# "The Flipside of Feminism. . . "



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

" . . . What Conservative Women Know â and Men Can't Say"

The Flipside of Feminism . . . 

Recommended.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Interesting opinions there. I wonder which conservative women they are talking about. 
"Forty years have passed since the so-called women's movement claimed to liberate women from preconceived notions of what it means to be female".
This phrase alone shows the writer thinks little of the fact that women are now allowed to vote, to have a say in the country they call home. I wonder if the writer is one of those overdressed geek type guys who couldn't swing a hammer to save his home. Fortunately for him, there are a few handy women around who might take care of him if he's cute enough. 
Besides that, boy this topic will likely open up a can of worms.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

nevermind


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

womens rights movement has always been aided by men.....LMAO. 

this is a joke, right?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

lilmizlayla said:


> womens rights movement has always been aided by men.....LMAO.
> 
> this is a joke, right?


If the only ones eligible to vote to grant women the right to vote were men how do you think that occurred?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

wendle said:


> Interesting opinions there. I wonder which conservative women they are talking about.
> "Forty years have passed since the so-called women's movement claimed to liberate women from preconceived notions of what it means to be female".
> This phrase alone shows the writer thinks little of the fact that women are now allowed to vote, to have a say in the country they call home. I wonder if the writer is one of those overdressed geek type guys who couldn't swing a hammer to save his home. Fortunately for him, there are a few handy women around who might take care of him if he's cute enough.
> Besides that, boy this topic will likely open up a can of worms.


The writer, whoever he or she is (interesting that you assume it is a male writer) is merely summarizing what these two women have said.

The fact that you deem to cast aspersions on the writers manhood (again, assuming) speaks volumes about your own character.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thomas Paine ?????
Does it seem odd that I should mention this historic person?

Well working with my son with his history we learned that before 1776 Thomas Paine a corset maker by trade was writing papers and speaking out for equality for Women's right. Just a bit of interesting new information I gained from homeschooling.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

tinknal said:


> If the only ones eligible to vote to grant women the right to vote were men how do you think that occurred?


IMHO?
That was the beginning of the demise of our country.eep:


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

I sometimes wonder if people on this board just start posting replies before they EVER actually look at or read the opening post; most seem so ready to refute ANYTHING, whether they know what they're refuting or not. Beats me!

The book was written by Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker, the two women in the video. It was NOT written by a man. And if one actually watches the video, one will hear the subject of women's right to vote addressed quite clearly.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> IMHO?
> That was the beginning of the demise of our country.


Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?

I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. Beyond that small subset, however, it's been a godsend.

Now I expect we'll see a bunch of stay-at-home wives pop up to protest that they provide their husband with many other services besides sexual ones. Childcare, housekeeping, etc. -- which is all well and good -- _but cut off the sex, hon, and see how long he sticks around and keeps paying your bills._

I dare ya. LOL!


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

tinknal said:


> The writer, whoever he or she is (interesting that you assume it is a male writer) is merely summarizing what these two women have said.


The write up is deceiving. "Forty years have passed since the so-called *women's movement* claimed to liberate women from preconceived notions of what it means to be female &#8211; and the results are in. The latest statistics from the National Bureau of Economic Research show that* as women have gained more freedom, more education, and more power, they have become less happy*". It looks like the gentleman in the video did the write up, not the books. I was not talking about the books. 
"Women&#8217;s progress has been a natural evolution &#8211; due in large part to men&#8217;s contributions." Weren't the men the ones who didn't allow women to vote in the first place?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?
> 
> I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. Beyond that small subset, however, it's been a godsend.
> 
> ...


It's my opinion doll! No sense in getting hostile, or actin' like you know everything about sex and relationships!! :happy0035:
There is more to a woman that what sits on her chest and rests between her legs......


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It's my opinion doll! No sense in getting hostile,


Sorry, but this is a subject I'm passionate about. 

Right now, we are seeing the conservative moment attempt to roll back most of the improvements of the last century. Leading the charge are people who don't know history and thus, it seems, will be condemned to repeat it. 

I'll give you labor rights, and even the environment, but women's rights are a hill I'm willing to die on. 

I saw firsthand what 40 years of groveling for her daily bread did to my mother. It destroyed her soul. I would not wish that on my proverbial daughters or granddaughters.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Sorry, but this is a subject I'm passionate about.
> 
> Right now, we are seeing the conservative moment attempt to roll back most of the improvements of the last century. Leading the charge are people who don't know history and thus, it seems, will be condemned to repeat it.
> 
> ...


I am so sorry. I totally understand where you 'passion' comes from. And I agree with you......men who treat women like property, are not "loving them" like they are commanded too. 

I was on the other side of the fence....watching as 'I am woman hear me roar' dominated my childhood. Forced to 'get a job' at 13. Told all my life NEVER depend on a man, make your own money. And watched as a career was infinitely more important than their own children / and grand children. Watching the 'man of the house' bow to the whims of the woman. 

We were on opposite sides of the window. Me standing on the outside, looking in, wanting a mother at home. You standing on the inside, looking out, wanting the oppression to stop.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yup, I would say that's a pretty accurate description.

The only difference was, it sounds like your mother had a _choice._ If she had decided she really wanted to be a subservient groveler, why, all she would have needed to do was to find some man willing to let her lick his boot. 

My mother was not equipped with an education or any marketable skills. She had nowhere to go and no way to support herself once she got there, and she did not live in a time a place where resources were available to help or even encourage her.

That's the beauty of feminism -- it gives women a _choice._


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

The first speaker said the only time the ERA would have made a difference in rights of women was when the wives could not make homemade wine without the husband's consent. I guess she did not consider the 19th amendment? 
She also said she fought the ERA for 10 years. Wow. She seems to be an extreme to the opposite of feminism. 

"Lydia Taft (February 2, 1712 â November 9, 1778) was a forerunner of women's suffrage in Colonial America. She was the first woman legally allowed to vote in colonial America. After the death of her wealthy husband and eldest son left the family without an adult heir, she was granted this right by the town meeting of Uxbridge, Massachusetts in 1756. For the great majority of American women, voting rights were not granted."


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Yup, I would say that's a pretty accurate description.
> 
> The only difference was, it sounds like your mother had a _choice._ If she had decided she really wanted to be a subservient groveler, why, all she would have needed to do was to find some man willing to let her lick his boot.


Choice? Not really.....she was woman, and she roared, and my dad loved it. She had a steady paycheck (he was in sales / commission). So when it was bonus time, he could buy a new boat or a new car......because my mom had a steady job. When he hit about 50......he worked, a little bit.....but really mom has carried the load for 20 years. 
It has embittered her. She bought into the idea of 'she was free to do what she wanted how she wanted, bla bla bla" and guess what.....not so much.
She CHOSE my dad......she CHOSE her career......she CHOSE her lifestyle.
And she's a miserable woman.
It's sad.



> My mother was not equipped with an education or any marketable skills. She had nowhere to go and no way to support herself once she got there, and she did not live in a time a place where resources were available to help or even encourage her.
> 
> That's the beauty of feminism -- it gives women a _choice._


I agree, if a woman wants to go to college, let her. But she should have to pay as much as the man does. No 'freebies' because she's a woman. Equal education, equal pay.
If a woman and a man do the exact same job, the exact same way, pay them the same.
I totally agree with you there......

It's just the emotional toll (both ways, what I experienced and what you experienced) and the scars it leaves on the next generation......


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2011)

Uhhhh I don't know about all these subservient women you seem to know, In my 60 years, I've not run across one yet. Even my grandma, who was born in 1880 spoke up to my grandpa whenever she felt like it. It(subservience) is not endemic to this area.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

My mother and father both worked. My grandmothers on both sides were subservient. They couldn't make household choices , it was up to the husband. I married a guy who didn't seem to be that way, but his parents were. His dad expectedhis mom to wait on him until the day he died. In my own marriage, I was expected to work and take care of the lion's share of the kid's needs. I was also expected to take care of the household. It seemed mixed up in a way, the wife still expected to be the wife, because that's how things have always been. This couldn't be done easily while working full time. I cut back my hours, so the kids would be in daycare less. Then I ended up starting a business of my own so the kids would be home with me. I am glad now that I can do for myself as my X husband cheated on different occasions and was abusive. He also had trouble budgeting himself and we were horribly deep in debt. Our family was miserable before the divorce. Both my children have since told me they have been happier since the divorce. I have found myself to be happier single and independent than I ever was.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

If women don't like feminism, they don't have to practice it. Turn all your property over into your husband's name. Quit voting. Work for whatever the employer will pay you, even if you work twice as hard as the man next to you in your assembly line job (but only if hubby asked you to work it), etc. 

This is just like the abortion debate. If you don't want femisnism, then don't do feminism. Some of us *do* like it, and are unwilling to live our lives according to your religious or moral convictions abotu a woman's place.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

zong said:


> Uhhhh I don't know about all these subservient women you seem to know, In my 60 years, I've not run across one yet. Even my grandma, who was born in 1880 spoke up to my grandpa whenever she felt like it. It(subservience) is not endemic to this area.


That was my experience, as well. Most of the women I grew up with (40's and 50's) were anything but subservient. 

I knew of only one subservient woman - I believe I am safe in saying she would have been that same woman had she lived in today's society.

Certainly, our own experiences, ours and our families, shape our attitudes. Just because some had/have a bad time, doesn't mean all are experiencing that same thing. 

I'm wondering how many women who think today is better for women, are women who lived and remembered 50/60 years ago and were aware of the situations then. I guess I'm wondering if, the perceptions of those times is historical or personal experience. 

In other words, it would be interesting to hear the perspective - good and bad - of those who were alive during the times before and after feminism and those who came in the transition and those who only know now. Actual thoughts and experiences - not something learned, but actual knowledge and experience.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I have noticed a changing trend in the man's family role as well, though you don't see it mentioned. Men used to "take care of the family". This often involved keeping the place up on repairs. Taking care of the car, lawn, etc. Nowadays most men cannot do minor repairs, and the home maintenance often as not is done by the woman as well.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

wendle said:


> I have noticed a changing trend in the man's family role as well, though you don't see it mentioned. Men used to "take care of the family". This often involved keeping the place up on repairs. Taking care of the car, lawn, etc. Nowadays most men cannot do minor repairs, and the home maintenance often as not is done by the woman as well.


If you watched the video and the question/answer period after the authors' deliveries, you will see that the changing role of men is also addressed by these women.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> If she had decided she really wanted to be a subservient groveler, why, all she would have needed to do was to find some man willing to let her lick his boot.


I sense some anger towards men there


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> I sense some anger towards men there


think your seeing things


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Women had a strong hand in shaping this country long before they had a vote. They wrote under male pseudonyms, but they did get their viewpoint out to the public and some historians credit women for pushing the colonies into Revolution. And later many of the first ladies acted as trusted advisors to their husbands and they ran the behind the scenes diplomacy both at home and internationally.

What the women's movement did was try to blur the natural lines between men and women. They said "women are equal to men" - meaning they are the same as men. But that is not true. Each gender (and individual) has their strengths and weaknesses. When you realize and appreciate the differences then you can start to work together as a team.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

doohap said:


> If you watched the video and the question/answer period after the authors' deliveries, you will see that the changing role of men is also addressed by these women.


I did watch it all, but didn't see any mention of why they aren't filling their historical roles. They did say men are not growing up, but continue to be boys, and blame it on feminism. 
I would be more likely to blame it on lack of learning responsibility. I think this is a problem with both genders.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

You all act like before the Suffragettes not a single woman worked or suffered or could find employment.
Women worked and they worked outside the home or took in extra washing or mending and did all the normal work and then stayed up and did the extra to make ends meet.
During The Plague they went house to house as 'coroners' determing the cause of death and recording it officially. Then women made the US grow as factory workers in the mills. I could go on and on.
Women have worked outside the home and worked hard, worked longer hours, made critical decisions, managed money etc..
Nothing has changed...
except.. now we have a say about laws that affect us. We can do the same jobs as men if we want to. We get a bit more pay then we used to.
The fact that women are needed to work outside the house to make ends meet and buy food is not about feminism, it is about the economy, the changing monetary needs/wants of the typical family and the like. If you didn't want a big screen tv, if you didn't want meat at every single meal, if you didn't want a new pair of shoes more than once a year, if you wanted to own more than 2 changes of clothes, if you wanted to get your nails done, if you wanted a new Barbie house for your kid, if you didn't want the big house in the burbs etc.. then the family could survive better with the man working and the woman being at home.
I like that I am allowed to buy a car without my husband's signature. I like that I can make a doctor's appointment without it having to be oked by a man. I like that I can drive to another town alone. I like that I could go to school and learn to read because I was seen as worthy of an education as a manchild. I like that if I get attacked, I ahve the right to seek justice. I like that I am more valuable than a good mule. I like to vote. I like to be able to read books. 
Feminism is not a bad thing.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Thomas Paine ?????
> Does it seem odd that I should mention this historic person?
> 
> Well working with my son with his history we learned that before 1776 Thomas Paine a corset maker by trade was writing papers and speaking out for equality for Women's right. Just a bit of interesting new information I gained from homeschooling.


A while back, I was in Kirksville, Missouri and went to the medical museum at A. T. Still University. I noticed the large numbers of women in the old pictures and asked the curator if they had a nursing school, and he replied that Dr. Still, the founder of osteopathy, believed in the equality of women, and admitted women on an equal basis with men. They still do; none of that 50/50 stuff which I don't agree with either.

As for some earlier statements about women being in charge of the children and doing most of their care, think about this: Could you imagine what would happen in most families if a father made a doctor's appointment, purchased clothing or school supplies, signed a child up for an activity, etc.? He would NEVER heard the end of it! "How dare you undermine my authority", etc.

I know 3 women who, if their husband prepares a meal and it isn't what she wants to eat, will take the food off the table and make something else, even if the kids say they want it. One of them has even bragged about throwing cooked food away because she felt he didn't put enough effort into its preparation ("Fat lazy slob can't make anything but frozen pizza")! If a man did that, we'd call him abusive.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I find it interesting to see the speakers, who are a bit extreme against feminism on the Heritage Foundation site. I have to agree some of their examples of feminism are extreme, and there are things women can't or shouldn't do, and vice versa. On the other hand one of the ladies mentioned she didn't agree with a woman protecting a man in combat. Really? 
From the Heritage Foundation site: "Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish". 
I don't agree with all of feminism, but would rather see that than have nobody to stand up for women's rights at all.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

There's a clip on You Tube of a TV preacher stating that men who are full time dads are headed to hell because that's not what God intended the man's role to be.  Now, if he's the new stereotype of the SAHD who smokes pot and plays World of Warcraft all day, he's got a point, but if he's cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children and home, etc. that's WORK! I suppose this guy also thinks that this sort of thing is "women's work" and it's okay to treat your wife like a 24-hour live-in babysitter, too. :bash:

More than once, women have told me that they thought their husbands didn't do anything around the house, and then he was gone for a few days (working out of town, helping a relative move, that kind of thing) and she realized that yes, he does do a lot!


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

chickenista said:


> I like that I am allowed to buy a car without my husband's signature. I like that I can make a doctor's appointment without it having to be oked by a man. I like that I can drive to another town alone. I like that I could go to school and learn to read because I was seen as worthy of an education as a manchild. I like that if I get attacked, I ahve the right to seek justice. I like that I am more valuable than a good mule. I like to vote. I like to be able to read books.
> Feminism is not a bad thing.


And just think, you managed all that without passage of the ERA........


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Wags said:


> What the women's movement did was try to blur the natural lines between men and women. They said "women are equal to men" - meaning they are the same as men. But that is not true.


Neither is your definition.

From Merriam Webster:



> Definition of EQUAL
> 
> 1
> a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
> ...


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

I see these threads and shake my head .
I was raised basically by my mother , my father not being much of a man. I watched her work full time, keep house ,and attend college at night and was an active president of her union local. We kids never missed out on anything . She took us to any school event always made a hot meal. 
The idea that her working made her less of a mother is a total crock, The idea that she isnt any mans equal is pure bull . Most men would be turned to a quivering lump of jello trying to keep up with her , very few could have managed support their family as well.
She purchased our family farm her self so her kids would always have a home .
I also watched as she had to deffer to my father, she couldnt get a loan without his signature , yet he could get a loan secured and paid for by her work check, without consulting her and there wasnt a thing she could do about it. 
Seeing what she went through made me a supporter of equal rights . it also made me determined that Id raise my daughters without the male female stereo types . They are taught they can do or be anything they choose .
As a man I found a woman who would be my equal, we are Partners . The only defined female roll was that she carried the children the first nine months . Had it been possible Id have shared that task with her as well. As far as raising the kids well Ive taken them to the doctor, changed diapers, do most of the cooking , and shock of shocks know how to clean house . all of which My wife also is quite capable of , shes also just as capable as I when it comes to working on the cars , helping cut wood , or running the equipment.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

tinknal said:


> And just think, you managed all that without passage of the ERA........


I know, right?!
I have to smile warmly when I see guys in Washington promising to amend the Constitution. It is a darn hard, nigh on impossible thing to do.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline2.html


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?
> 
> I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. Beyond that small subset, however, it's been a godsend.
> 
> ...


_

I don't normally discuss my private homelife with my DH, but I will tell you that having had major issues with my back for many years some things were not possible, yet for some reason, DH has still stuck by my side for almost 27 years. Imagine that._


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I think this whole thing is less about women working outside the home than about the difference between a conservative woman and a liberal woman. I'm all for women working outside of the home and earning equal pay for equal work. I'm all for women having the choice of staying at home and taking care of the homestead and the children. It's a matter of choice.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

chickenista said:


> You all act like before the Suffragettes not a single woman worked or suffered or could find employment.
> Women worked and they worked outside the home or took in extra washing or mending and did all the normal work and then stayed up and did the extra to make ends meet.
> During The Plague they went house to house as 'coroners' determing the cause of death and recording it officially. Then women made the US grow as factory workers in the mills. I could go on and on.
> Women have worked outside the home and worked hard, worked longer hours, made critical decisions, managed money etc..
> ...


No, it's not a bad thing, but for some reason it seems that many believe that if a woman chooses to remain home we are somehow less than our counterparts that have chosen to have a career. To me, it's like the unions, they started off as a good thing. It took children out of coal mines, it forced employers to treat their employees fair. Then the unions, IMO, got out of control. It was no longer about the workers as much as the unions themselves. Women getting the right to vote, to purchase property, to get an education, to get equal pay for equal work is a wonderful thing. But it seems that those who call themselves feminist today are more about attacking men and women who chose to go a different route than they have.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

thesedays said:


> There's a clip on You Tube of a TV preacher stating that men who are full time dads are headed to hell because that's not what God intended the man's role to be.  Now, if he's the new stereotype of the SAHD who smokes pot and plays World of Warcraft all day, he's got a point, but if he's cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children and home, etc. that's WORK! I suppose this guy also thinks that this sort of thing is "women's work" and it's okay to treat your wife like a 24-hour live-in babysitter, too. :bash:
> 
> More than once, women have told me that they thought their husbands didn't do anything around the house, and then he was gone for a few days (working out of town, helping a relative move, that kind of thing) and she realized that yes, he does do a lot!


My nephew is a stay at home Dad. His wife is a MD and has her own small practice. He does computer work, so is able to work out of the home. He takes care of the house and the kids and will also be homeschooling the kids when they come of age. Works out great for them.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

I don't know whether the other women looking down on SAHMs is really true or propoganda. As in folks telling us that other women look down etc..
In all of my years, everytime I meet a working mom (which I used to be) they all tell me how lucky I am to be at home and how jealous they are etc..
I have never met anyone that looks down on my choice.
Ever.

Oh.. except my mother..who was a SAHM until I went to college.. Go figure.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?
> 
> I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. *Beyond that small subset,* however, it's been a godsend.
> 
> ...


Small subset?!?! :rotfl:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I think the suffragettes would be appalled at where we are right now. I think American feminism has been highjacked by the commercial side of it and we've lost sight of what feminism really is. On the one side you have women caught in a rat race to be better than men and how to acquire all the stuff to help them do that, on the other side you have the backlash that women need to be SAHM and anything else isn't good enough. Little girls are sexualized in marketing, older girls still are pressured that their worth is based on how pretty they are and how much they put out. Comparing girls today with when I was a girl, there were far more independent minded girls who just did stuff and didn't care whether it was a guy thing or not--today most girls are really girly and dumbed down and helpless, their first thought is &#8220;how pretty am I compared to the next girl&#8221;, not I&#8217;m smart, talented, a good person.

I have a lot of respect for the Islamic feminist movement. They've been able to retain the essence of feminism, the same message I hear from the earlier suffragettes in American history(and from Christ too for that matter). Here is a statement on their basic position.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/i...r-silence-on-the-oppression-of-women-in-islam

And the whole thing in a nutshell--
&#8226;	The right of all women to live in freedom and dignity
&#8226;	The equality of dignity of women and men
&#8226;	The right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation, and coercion
Freedom and dignity as the goal&#8212;not achievement, power, or man bashing. 
These chicks have balls. It&#8217;s worth googling about the Islamic Feminist movement to learn about the history and what has been accomplished. And the &#8220;funny&#8221; thing is, they are asking for support and outcry against their oppressors from us&#8212;just like some here have asked where is the muslim voice against terrorism. Maybe if we spoke up and supported these sisters, maybe the war on terror might go better for all of us.
/


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

I am like Sonshine in that I think women should be given the choice to do what they want, and yes there are people out there who put down women who stay at home. They don't have a "real" job. There are also women who say to me, "how do you do it? I had to stay home with them on their spring break and they drove me crazy!" I find that sad as well. Kids drive all parents nuts at times, it's in their job description. 

I also think that some have tried to make women equal by emasculating men. I want a man to be a man, but that is my taste, not everyone's.

The exhusband used to tell me I was "lazy" and say "what do you do all day staying home with the kids" when DS11 and DD9 were small. I guess that is part of the reason he is the ex! If you don't make money, it's not a job to some people. That is a sad state as well.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

doohap said:


> I sometimes wonder if people on this board just start posting replies before they EVER actually look at or read the opening post; most seem so ready to refute ANYTHING, whether they know what they're refuting or not.



No need to wonder......it happens all the time!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I sense some anger towards men there


Nope! Let the record show ... I like men A LOT! 

My father admittedly was a ...whoops, can't use that word here. But I have never made the mistake of assuming all men are like him. :shrug: 

I also think my mother played a part in making him the way he was. By not standing up for herself or commanding respect, she exacerbated his worst tendencies. Just once, at the dinner table, when he grunted, "More!" and shoved his plate in her direction, if she'd busted it over his head instead of obediently rising to refill it ... well, who knows what would have happened?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Nope! Let the record show ... I like men A LOT!
> 
> My father admittedly was a ...whoops, can't use that word here. But I have never made the mistake of assuming all men are like him. :shrug:
> 
> I also think my mother played a part in making him the way he was. By not standing up for herself or commanding respect, she exacerbated his worst tendencies. Just once, at the dinner table, when he grunted, "More!" and shoved his plate in her direction, if she'd busted it over his head instead of obediently rising to refill it ... well, who knows what would have happened?


Willow, you're breaking my heart..... I am so sorry.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I also think my mother played a part in making him the way he was. By not standing up for herself or commanding respect, she exacerbated his worst tendencies. Just once, at the dinner table, when he grunted, "More!" and shoved his plate in her direction, if she'd busted it over his head instead of obediently rising to refill it ... well, who knows what would have happened?


Not to judge your mother, but maybe to take her side. . . There is a difference between man and woman, size and strength. 
Coming from a marriage to a bad tempered husband I can say standing up for myself and kids, even throwing a few punches had no effect. Divorce ultimately was the way, but it took me some years to decide that was better for everyone involved instead of sticking it out for the kids.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yes. In the early years, I can remember them having knockdown-dragouts. He was not a large man, and it seems they were pretty equally matched. She even left for awhile, but had no way to support herself, no transportation, and was too proud to take welfare. Eventually she went back, and they seem to have reached some sort of truce ... they still hated each other, but didn't fight physically anymore.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

PyroDon said:


> I see these threads and shake my head .
> I was raised basically by my mother , my father not being much of a man. I watched her work full time, keep house ,and attend college at night and was an active president of her union local. We kids never missed out on anything . She took us to any school event always made a hot meal.
> The idea that her working made her less of a mother is a total crock, The idea that she isnt any mans equal is pure bull . Most men would be turned to a quivering lump of jello trying to keep up with her , very few could have managed support their family as well.
> She purchased our family farm her self so her kids would always have a home .
> ...


:clap:


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Great video addressing the subject of men and women moving forward in life together. 
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uRIMUBnvw[/ame]


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

If you want to know where we would be without feminism, check out Iran.

Men have the right to divorce their wives, women cannot divorce their husbands.

If the man chooses to divorce his wife, he automatically gets full custody of the kids. Moms are not permitted to have any visitation with her kids in these cases, as it is rare that the Father will allow it.

Catch your wife unchaperoned with another male who is not a family member, she is immediately put to death (honor killing). But the men can cavort with whoever they want with no consequences.

Daughters are married out to whoever their Daddy feels is the best husband for him to have, often settling business debts by handing over their young daughters' hands in marriage.

My first husband was an Iranian by birth, came to the US as a 19-year old. I saw a lot of this stuff first hand with his family members here in the states, and when I told him I was divorcing him he laughed in my face and told me he was going to call my father, and he fully expected my father to beat me and bring me back to him to be beaten again for my insolence. He was very surprised to discover that things don't work the same in the US as they do in Iran 

Again, I like my choices.....


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

bluemoonluck said:


> If the man chooses to divorce his wife, he automatically gets full custody of the kids. Moms are not permitted to have any visitation with her kids in these cases, as it is rare that the Father will allow it.


Reverse the genders, and I have known more than one person who believed in THAT. Interestingly, ALL of them had sons. Think about it. :ashamed:


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

bluemoonluck said:


> If you want to know where we would be without feminism, check out Iran.
> 
> Men have the right to divorce their wives, women cannot divorce their husbands.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, bluemoonluck, but feminism has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that women in the United States (which was founded on Christian principles, by the way) are not treated as those bound under the rule of Islam. You are stretching the facts way too far when you claim that feminism has delivered us from the domineering male hand of the religion of Islam. You are wrong.

I like my choices, also. But none of them were established by the feminist movement. Fact.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

chickenista said:


> I know, right?!
> I have to smile warmly when I see guys in Washington promising to amend the Constitution. It is a darn hard, nigh on impossible thing to do.


It really is not that difficult a project.... if/when there is an actual need to do so.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am quite curious as to just what it is that people think the feminist movement has actually done or accomplished in the past 40 years or so? (other than the obvious..... irritating the heck out of a lot of people, both men and women)


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am quite curious as to just what it is that people think the feminist movement has actually done or accomplished in the past 40 years or so? (other than the obvious..... irritating the heck out of a lot of people, both men and women)


You might ask instead why equal rights for women needed to be pursued at all. Were women happy as second class citizens?


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

wendle said:


> You might ask instead why equal rights for women needed to be pursued at all. Were women happy as second class citizens?


What made us second class citizens? I still don't understand what that means.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?
> 
> I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. Beyond that small subset, however, it's been a godsend.
> 
> ...


And you've been married how many times?


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

doohap said:


> What made us second class citizens? I still don't understand what that means.


Look up history of women's rights, google is your friend.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And you've been married how many times?


Four. Unlike my mother, I always have been self-supporting and saw no need to stick around after a relationship had run its course. My last two divorces were friendly -- no lawyers, no drama. I'm happy with my current mate. :shrug:


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

doohap said:


> I'm sorry, bluemoonluck, but feminism has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that women in the United States (which was founded on Christian principles, by the way) are not treated as those bound under the rule of Islam. You are stretching the facts way too far when you claim that feminism has delivered us from the domineering male hand of the religion of Islam. You are wrong.
> 
> I like my choices, also. But none of them were established by the feminist movement. Fact.


I'm not talking about religion here.... I'm talking about rights.

In Iran, women have no rights. I described the consequences of this.

I'll admit I LOL'd when I read your "domineering male hand of the religion of Islam" comment. FWIW, I've known too many conservative Christians to count who believe that women shouldn't have rights either....they would LOVE to have things be as biased towards men here in the States as they are in Iran. 

Numerous good friends of mine have lived with "good Christian husbands" who treat them like chattel, and their "good Christian churches" have taught and condoned this. I've run into families like this thru my work as a counselor, where daughters of "good Christian men" come to me and say they can't go to college because their daddy said only boys should go to college...the sons have college funds and family support and the girls are pushed towards marrying some nice young man who attends their church so they can "devote their lives to women's work" of having kids and keeping house. 

So please don't try to muddy the waters here. It has nothing to do with religion - Muslim, LDS, Christian, Buddhist, whatever - and everything to do with what every day life looks like for women in places where they have no rights.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am quite curious as to just what it is that people think the feminist movement has actually done or accomplished in the past 40 years or so? (other than the obvious..... irritating the heck out of a lot of people, both men and women)


It has opened up more of the higher paying careers for women. I have no problem with that. My problem comes in when it goes too far and women try to take men down a notch or two. I mean, I like it when a man opens the door for me, or offers to carry something that is heavy. I also like the idea of equal work means equal pay. I don't agree that women can do anything a man can , nor that a man can do anything a woman can. We are different, but too many in the feminist movement, you see women trying to be men, and putting men down.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

bluemoonluck said:


> I'm not talking about religion here.... I'm talking about rights.
> 
> In Iran, women have no rights. I described the consequences of this.
> 
> ...


I have read about domestic violence shelters in some cities that see not a small number of women from certain churches that advocate wife beating as a method of keeping her submissive.  

In addition, it appears that a huge percentage of the old fashion huge Catholic families were rarely happy homes either. Many were "poor" because the husband spent his entire paycheck on himself, and left the rest of his family to fend for themselves, and the mothers of these 8 or 10 children thought that their perpetual pregnancies and this misery was simply their lot in life.

And areas that have no rights, or minimal rights, for women generally don't have a very good rights record for anyone except the elite.

p.s. I'm kind of surprised nobody's brought up the Duggars or the Quiverfull movement; there are a lot of commonalities between Quiverfull and FLDS, one of them being that the women who left it said that they had never observed a marriage that could be described as happy. My sister was the first person I heard say about the Duggars "You just know that at least one of those kids is going to be gay" and it wouldn't surprise me if the kids reveal that their upbringing was actually more like this.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/page/nate-phelps-2009-aa-speech


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

wendle said:


> Look up history of women's rights, google is your friend.


Oh . . . O.K. . . . be that way. I'll only come back with: read the book "The Flipside of Feminism," don't just watch the video or read the reviews; THEN come back and tell me how women are oppressed. 

Google is YOUR friend maybe. It is only a tool to me.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I did not say women are oppressed now. 

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline2.html

I would not waste my money on that book from what I saw of both women speaking. They used extreme examples of feminism to support their position. I am not a feminazi by any means and believe women have it pretty decent nowadays for the most part. Thanks to our ancestors who stood up for our rights. I hope those in other countries enjoy the same someday.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Phyllis Schlafly has made a career out of telling other women they shouldn't have careers.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Phyllis Schlafly has made a career out of telling other women they shouldn't have careers.



Ok........THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING!!

I see so many of these women, "on a circuit" or "writing and selling books" or "going to speaking engagements".......are they all "sponsored" by their churches (where the parishioners are donating to cover the costs)???? OR are they making a little bit of money???
Writing, publishing and selling a book takes A LOT of time and effort. Honestly, I had NO time for that when I was raising my kids.......

This message, should be a message that is taught "by the older to the younger" FIRST by action, then with words, if needed....in the church / community.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Here is another time line a little better.

http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html


"1777 All states pass laws which take away women&#8217;s right to vote.

1873 Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1872): The U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman (Myra Colby Bradwell) from practicing law.


There are of course many more, and recent, but interesting read. Interesting that at one time Women were allowed to vote, then it was taken away. 


In Missouri v. Celia, a Slave, a Black woman is declared to be property without a right to defend herself against a master's act of rape.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wendle said:


> You might ask instead why equal rights for women needed to be pursued at all. Were women happy as second class citizens?


I dont recall a time in this country when women were second class citizens but then I was born in 1951, well after they claimed their right to vote in 1920. By the time I was old enough to notice what was going on, women owned property, were voting regularly, had jobs, owned businesses, drove their own automobiles, were elected to public offices...... pretty much exercising all of the same rights men did. :shrug:


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

I grew up attending a Lutheran Church-MO Synod. In our church women were not allowed to vote until about 5 years ago. We were not allowed on the school board or to hold any "office" other than committee chair etc. The elders excuse was, "well, the woman can just tell her husband, father, uncle or whatever male relative how they want the vote to go and he will do it". Hmmm, never could figure out if they realized that they were putting themselves down by saying that the men would vote whatever way the woman wanted.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

First, I find it quite telling, not to mention ironic, that the Women's Rights Movement timeline posted by wendle has Planned Parenthood mentioned in the first "key event" on the page and the National Council of ***** Women as the second. Would make me smile if the irony in that was not so sad. It is a well-known fact that Planned Parenthood was established for the main purpose of keeping the ***** population from expanding. In fact, one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes is:



> "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the ***** is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> _Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976"_


Sanger was a strong supporter of eugenics &#8212; the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Here are more quotes to show exactly what this female "liberator" had as her goals:



> "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
> _Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922._
> 
> "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
> ...


And one of the most egregious comments she made:



> "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
> _Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
> _


That feminists hold "Ms" Sanger up as an icon for their "movement" tells me all I need to know. 

And, that wendle (and other strong proponents of "the feminist movement") will not even read what they claim they are so vehemently against is exactly what I would expect. Is it fear they might learn that their "cause" is not really what it seems to be? 

I've never understood the rationale for not wanting to read or listen to what an opponent has to say. How, then, does one even know what one opposes?:shrug: 

Methinks the brainwashing of feminists by the powerul leftist female elite has been extremely successful. I'm happy to count myself out of their influence and domination. 

Good day!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> First, I find it quite telling, not to mention ironic, that the Women's Rights Movement timeline posted by wendle has Planned Parenthood mentioned in the first "key event" on the page and the National Council of ***** Women as the second. Would make me smile if the irony in that was not so sad. It is a well-known fact that Planned Parenthood was established for the main purpose of keeping the ***** population from expanding. In fact, one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes is:
> 
> Quote:
> "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the ***** is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
> ...


Thank you for posting this.
I have always felt in my heart, that PP was TARGETING and slaughtering black children. Their clinics are set up in predominately poor black neighborhoods. 
I also find it funny that the executives of PP are.......white.
Hmmmm 
Pride and Arrogance and the inability to say "wow I was wrong" are the devil's favorite tools in his tool box of destruction.
Thank you for this information. It confirms what my heart felt.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> . . .Pride and Arrogance and the inability to say "wow I was wrong" are the devil's favorite tools in his tool box of destruction. . . . .


Love this . . . so right on! 

Oh, and you're welcome!


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

doohap said:


> First, I find it quite telling, not to mention ironic, that the Women's Rights Movement timeline posted by wendle has Planned Parenthood mentioned in the first "key event" on the page and the National Council of ***** Women as the second. Would make me smile if the irony in that was not so sad. It is a well-known fact that Planned Parenthood was established for the main purpose of keeping the ***** population from expanding. In fact, one of Margaret Sanger's most famous quotes is:


The first two dates listed here are: 
"1701 The first sexually integrated jury hears cases in Albany, New York.

1769 American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which was summarized in the Blackstone Commentaries. It said, âBy marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law? The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.â

You might want to go back and read the link. 
If I believe women should be treated equal then I am a"strong proponents of "the feminist movement" ? You are obviously against women having any equal rights at all.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

wendle said:


> The first two dates listed here are:
> "1701 The first sexually integrated jury hears cases in Albany, New York.
> 
> 1769 American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which was summarized in the Blackstone Commentaries. It said, âBy marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law? The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.â
> ...


The first link you supplied was this: 

Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.
Timeline of Key Events in the American Women's Rights Movement
1921â1979

The first two entries on that page are as I stated above. You may want to go back and recheck your facts here. 

As far as women having "equal rights," if by that you mean equal pay for equal work, right to vote and have a say in political matters â I am all for that. However, the "feminist movement" is not about that at all, contrary to what the mass of females and males who embrace it think. 

Read the book.

Good day!


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

The first two dates listed on the site you are talking about are:

"1848 

The first women's rights convention is held in Seneca Falls, New York. After 2 days of discussion and debate, 68 women and 32 men sign a Declaration of Sentiments, which outlines grievances and sets the agenda for the women's rights movement. A set of 12 resolutions is adopted calling for equal treatment of women and men under the law and voting rights for women.
1850 

The first National Women's Rights Convention takes place in Worcester, Mass., attracting more than 1,000 participants. National conventions are held yearly (except for 1857) through 1860.

Read more: Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.: Timeline of Events (1848-1920) &#8212; Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html#ixzz1Il2Z4Xfw" 



The only reason I listed the second page is because you asked for more recent events. If you will notice on that page there are links to dates. 
* 1848&#8211;1899 &#8226;
* 1900&#8211;1920 &#8226;
* 1921&#8211;1979 &#8226;
* 1980&#8211;Present


Read more: Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.: Timeline of Events (1848-1920) &#8212; Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html#ixzz1Il3657u9


These are highlighted , so should be easier for you to figure out than google.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

wendle said:


> The first two dates listed on the site you are talking about are:
> 
> "1848
> 
> ...


Wendle, the post of this thread I responded to is post #66. You may want to go back and read that post now that I have made it easy for you to understand to what I am referring. Unfortunately, google will not help you with this. 

By the way, if you deduced from my response to post #66 that I am "obviously against women having any equal rights at all," then it is quite obvious that you do not know me and, in the matter of what I am for or against, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. 

Good day!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

doohap said:


> " . . . What Conservative Women Know â and Men Can't Say"
> 
> The Flipside of Feminism . . .
> 
> Recommended.


Poppycock.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Margaret Sanger was the daughter of a mother who endured 18 pregnancies before dying at age 40. Margaret, after receiving training as a nurse, went to work in the slums of the Lower East Side, where she witnessed firsthand the appalling conditions of poor families with many children and the deaths of women who had sought illegal abortions. 

I believe these experiences colored her perspective and her remarks should be judged in light of them. Did she hold some beliefs that are unpopular today? Certainly, although it's been argued that the claims that she advocated black genocide are based on remarks taken out of context. 

"Motherhood in Bondage" -- a collection of letters to Sanger, mostly from women desperate to avoid pregnancy -- ought to be required reading. 

By fighting to make birth control legal and freely available, Sanger started a great work for American women. It was not completed in her lifetime -- safe abortions did not become legal until 1973. Did you know that as late as 1961, it was still illegal to use contraceptives in the state of Connecticut? (It took a Supreme Court ruling to finally legalize it.) Another Supreme Court ruling in 1972 made it legal for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. The laws forbidding it had affected mostly women, who had to obtain prescriptions for the most effective forms of birth control (diaphrams and The Pill.) 

Ladies, can you imagine going to your OB/GYN for contraceptives, and having him inquire as to your marital status, and deny you a prescription if you could not prove you were married? 

Can you imagine a time in which, if you decided you didn't want (more) children, and your husband didn't agree, he could rape and impregnate you, and there would be no consequences to him -- or recourse for you -- under the law?

This was what life was like for our mothers and grandmothers. Because this history isn't taught, I suspect few women today bother to consider it.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Excellent as always, Willow.
Many of today's opinions/thoughts/ideas are created with no idea of the truth of the history or the context that living in different times can bring.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Ladies, can you imagine going to your OB/GYN for contraceptives, and having him inquire as to your marital status, and deny you a prescription if you could not prove you were married?


Hate to break it to you, but it STILL happens, more than you think!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/ns/health-womens_health/

Quote from the article:

"Catholic and conservative Christian health care providers are denying women a range of standard, legal medical care. Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons."

And...

"When Elizabeth Dotts walked into her new doctor's office for a gynecologic exam and checkup, she didn't realize she was treading into the front lines of a culture war. "I was just going for my annual visit, nothing out of the ordinary," says the 26-year-old YWCA grant coordinator. Dotts, who was single, had recently moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and was seeing an M.D. recommended by a coworker. The visit was unremarkable until she asked for a refill of her birth control prescription. That's when the doctor informed her that he was Catholic and the pills were against his religion.

"The look he gave me actually made me feel ashamed," Dotts says. "Like I had this wild and crazy sex life. Like he was trying to protect me from myself." Her bewilderment quickly turned to anger &#8212; "I thought, 'Wait, what in the world? Where am I?' " &#8212; *especially when she remembered that her insurance covered only one annual gynecology checkup*. Dotts, who'd majored in religion in college, got tough with the doctor. 

"I'm glad for you that you're faithful," she told him. "But don't push it on me. I'm here for my treatment, and I expect you to give it to me." Five minutes of verbal sparring later, the doctor relented with a six-month prescription &#8212; but only after Dotts told him she had been put on the Pill to relieve menstrual cramping, not to prevent pregnancy. Dotts grabbed the prescription and left, resolving to find herself a new gynecologist. "Before, walking into a doctor's office, I assumed we were on the same side," she says. "I don't make that assumption now. I ask a million questions and advocate for myself."


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

Yes, thank you Willow, excellent post!


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Thank you for posting this.
> I have always felt in my heart, that PP was TARGETING and slaughtering black children. Their clinics are set up in predominately poor black neighborhoods.
> I also find it funny that the executives of PP are.......white.
> Hmmmm
> ...


PP once had a black president. Don't remember her name off the top of my head right now, however.

And Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm a pharmacist, although I'm not working right now, and this EC/BCP controversy is raging in my profession and has been for quite some time. My last job was in a hospital, and they kept Plan B in the emergency room's dispensing machine and refilled as needed. When we decided to stock it, our director called a meeting and wanted to know if we had any (his words) conscientious objectors, although telling him privately was okay. One person did speak up in the meeting - a woman. Her job duties were such that it was unlikely she would have had to deal with this anyway.

In this meeting, another pharmacist said that he sometimes did relief work in a college town an hour's drive away, and their PP affiliate (which did not do abortions) would write for Plan B with 11 refills. You do not need an RX for it to be dispensed to an adult, but it is necessary for women under 18, and for insurance coverage. He had a really big problem with that, because he was afraid some women were using it as a primary method of birth control, which is NOT its intent.

A poster on a pharmacy board I frequent recently had a woman who wanted to know if she could buy Plan B in bulk and get a discount. :help: No, she couldn't. 

And a poster on yet another board worked at a crisis pregnancy center, and had encountered women who used it so much, their cycles were all messed up and they had no idea if they were pregnant or not. BTW, her clientele was mostly adolescent girls who came there for the free pregnancy tests, HOPING they were positive.  More than once, she had found a pregnancy in a girl who was young enough to warrant a call to CPS, because she was a mandatory reporter.

Some pharmacists who do not believe in BCPs or EC have opened their own contraceptive-free pharmacies. There's a highly publicized case of one that closed almost immediately, but that was their own fault because they opened their store in a wildly inappropriate location. Others are doing well, and have waiting lists of people who want to work there - and most people would be shocked at how many of them are young women.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

thesedays said:


> Some pharmacists who do not believe in BCPs or EC have opened their own contraceptive-free pharmacies. There's a highly publicized case of one that closed almost immediately, but that was their own fault because they opened their store in a wildly inappropriate location. Others are doing well, and have waiting lists of people who want to work there - and most people would be shocked at how many of them are young women.


Ya know, if they advertize widely that they are contraceptive-free and there is another pharmacy within a block or two radius that does carry them, that's one thing. But my insurance only covers 1 visit with a OB/GYN per year, so if I go to one (and its gonna be picked from the list my insurance co gives me) and I pay my copay and have my exam and then the gyn tells me she isn't going to give me the pill because I'm not married, or because its against her religion to prescribe it in the first place...that's when I get cheezed.

*Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs.* But I would think that if you KNOW that your beliefs are going to prevent you from giving medical care in a certain field, CHOOSE A DIFFERENT SPECIALTY! Don't want to deal with BCP / EC because of your personal beliefs? Don't be an OB/GYN! We need more cardiologists, orthopaedics, etc...there are lots of Drs who can help people without that particular ethical dilemma ever being brought up at all.

Seems to me if you're against BCP / EC and you choose to be an OB/GYN, all you're doing is putting a big chip on your shoulder...."oh, I can't sleep at night if I write an Rx for EC, its against my personal morality"?!? Got news for ya - they told you in med school before you chose your specialty that part of the job of an OB/GYN is to...gasp....prescribe these things! That's like taking a job at a BBQ joint in Memphis knowing the menu full well, and then refusing to serve pork to customers because you're Jewish and its against your religion to eat pork....... :bash: Hello, if you knew that your job duties were going to fly in the face of your religion, then don't take the job! 

Seems to me if you are against these things and you still choose to practice in that field, you have two ethical choices: 1) suck it up and provide your patients with medically sound and expected care, since you knew going in what you were choosing to practice, or 2) inform all patients in plain English when they call to make an appointment what you will/will not Rx, and let the patient choose whether to make the appt with you or find a doc who will write the Rx they want.

I work as a counselor and I deal with a lot of situations that are against my personal and religious beliefs. Know what? I knew going into it that this would happen sometimes and I don't let my beliefs dictate my counseling of adolescents. For example, I occasionally get girls from conservative religious households in my office, who are brought to me because they are challenging their father's leadership in the home. They may not like the fact that they are being told that college isn't an option for girls, or they cannot wear the clothing they want to wear because it is too revealing, for example. I personally believe that college is an option for girls, and wearing a loose calf-length skirt in summer isn't "too revealing" by my personal standards. But these are minor children, and their parents own them until they are 18, so I work with them and help them deal with and accept their father's rules BECAUSE ITS MY JOB. I certainly don't like it, but there's nothing illegal about it, so I do it.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

bluemoonluck said:


> their parents own them until they are 18


They do?

There has been speculation regarding whether these contraceptive-free pharmacies would carry Viagra, etc. Most of the people who use it are way beyond reproductive age, and most people would be surprised at how many women use those drugs for their own sexual dysfunction. In addition, Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra are being used for several circulatory diseases. I once made a Viagra suspension for a small child with a feeding tube.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Growing up, I listened to my mom tell me all the things wrong with my dad, as Willow Girl described. Finally one day I asked why she didnât just leave him. Silence.

I realized that for all his problems, she also had hers, as in weakness and fear. She could have made it on her own, but chose not to. Sure it would have been hard, but doable. Easier to be taken care of.

But like Willow Girl, per my momâs training, I resented my dad for years, and blamed him for a lot of things. Eventually I realized that I was responsible for myself, and needed to grow up. Found that therapists across the land get rich by getting people to express anger against their dads. I also realized the older I get the more I become like my dad.

It is bad logic to blame a personâs situation on their circumstances, as another person in the same environment might be completely different. I know women in supposedly oppressive cultures who are domineering. Whatâs the difference? Genetics and personality. Likewise, you can put a meek person in a free environment and they will seek dependence on others.

I have pushed my daughters to get a degree and a career. They are A students in the sciences at college, but have trouble deciding on a major. Recently I overheard them saying they just wanted to find a guy that makes good money so they could stay home and have babies. I had in the past tried to dissuade them from marriage, as most men are abusive jerks. Though interestingly, Iâve recently read that women are as guilty of physical abuse as men, and probably better at verbal abuse.

So while my daughters are at college looking for a guy, there are fewer guys going to college, because they donât need to. Now that the women are freeing themselves from oppression and going out to earn the big bucks, the guys can work for peanuts. And then the women will complain endlessly about his lack of earnings, and probably file for divorce (most divorces initiated by women) and most likely get custody of the kids.

Fortunately, there isnât much need for a man around. There are plenty of govât programs for single moms, so a large rise in illegitimate children.

I guess this is all progress.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

DJ, what was YOUR impression of your father? And what kind of marriage(s) have you had? I've learned that when it comes to unhappy marriages, messy divorces, etc. the kids will tell the truth.

I just posted on another board a few days ago that if a woman is telling her co-workers that she believes her husband has sexually abused the children AND the children vehemently deny this, the marriage is NOT worth saving. I've personally encountered this 3 times; 2 of the marriages did end in divorce but the 3rd ended with her death after 56 years of marriage to a man who was just about the most obviously gay dude I've ever met. Why did she marry him? They grew up in a time and place where if a woman had a boyfriend when she graduated from HS, that man would be her husband even if they didn't want to get married.

Another time, I worked with a woman who said, "My husband has to go to the bank after work. I hope a robber comes in and shoots him, so he will be dead."  If a man said that about his wife, he'd probably get the cops called on him.

When I was in college, I worked with several guys who said they planned to go into their marriages with the intention of treating their wives poorly after the kids arrived, so he would be a divorced dad (i.e. all the fun and none of the responsibility). One of them had to go to a homeless shelter after his dad left, and I asked him why he would want to do that to his own children. He replied, "Dad got a 17-year-old girlfriend out of the deal." Oooooooo-kay.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

thesedays said:


> They do?


Yes, parents "own" their children until they are 18. Think about it......

Minor children cannot sign any legal documents or enter into any legally binding agreements. In many states they cannot get married without parental permission. They must go to school where their parents send them, even if it is a military boarding school and the child is being sent against their will. Parents can involuntarily commit their minor children to inpatient psychiatric facilities, without a court order (you need a court order to admit someone over the age of 18 to inpatient against their will). 

In the counseling setting, minor children have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality - if a parent demands to know what their minor child has been saying in sessions, by law counselors must divulge this information. Same rule applies to doctors (ie no confidentiality applies to what your kid tells his/her pedatrician or any other medical professional - the parent "owns" the minor child's confidentiality). Once the minor child turns 18, parents are shut out and are no longer entitled to this information.

Parents are permitted to make all the critical decisions in their minor children's lives, including where they live, what they wear, which school they go to, what they eat, what medical care they receive, etc. Parents are also responsible for providing food and shelter to their minor children and can be prosecuted for not doing this, but once they are 18 those obligations end and the newly minted adult is on their own.

Because of this I've always said that dogs and kids are both property because we (as adults) make the same decisions and have the same legal responsibilities for both of them.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Most doctors and other practitioners respect a teen's confidentiality unless the teen has mentioned something that puts him or her in danger. And while it's true that underage people can't sign contracts, etc. they are still not anyone's property. Senior citizens and other disabled adults who have a power of attorney certainly aren't "owned" by anyone.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

thesedays said:


> Most doctors and other practitioners respect a teen's confidentiality unless the teen has mentioned something that puts him or her in danger. And while it's true that underage people can't sign contracts, etc. they are still not anyone's property. Senior citizens and other disabled adults who have a power of attorney certainly aren't "owned" by anyone.


As a counselor I don't go blabbing to a parent or other adult what the kid says.....I'm not obligated to volunteer info unless certain guidelines are met (ie suspected abuse = a call to CPS, potential for harm = discussion with parents and a signed "no harm" contract with all parties, etc). 

But the parent of a minor child has the legal right to request the information, and the counselor/doctor/whoever MUST by LAW disclose the requested information to the parent immediately upon their request.

However once the minor turns 18, counselors and doctors both CANNOT by LAW disclose any information to the parents without express written consent by the patient. Big difference.

I don't work with seniors/disabled adults....I work with adolescents only. Of course some of them turn 18 while I'm working with them and so the rules change, so I'm familiar with the difference. But I'm not qualified to speculate on the legality of seniors and disabled adults, so I won't.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> Because of this I've always said that dogs and kids are both property because we (as adults) make the same decisions and have the same legal responsibilities for both of them.


I have noticed that most dogs are better behaved than most kids though..... have to wonder why that is? :shrug:


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have noticed that most dogs are better behaved than most kids though..... have to wonder why that is? :shrug:


Talk to dog trainers...they'll tell you that 9 times out of 10 its not the dog that is the problem, its the owner.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But like Willow Girl, per my momâs training, I resented my dad for years, and blamed him for a lot of things.


Actually, my mother always made excuses for my dad's behavior, and tried to minimize the insanity. Not that anything was discussed with me, ever -- they'd have a major blow-up over the dinner table, hurl plates at each other for an hour, and the next day things would be back to "normal." I was never given an explanation. To this day, I have no idea what they were fighting about! 

I never blamed either of them, really. "Blame" was not a concept that occurred to me! And I always identified with my father, because inevitably he was the winner. Who wants to side with the loser? When I was growing up, I treated my mother the same way my father did, with an utter lack of respect. I said terribly hurtful things to her, which I regret now, but at the time I didn't know any better. All I knew was that I didn't want to be a victim, but the only other example available to me was that of a bully. In time, I found a third path, which was to avoid people as much as possible, something I still do to this day. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> To this day, I have no idea what they were fighting about!


I have no idea what your parents fought about, but I know what my folks threw plates about.... it was usually because moms "to do list" wasnt getting done! Later in life I learned why... coz everytime dad finished one thing, she would add a couple more! LOL


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, my mother always made excuses for my dad's behavior, and tried to minimize the insanity. Not that anything was discussed with me, ever -- they'd have a major blow-up over the dinner table, hurl plates at each other for an hour, and the next day things would be back to "normal." I was never given an explanation. To this day, I have no idea what they were fighting about!
> 
> I never blamed either of them, really. "Blame" was not a concept that occurred to me! And I always identified with my father, because inevitably he was the winner. Who wants to side with the loser? When I was growing up, I treated my mother the same way my father did, with an utter lack of respect. I said terribly hurtful things to her, which I regret now, but at the time I didn't know any better. *All I knew was that I didn't want to be a victim, but the only other example available to me was that of a bully. In time, I found a third path, which was to avoid people as much as possible, something I still do to this day.* :shrug:



Totally, understand.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Poppycock.


I figured I should rephrase this before I was seen as a sexist. I myself am in full support of womens rights... Not real sure what the article was talking about, though.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

What has feminism accomplished?

Right to vote, to own property in our own name, to keep custody of our children if father divorced or otherwise gone, to get a divorce, to get contraception if desired, to get an abortion if desired, improved laws and justice for rape victims, to get near equal pay for same or similar work, to attend college and professional (and trade) schools without discrimination against me based on gender, all in all to prosper and flourish and be able to care for my family without being subject to the support/whim/indulgence of my father/brother/ husband/ boss/ son.

What yet does it have to accomplish? Not sure. A lot of glass ceilings now seem to be family care based- so if that goes under feminism's umbrella, getting mothers equal opportunities as fathers (and vice versa) for career/ job success while still raising their children well and safely, without the economic penalty fathers are spared (guess parents pay a price- though remember children are a social good, and having them raised well improves the country). I sure run into lots of sexism but luckily none of it is legal or mandated- so when a salesman or contractor tells me my DH has to do something I can push my point and get my task done instead of having to wait for him to return from Iraq or his daytime job across town. And when someone tells me 'Oh you shouldn't do that, it's a man's job" I only get the social prejudice not any legal punishment. Yeah, so I guess what feminism has to do yet is get people's mindset to true equality so what I do is my business and I don't have to keep telling folks I deal with "no, you need to talk to me, not DH. No, I will supervise the roofer rather than you, the blind deaf man who did not have them do the job properly last time, since I want it done right, not just by a man. No, this POA means I can buy the house in both our names without my DH here- check the legalese, thanks."

I also (moved to the deep South) wish my daughters did not have the pressure I feel to wear makeup. But guess I had pressures in HS- to shave my legs or have beautiful hair or stay slender if not to wear make up. And I certainly want my daughters not to have the pressure to not display their intelligence versus boys- but think that is better for them than it was for me. Less prejudice against smart women than just against smart children.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> Sorry, but this is a subject I'm passionate about.
> 
> Right now, we are seeing the conservative moment attempt to roll back most of the improvements of the last century. Leading the charge are people who don't know history and thus, it seems, will be condemned to repeat it.
> 
> ...


It's been my experience, that folks with subservient genes somehow magically end up with someone with dominating genes...

I'm sorry your mother had to go through life that way. However, I'm guessing that she willingly married your father, and wasn't a 'bought' bride, or a 'child bride' (aka, arranged marriage). I understand a lot of cultures do work this way.

I know women in the exact same boat as your mother... even after Le Liberacion... I don't know if it's 'nature' or what, but these women somehow reached out and found males that wanted to dominate everything around them.

My parents were both liberated... they shared the cooking and cleaning chores... if one disagreed with the other, they'd agree to disagree, and move on.

Slaves always seek Masters, and Vice Versa. 

We have an entire political party based upon this....... Large segments of the Democrat Party base are in bondage to their Keepers... disobey the master, and the sugar teat will be cut off...

edited to add...
One of my worst personal examples is a domineering uncle passed away, and the subservient aunt transferred her 'slavery' to her youngest grandson... who jumped into the role with relish, getting my aunt to buy a new racing atv (that he promptly destroyed, and 'granny's still paying on it), a brand new truck (full off road package, that he promptly cratered, by driving across the river, and then like a doofus thought he'd get the Ford house to fix, under warranty... apparently, driving trucks under water isn't covered by warranties??? !!!). Granny's still paying on this 'boat anchor' of a cratered truck. Meanwhile, grandson's never had more than a few months of 'real work' since graduating 8 years ago... seemed the granny sugah momma was too good for him... in his spare time, he'd do meth, like a good sack of 'poo' should. Got a scholarship for a few years with the state, for dealin... got out on probation, and got promptly got caught "spreading religion" at 3:30 am at a meth manufacturing den, where the owner buckshot his GF when she came back from the kitchen... "Law dogs" didn't swallow his preaching to the sinners 'bit', and revoke his probation. He had to attend his mothers funeral, with a sheriffs deputy standing over him..... and couldn't see her remains cast on the river (deputy said a graveyard would be fine, but not driving down in the 'river bottoms' too much risk of 'escape'.

Granny's still visiting him every day, bringing him whatever the jailor will permit...

Pitiful.................


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?
> 
> I will admit that feminism hasn't been a real boon for women who had hoped to be able to trade sex for financial security. Beyond that small subset, however, it's been a godsend.
> 
> ...


While I won't go into details, I know at least three guys who have gone without for several YEARS. I won't say they're 'happy' but they're still devoted husbands.


----------



## doohap (Feb 23, 2003)

texican said:


> It's been my experience, that folks with subservient genes somehow magically end up with someone with dominating genes...
> 
> I'm sorry your mother had to go through life that way. However, I'm guessing that she willingly married your father, and wasn't a 'bought' bride, or a 'child bride' (aka, arranged marriage). I understand a lot of cultures do work this way.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly, texican.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> _but cut off the sex, hon, and see how long he sticks around and keeps paying your bills._


You know, I've lost count of how many times I've given divine thanks for the fact that my life has not been populated with the role models that yours apparently was, WG.

It would appear that you believe that 1) men leave unless they have either access to your body or access to your bank account, and 2) women who choose to care for their families rather than pursue a career are either weak and being taken advantage of by men, or too stupid to do anything else.

It makes me sad.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> Because it just works better to keep half the population dependent upon and subservient to the other half! Right?


I take it this is bad? Right?

Sort of like half the population that's on the govt. dole being dependent upon the other half (actually, less than half pay all the bills). IF, I say again, IF ONLY, the welfare slaves were subservient, even a tad bit, to the folks that actually pay all their bills... things would be nicer.

I wonder if feminism could exist, without the government there to support it? Didn't feminism, as we know it, come about in the sixties, when everyone was getting 'liberated'. Suddenly, the long held norms no longer mattered, if it felt good, do it.... don't worry if you make mistakes, Uncle Sam was going to be there to take the place of men... all you had to do is vote straight Democrat ticket. Men, to a great extent, loved it... they could get the milk without buying the cow, and if children were begat, Fat Daddy Sam would be there to take care of them... raising multigenerational monsters, that now have become an institutional force, that can force their demands of continued welfare payments, otherwise they'll burn everything down.

okay, rant over...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'm sorry your mother had to go through life that way. However, I'm guessing that she willingly married your father, and wasn't a 'bought' bride, or a 'child bride' (aka, arranged marriage). I understand a lot of cultures do work this way.


She was 17 when she married in 1952. Seems things were very different for women then ... 



> While I won't go into details, I know at least three guys who have gone without for several YEARS. I won't say they're 'happy' but they're still devoted husbands.


I have known a few of these long-suffering dudes and listened to their tales of woe about how their wives don't understand them.  While they don't have the gumption to leave, some DO manage to work up the courage to suggest a fling with a free-living, free-loving woman such as myself. (Ugh.) My stepsister's husband was like this ... a fine Christian family man, etc., etc. ... he still emails occasionally to see if I'm back on the market and if he's got a shot. :umno: 



> You know, I've lost count of how many times I've given divine thanks for the fact that my life has not been populated with the role models that yours apparently was, WG.


You know, life is what you make it ... I've always said you can learn from a bad example as easily as from a good one. :shrug:

It's true I didn't grow up with a lot of pleasant illusions about human nature, but it's also kept me from making some colossal mistakes, I think. For instance, my first husband's (very traditional) older sisters insisted he would buckle down, quit drinking and stop slapping me around if only I would give up my job and pop out a couple of kids. I shudder to think how THAT would have turned out ... ! 



> It would appear that you believe that 1) men leave unless they have either access to your body or access to your bank account,


I take a pragmatic view of relationships. Yes, it is nice to think those "better or worse" vows ought to hold up, but (given the divorce rate in this country) it's not something I'd bet the farm on. People generally stay in a relationship when it meets their needs. (That applies to women as well as men.) If you are not meeting your partner's needs, it probably should not come as a great surprise if they bail. That's not nice, but it's reality.

Of course, some also stick around because a divorce would be really costly. Those aforementioned long-suffering guys often fall into this category. They don't want to give up their nice house, shiny SUV and new ATV, and pay child support for X years, so they stick with the wife-who-won't-give-them-any, while trying to get a little on the side. I've also known a few women who stayed with men they no longer loved because leaving would mean getting a job and/or enduring a lower standard of living. To me, that seems a miserable way to live, but ... we all pays our money and takes our chances. :shrug:



> and 2) women who choose to care for their families rather than pursue a career are either weak and being taken advantage of by men, or too stupid to do anything else.


Nope; I think it's a GREAT thing when a woman arranges her life in such a way that she can be with her kids! A much better arrangement than putting them into daycare, IMO. 

I do think if a woman's smart, she'll wait to start her family until she's acquired some marketable skills and demonstrated the ability to support herself independently. And it's a good idea to keep those skills current -- perhaps by working part-time -- so she'll have a safety net if her partner proves unreliable. (Remember the divorce rate.) 

At least a couple times a year, a woman shows up on this forum with a tale of woe of how her husband's left her high and dry, with no option but to go on welfare, etc. Seems many ladies here have been in that position, and most pulled it together, went back to school, got an education and developed the ability to support their families ... but how much nicer and easier would it have been if they had put those means in place beforehand? Just makes sense. :shrug:


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I have known a few of these long-suffering dudes and listened to their tales of woe about how their wives don't understand them.  While they don't have the gumption to leave, some DO manage to work up the courage to suggest a fling with a free-living, free-loving woman such as myself. (Ugh.) My stepsister's husband was like this ... a fine Christian family man, etc., etc. ... he still emails occasionally to see if I'm back on the market and if he's got a shot. :umno:


One of those men was my father. He chose to remain faithful when his wife left him for a year and did pretty much nothing but drink, trash his name, etc., all around town. He continued to pay her bills, send her roses, take care of her as best he could.

I DON'T think the problem was that she didn't understand him.

And no, my father has NEVER had 'a fling.' Never wanted to; he just wanted his wife back; and thankfully, she did come back home.

I think I'll refrain from this thread in general.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Kung, your dad sounds like a nice guy with lousy taste in women! 

Mind you, I'm not saying men always are "the bad guy" in the equation. In fact, I think men probably are more likely to try to make the best of things (perhaps because they're financially penalized for doing otherwise) while women are more likely to walk out (again, economics may come into play).

Anyway ... I'm merely suggesting that women be smart and make sure they're able to provide for themselves and their children if need be. Nobody ever thinks divorce/abandonment will happen to THEM ... but look at the statistics. Be wise!

Amazing that should even be controversial ... :shrug:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> I wonder if feminism could exist, without the government there to support it?


Maybe. But we would have to remind the men that they were not God with a beer. A lot of men seem to think women should just shut up and bake them stuff. It seems to be an ego thing.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I wonder if feminism could exist, without the government there to support it?


I don't think it's the feminists who are likely to need government support if their partner walks out. Feminists usually have jobs, remember?

More likely it's the women who have been raised to be "keepers of the home," and/or got knocked up and/or married at 18 (or younger) and never got an education or developed skills to support themselves because they figured some man would do it.

But yeah, I could see where feminism wouldn't be a real boon to a fellow who thinks that if he provides for a woman, she ought to be subservient to him. I imagine you can still buy that kind of relationship, but it probably costs a pretty penny today, because women have so many more options in life besides just crawling on their bellies!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe. But we would have to remind the men that they were not God with a beer. A lot of men seem to think women should just shut up and bake them stuff. It seems to be an ego thing.


While I am sure there are those men, I do nearly all of the baking that gets done around our house, and the majority of the rest of the cooking as well. oh, and I dont really care all that much for beer either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> \
> More likely it's the women who have been raised to be "keepers of the home," and/or got knocked up and/or married at 18 (or younger) and never got an education or developed skills to support themselves because they figured some man would do it.


There is a reason why women are known as housekeepers... they do tend to keep the house when they divorce their husbands. There are also quite a few who develop the required skills to make sure some man (or men) provide a good living for them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> There are also quite a few who develop the required skills to make sure some man (or men) provide a good living for them.


I could be a stay-at-home wife if I wanted, but I'm afraid it would wreck my marriage!

I think being dependent corrupts relationships, too. Most likely the person bringing home the bacon is going to feel entitled to call the shots. If the two agree on most things, it may not be a huge problem ... but if they don't ... look out!!!

And I can't imagine having to suck up to my husband to get something I wanted ... or (another time-honored female tactic) "hold out" until he gave in to my wishes. Ugh! 

Not interested in playing those games ... so I go to work, earn my own money and spend it as I please. Much more honest that way ...


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

I am with ya WG. I teach my daughters to rely on themselves. feminism is a very good thing. 

I wait on my husband hand and foot. i love him, and thats how i show my love. though i also have my own money . he knows I am independent and I have my own home..my own car. 

I am secure in knowing that I can be my own person yet share my life with someone i love deeply.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

lilmizlayla said:


> I wait on my husband hand and foot. i love him, and thats how i show my love. though i also have my own money . he knows I am independent and *I have my own home*..my own car.
> 
> I am secure in knowing that I can be my own person yet share my life with someone i love deeply.


Er...you have your own house separate from your husband?


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

Maybe she just needs a place to get away from it all. ^_^


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I agree, if a woman wants to go to college, let her. But she should have to pay as much as the man does. No 'freebies' because she's a woman. Equal education, equal pay.


What college do you know of that bases their tuition on gender? I somehow missed them when my daughters and I looked at schools.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Er...you have your own house separate from your husband?


I do, too!


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> Anyway ... I'm merely suggesting that women be smart and make sure they're able to provide for themselves and their children if need be. Nobody ever thinks divorce/abandonment will happen to THEM ... but look at the statistics. Be wise!
> 
> Amazing that should even be controversial ... :shrug:


Couldn't agree more...

Imho, females shouldn't get married till they at least have a MS under their belt... my sisters o so wish they'd actually finished school, before starting their 'careers'... both of them wish they'd'a finished with a minimum of a BA or BS before getting tied up... they'd be getting paid twice to three times what they're paid now (for doing the same job).


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> What college do you know of that bases their tuition on gender? I somehow missed them when my daughters and I looked at schools.


BA! I should have added more info. My bad.

Single moms go to school, all but free.
So if you are 19, and have a kid (not married / receive little or no CS) your education is all but covered by grants, and other 'freebies'.
If you are a 19 year old male, single parent or not.....not so much.

My gf's daughter went to school all but free, because my gf and the child's father are divorced and he doesn't pay support. My gf is married, and has been for 8 years.....
But her daughter still got grants out the wazoo.
BUT BUT BUT
Her son?
Nope. Not a dime.
Not one red cent. Loans out the back side.

I hope that explains better what I am talking about.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> BA! I should have added more info. My bad.
> 
> Single moms go to school, all but free.
> So if you are 19, and have a kid (not married / receive little or no CS) your education is all but covered by grants, and other 'freebies'.
> ...


That's all very general. Do you know the names of any programs that will hand out grants to single parents, but only if they're female? As for your friend, there has to be more to that story. FAFSA looks at the income of both parents and any stepparents. I'm a widow and they follow up every year to ask if there is any income from a stepfather. I can guarantee that any financial aid we receive is just like everyone else is getting once you consider the fact that there is no income from a father or stepfather.

There is more aid because there is less income, not because there is no second parent.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> That's all very general. Do you know the names of any programs that will hand out grants to single parents, but only if they're female? As for your friend, there has to be more to that story. FAFSA looks at the income of both parents and any stepparents. I'm a widow and they follow up every year to ask if there is any income from a stepfather. I can guarantee that any financial aid we receive is just like everyone else is getting once you consider the fact that there is no income from a father or stepfather.
> 
> There is more aid because there is less income, not because there is no second parent.


I am just telling you what I saw with my own two eyes!
She was told, by her adviser, to come in on *this date* and fill out *this form* and then she could get her books at the bookstore, and not worry about tuition. They billed her mom was was left over after this grant paid for books and tuition, and it was 20.00 here 30.00 there......that's it!!
It was a community college in our state.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

I believe that. I just don't believe it was because she is a woman.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> I believe that. I just don't believe it was because she is a woman.


Her son (2 years older) was not eligible for the grants or other free money. NOTHING changed when her daughter went to school, other than SHE is a girl....
Maybe laws changed in the those 2 years? I don't know?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

My son started college in 2004, my daughter in 2008, and the basic amount of aid was the same for both. FAFSA is based ONLY on income. If your friend's daughter received money from a private source, that's a different story. People can give money to whoever they like. I don't doubt there are scholarships just for women, just as there are scholarships based on things like having the same first name as the donor. A senior at our school received one for being an outstanding welder....I don't know of any complaints from non-welders.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JanS said:


> My son started college in 2004, my daughter in 2008, and the basic amount of aid was the same for both. FAFSA is based ONLY on income. If your friend's daughter received money from a private source, that's a different story. People can give money to whoever they like. I don't doubt there are scholarships just for women, just as there are scholarships based on things like having the same first name as the donor. A senior at our school received one for being an outstanding welder....I don't know of any complaints from non-welders.


Jan, I am just sharing what happened to my gf, in real life to her real live male and female children.
It was grants. Not private donations.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Grants can be privately funded. http://ezinearticles.com/?Finding-Privately-Funded-Grant-Opportunities&id=2979767


----------



## gracie88 (May 29, 2007)

> I think being dependent corrupts relationships, too. Most likely the person bringing home the bacon is going to feel entitled to call the shots. If the two agree on most things, it may not be a huge problem ... but if they don't ... look out!!!
> 
> And I can't imagine having to suck up to my husband to get something I wanted ... or (another time-honored female tactic) "hold out" until he gave in to my wishes. Ugh!


Dude, yes, everyone should be educated and competent. No, no relationship should include groveling. However, one spouse staying home does not make them subservient. My husband works at an office. I work at home. We have children, gardens, livestock. Common sense dictates that keeping those things alive and healthy is a full time job for one of us. Conveniently, I am better at those things and DH brings in a bigger paycheck. I balance the books, he checks with me before he makes a big purchase, I float my project ideas past him before committing us both. We are confident in each other's competence and good sense. We are a team. I don't beg him for money, I don't "hold out" (talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face). Any worthwhile husband is not going to want that kind of woman any more than any self-respecting wife wants to be that kind of woman. I'm glad that what you have works for you, but don't make the mistake of assuming that it's best for everyone.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

As long as your husband sticks around and keeps paying the bills, you're all set. I hope it works out for you. I mean that sincerely.

But at least a couple times a year, a woman who posts here turns up (usually on the Families board) in distress because her marriage is failing and she doesn't have what it takes to support herself in the style to which she has become accustomed. Most say, "I never dreamed this could happen to me ... "


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

I've been home since 1990 (which is not to say I've never earned any money....) and prefer that. But yes my daughters are going to have skills or education. I think it will be great if my grandchildren have a stay-at-home parent. But spouses die, marriages fall apart, and both partners should know how to run a household AND support it in case the worst happens.


----------



## gracie88 (May 29, 2007)

> As long as your husband sticks around and keeps paying the bills, you're all set. I hope it works out for you. I mean that sincerely.


 It's gone on for 13 years and we're still best friends, I think we'll be ok. If he dies or something, I am capable of working, I'm not stupid or helpless just because I don't currently have a paying job. I had one before we had kids and do, in fact, "have what it takes", although the "style to which I'm accustomed" is pretty frugal. Come on, admit it, this works for some of us, and we do it on purpose because it works, not because we are helpless or needy. It's fun to have an open mind, you should try it


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'm always happy to hear it works for others, but I've seen too many women get burned ... I've never been tempted to try it myself!


----------



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

Well..........Everyone's situation is a "Law Unto Itself". I try not to be Judgemental about a lot of Schtuff, in other folks lives. What works for them "Might Not Work for me".
F.I......I'm a bit older than my DSW. I worked at manufacturing for 43 years. So I have a pretty good Retirement. But not quite enough to pay for the lifestyle we enjoy. Happily Retired the last 8 years. I miss working, sometimes.
(I was a single custodial parent for 15+ years.The Kids are long ago grown up.)

So DSW works every day. She has a pretty good job without a great deal of stress.
And since I am Home all day, and since I am use to staying very "Busy, being productive", I do the Laundry each week, and put it away, all of it. I also take care of most of the grocery shopping. I do all the mowing (5+ acres) & yard work as well as the gardening. I love to cook. So, I take care of the cooking, much of it from scratch. And my DSW loves my cooking, a good variety, because I get bored eatng the same things over & over.I clean up the breakfast & my lunch dishes. I also take care of the dogs &cats.
And, I have a lot of hobbies, besides playing on the internet. Homebrewing, playing guitar, feeding the wild birds each day, seed eaters in Winter & hummingbirds in Summer.
At the peak of the season I feed 5+#'s to 10# of sugar a week to the Hummers. Oh and I feed the deer in deep Winter.
DSW helps with house cleaning and cleans up the supper dishes.
We are a very good team. We've been together for 15 +years and married 8 years.
We're both happy as clams.......Nobody is just "sticking around. We talk a lot and work on being good to each other, making our marriage better & better.
We are both pretty content, but not complacent.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

gracie88 said:


> It's gone on for 13 years and we're still best friends, I think we'll be ok. If he dies or something, I am capable of working, I'm not stupid or helpless just because I don't currently have a paying job. I had one before we had kids and do, in fact, "have what it takes", although the "style to which I'm accustomed" is pretty frugal. Come on, admit it, this works for some of us, and we do it on purpose because it works, not because we are helpless or needy. It's fun to have an open mind, you should try it


Sounds like you're okay then. Some ladies don't have your foresight though to not rely solely on their DH's ability and willingness to work and bring home money.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> BA! I should have added more info. My bad.
> 
> Single moms go to school, all but free.
> So if you are 19, and have a kid (not married / receive little or no CS) your education is all but covered by grants, and other 'freebies'.
> ...


back in the day I was a single mom- with a newborn- no Child Support- and No freebies for college- and I have the student loans to prove it!
Now- the government wanted me to take their 200-300 dollars in food stamps though- but no- we can not help you with schooling- not even in return for not accepting the food stamps


----------



## nebula5 (Feb 4, 2003)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Her son (2 years older) was not eligible for the grants or other free money. NOTHING changed when her daughter went to school, other than SHE is a girl....
> Maybe laws changed in the those 2 years? I don't know?


Because the girl is a parent, she is considered an independent student and her parent's income is not included for the FAFSA calculations. Unless the boy is married or a parent, he would be a dependent student- and his parent's income would be counted until age 24.

http://blog.studentloannetwork.com/fafsa/dependent-vs-independent-status/


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Because the girl is a parent, she is considered an independent student and her parent's income is not included for the FAFSA calculations. Unless the boy is married or a parent, he would be a dependent student- and his parent's income would be counted until age 24.


That makes sense. I remember filling out applications for financial aid right out of high school. I was living on my own and wasn't even on speaking terms with my parents ... they sure as heck weren't about to disclose any financial information! So I was turned down for assistance. 

I remember the guidance counselor telling me that the only way around not having proof of my parents' income was if I were married. (She didn't mention the motherhood option.) Naturally, I was furious!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

nebula5 said:


> Because the girl is a parent, she is considered an independent student and her parent's income is not included for the FAFSA calculations. Unless the boy is married or a parent, he would be a dependent student- and his parent's income would be counted until age 24.
> 
> http://blog.studentloannetwork.com/fafsa/dependent-vs-independent-status/



Sorry, I was not clear.

My gf, Sally, has a daughter Jane and a son Fred.
My gf and Jane and Fred's dad, are divorced.
My gf, remarried, Jim.

Fred was an 18 year old male single, no children, of a divorce, and remarried mom.
Jane was an 18 year old female single, no children of a divorced and remarried mom.
My gf does not work
My gf's new husband Jim, works. Same job, same pay when both kids applied and went to school. Same income reported on the FASFA for both kids.

Fred, got nothing.
Jane, got all but a free ride.

Hope that clears things up.:grin:


----------



## nebula5 (Feb 4, 2003)

Thank you Laura, much clearer.


----------

