vote just after July 1776?
Critique of Capitalism's Influence on Women's Rights
Capitalism has indeed played a critical role in shaping societal norms and policies, actively influencing the status of women and their rights, including suffrage.
Systemic Issues Rooted in Capitalism
Economic Dependency: Under capitalism, women's economic roles were traditionally limited to domestic spheres, creating dependency on men. This dependence reinforced social structures that denied women political rights, including voting.
Exclusion from Property Rights: Voting rights were often linked to property ownership. Most women were barred from owning property, which meant they were excluded from the political sphere, as voting was typically reserved for property owners.
Capital and Influence: The wealth created through capitalist systems often concentrated power in the hands of a few, who maintained existing patriarchal structures. Many of the laws and social norms that denied women's rights were upheld by those benefiting from the status quo.
Feminist Responses to Capitalism
Women who began to challenge these norms often did so by highlighting the contradictions within the capitalist system:
Economic Participation: As women entered the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, they argued for political rights by linking economic contributions to claims for suffrage. Their economic independence was essential in challenging patriarchal authority.
Class and Feminism: The intersection of class struggles with women's rights became evident, as working-class women fought not only for voting rights but also for broader economic justice. Their experiences highlighted the inadequacies of a system that prioritized profit over human rights.
Conclusion
The impact of capitalism on women's rights and suffrage is deeply intertwined with systemic inequalities. By reinforcing economic dependencies and excluding women from political power, capitalism has often perpetuated social injustices. Acknowledging these dynamics is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of women's history and rights.
Capitalism has indeed played a critical role in shaping societal norms and policies, actively influencing the status of women and their rights, including suffrage.
Systemic Issues Rooted in Capitalism
Economic Dependency: Under capitalism, women's economic roles were traditionally limited to domestic spheres, creating dependency on men. This dependence reinforced social structures that denied women political rights, including voting.
Exclusion from Property Rights: Voting rights were often linked to property ownership. Most women were barred from owning property, which meant they were excluded from the political sphere, as voting was typically reserved for property owners.
Capital and Influence: The wealth created through capitalist systems often concentrated power in the hands of a few, who maintained existing patriarchal structures. Many of the laws and social norms that denied women's rights were upheld by those benefiting from the status quo.
Feminist Responses to Capitalism
Women who began to challenge these norms often did so by highlighting the contradictions within the capitalist system:
Economic Participation: As women entered the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, they argued for political rights by linking economic contributions to claims for suffrage. Their economic independence was essential in challenging patriarchal authority.
Class and Feminism: The intersection of class struggles with women's rights became evident, as working-class women fought not only for voting rights but also for broader economic justice. Their experiences highlighted the inadequacies of a system that prioritized profit over human rights.
Conclusion
The impact of capitalism on women's rights and suffrage is deeply intertwined with systemic inequalities. By reinforcing economic dependencies and excluding women from political power, capitalism has often perpetuated social injustices. Acknowledging these dynamics is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of women's history and rights.
This "Exclusion from Property Rights:", points back to the fact this is a Republic and not a democracy.
The Republic vs. Democracy in the Context of Property Rights
The distinction between a republic and a democracy is significant when discussing the historical exclusion of women and others from voting rights.
Understanding the Concepts
Republic: In a republic, the government operates under a system of laws protecting individual rights and property. The emphasis is on representative decision-making by elected officials.
Democracy: Democracy, particularly direct democracy, involves more direct participation of the populace in decisions and governance. In its modern context, it often implies broader inclusion in the electoral process.
Property Ownership and Voting Rights
Link to Representation: In the early republic, voting was often restricted to property owners as a way to ensure that those with a stake in society had a say in governance. This was rooted in the belief that property owners would make more responsible decisions than those without economic ties.
Exclusivity of Rights: The focus on property ownership inherently excluded women, non-property owners, and marginalized communities from political participation. This exclusion reflects the systemic inequalities present within a republican framework.
Implications for Women's Suffrage
Advocacy for Broader Inclusion: The women's suffrage movement challenged the connection between property and political rights, arguing that citizenship should not be defined by economic status.
Shift in Political Philosophy: Over time, the understanding of citizenship evolved to emphasize universal suffrage, steering away from the property-based qualifications laid down in the early days of the republic.
Conclusion
The framing of the U.S. as a republic, rather than a straightforward democracy, had profound implications for who could participate in governance. This framework upheld systemic inequalities, contributing to the exclusion of women and other groups from the voting process.
The evolution toward more inclusive democratic principles has been a critical aspect of the ongoing struggle for rights.
The distinction between a republic and a democracy is significant when discussing the historical exclusion of women and others from voting rights.
Understanding the Concepts
Republic: In a republic, the government operates under a system of laws protecting individual rights and property. The emphasis is on representative decision-making by elected officials.
Democracy: Democracy, particularly direct democracy, involves more direct participation of the populace in decisions and governance. In its modern context, it often implies broader inclusion in the electoral process.
Property Ownership and Voting Rights
Link to Representation: In the early republic, voting was often restricted to property owners as a way to ensure that those with a stake in society had a say in governance. This was rooted in the belief that property owners would make more responsible decisions than those without economic ties.
Exclusivity of Rights: The focus on property ownership inherently excluded women, non-property owners, and marginalized communities from political participation. This exclusion reflects the systemic inequalities present within a republican framework.
Implications for Women's Suffrage
Advocacy for Broader Inclusion: The women's suffrage movement challenged the connection between property and political rights, arguing that citizenship should not be defined by economic status.
Shift in Political Philosophy: Over time, the understanding of citizenship evolved to emphasize universal suffrage, steering away from the property-based qualifications laid down in the early days of the republic.
Conclusion
The framing of the U.S. as a republic, rather than a straightforward democracy, had profound implications for who could participate in governance. This framework upheld systemic inequalities, contributing to the exclusion of women and other groups from the voting process.
The evolution toward more inclusive democratic principles has been a critical aspect of the ongoing struggle for rights.
And it gets worse from there. On to education and so forth.
SUPERVlXEN · F
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@SUPERVlXEN while I might agree with you this is likely a troll issue. I suspect he didn't expect all the real issues being brought up in this topic! 🤣
Smother and overwhelm them with the facts might dissuade such notions of trolling SW questions.
Smother and overwhelm them with the facts might dissuade such notions of trolling SW questions.
ScreamingFox · 41-45, F
bijouxbroussard · F
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@bijouxbroussard These questions are so obviously from some woman hating person . lol
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@AbsolutelyFabulous I could never be reliant on anyone else. I've drilled that into my daughter.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Alyosha · 36-40, M
Feminism!
bijouxbroussard · F
@Alyosha No, feminism is why more women work outside the home and earn their own money. If she earns more than the husband and they divorce, he may qualify for alimony.
True story.
True story.
"A lot of women" don't... not all women deserve to be judged because the women that you associate with do.
Prettybratbi1tch · 26-30, F
RogueLodyte · M
Another post that will probably never go away unless I 'hide' it. "click"
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Some people think equality means someone else pays the bills. Spoiler -it doesn’t.
Face palms.
Face palms.
bijouxbroussard · F
@InterdimensionalSideEye Equality means that employers stopped being able to tell college-educated women that they were promoting her less-qualified male colleague because ”he has a family to support". And more of us contribute and pay the bills than ever before.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
Gingerbreadspice · F
NamesBatty · 56-60, F
Because they want to have their cake and eat it too?🤔
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
FreeLittleBird · F
This Q makes my brain hurt
It’s not that deep dude omg lol
It’s not that deep dude omg lol
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BlueVeins · 26-30
