Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

The Lure of Opulent Desolation

just_me

Practically Family
Messages
723
Location
Florida
Foofoogal said:
Foofoogal - What disaster? And how has it affected the nation negatively?
If you cannot figure this one out I have no way of explaining it to you.
I mean now men make women work even when they do not want to.
For the sake of calmness on the FL I will not go further. :eusa_doh:
Excuse me, but "If you cannot figure this one out I have no way of explaining it to you." is pretty condescending. I don't agree that that there is a disaster or that the nation was affected negatively. I was interested in why you think this has occurred.

You seem fixated on this "men make women work even if they don't want to" business. That may be true in some cases, but women have been making men work when they didn't want to forever. Is that all you think the women's movement has done for women???

That women can now go to college on sports scholorships, get different and higher paying jobs, move up in the world, share more equally with their husbands in child/house care and decisions (which many men appreciate), not be treated as property, work if they want to, and many other things is what the women's movement did and I find in no way negative or a disaster.
 

PrettySquareGal

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,003
Location
New England
just_me said:
Excuse me, but "If you cannot figure this one out I have no way of explaining it to you." is pretty condescending. I don't agree that that there is a disaster or that the nation was affected negatively. I was interested in why you think this has occurred.

You seem fixated on this "men make women work even if they don't want to" business. That may be true in some cases, but women have been making men work when they didn't want to forever. Is that all you think the women's movement has done for women???

That women can now go to college on sports scholorships, get different and higher paying jobs, move up in the world, share more equally with their husbands in child/house care and decisions (which many men appreciate), not be treated as property, work if they want to, and many other things is what the women's movement did and I find in no way negative or a disaster.

I think most of us are commenting on th second wave of feminism, which began in the 1960's, and not the Suffragette movement, which brought women the right to vote. What significant changes in law did the second wave bring that benefit women? You do know that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was never passed? As far as sharing equally with husbands and choosing to work, that went on prior to the feminist movement- there were no actual barriers other than social pressures and norms. Not everyone followed the crowd, whether based upon strength of character or the financial reasons Lizzie mentioned. (And Lizzie, as one who grew up in a single parent working class home, I agree 100%).

I personally believe the second wave encouraged women to think more critically to make more informed personal choices which is important, but I don't attribute much else to it in bringing women into a better place.
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,768
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
PrettySquareGal said:
As far as sharing equally with husbands and choosing to work, that went on prior to the feminist movement- there were no actual barriers other than social pressures and norms. Not everyone followed the crowd, whether based upon strength of character or the financial reasons Lizzie mentioned. (And Lizzie, as one who grew up in a single parent working class home, I agree 100%).

I personally believe the second wave encouraged women to think more critically to make more informed personal choices which is important, but I don't attribute much else to it in bringing women into a better place.

Exactly. Modern thinkers, in their emphasis on middle-class issues, tend to forget that it was the social norm for working-class women to work outside the home, long before the second wave was ever heard of. Women worked hard, long hours in factories long before they had the right to vote, and continued to do so long before the Rosie-the-Riveter days of World War 2. Around here, women always made up the bulk of the workforce in the fish canneries -- you'll still see plenty of elderly ladies with scars all over their hands from cutting sardines.

My own grandparents were a good example of a pre-feminist-era couple who shared the load equally: my grandfather did the dirty-hands work at the family business, and my grandmother did all the bookkeeping and executive work. They weren't enlightened modern-thinking people in any way, but they understood the practical value of working as a team, and never had any sense that "a woman doesn't have any head for business." There was, even then, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
 

just_me

Practically Family
Messages
723
Location
Florida
PrettySquareGal, why would you think I was referring to the suffragette movement? I, too, was referring to the "second wave," which focused on cultural and political inequalities and issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, and equal educational opportunities to name a few.

Oh, and I still don't understand why foofoogal thinks it was a disaster.

One place it helped women was:

TITLE IX

Title IX is not just about athletics and college sport, it's about sexual discrimination in all aspects of federally funded educational programs. This article will concentrate on the impact it has on college sports programs.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1681 (20 United States Code section 1681) et seq. (Title IX), is a Federal statute that was enacted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs that benefit from federal government financial assistance. Virtually all educational institutions receive Federal funds of some sort and, because of this, are required to comply with Title IX. The regulation implementing the Title IX statute is at 34 C.F.R. (34 Code of Federal Regulations) Part 106.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
Title Ix affects college athletics in three ways:

Athletic Scholarships: Women athletes have to get athletic scholarship dollars that are proportional to their sports participation. This basically means that if there is an equal number of female and male athletes then the scholarship budget allocation must be split equally.
 

PrettySquareGal

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,003
Location
New England
just_me said:
PrettySquareGal, why would you think I was referring to the suffragette movement? I, too, was referring to the "second wave," which focused on cultural and political inequalities and issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, sexual harassment, and equal educational opportunities to name a few.

[/I]

I didn't think you were referring to the Suffragette movement which is why I was pointing out that no major laws have been changed as a result of feminism.
 

Foofoogal

Banned
Messages
4,884
Location
Vintage Land
Excuse me, but "If you cannot figure this one out I have no way of explaining it to you." is pretty condescending.

I did not mean it to be in any way. I am stating I have no way of explaining my thinking to you. You are either on the side of it or not. I am not and I think you are by your statements.
Like Lizzie stated women have always worked. (in and out of the home)
I am sure many woman were alone during the civil war even.
I guess if sports is the end all to you then you see the benefit. I do not and state once again I see it all as a disaster.
This hits me close to home in many, many ways and I could argue till the cows come home but don't want to. Period.
I see women much, much lacking security from it all and men and children especially. I actually laid in bed last night thinking of it all and nearly got sick. I think it though is like I have said before here too far gone.
All things are possible so maybe not. I hope.
I understand men I truly believe and it makes me very mad and sad to see what their role was and is and how womans lib has so undermined that.
I do not understand women so well and will just say shooting themselves and their daughters and their grandaughters in both feet is all I can come up with without too much angst and thought on it all as like I said it makes me ill to do so. Done.
 

just_me

Practically Family
Messages
723
Location
Florida
PrettySquareGal said:
I didn't think you were referring to the Suffragette movement which is why I was pointing out that no major laws have been changed as a result of feminism.
Sorry that I misunderstood you.

I still stand by my opinion that the women's movement helped women and was not a disaster, as claimed by foofoogal.
:D
 

PrettySquareGal

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,003
Location
New England
just_me said:
Sorry that I misunderstood you.

I still stand by my opinion that the women's movement helped women and was not a disaster, as claimed by foofoogal.
:D

I understand! :) I personally don't think it's either extreme- that it saved women from societal ills or that it ruined them.
 

miss_elise

Practically Family
Messages
768
Location
Melbourne, Australia
to be honest, I'm grumpy with the feminist movement for making it less okay for women to stay home with their children, or even stay home and tend to their houses, as if somehow they are not accualising their full potential.

I always thought feminism was about choice, yet some choices appear to be more valid than others.
 

PrettySquareGal

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,003
Location
New England
miss_elise said:
to be honest, I'm grumpy with the feminist movement for making it less okay for women to stay home with their children, or even stay home and tend to their houses, as if somehow they are not accualising their full potential.

I always thought feminism was about choice, yet some choices appear to be more valid than others.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent- Eleanor Roosevelt. ;)

I used to worry about "what will the feminists think" until I realized that it's all about being the woman you want to be. I'm not kidding when I say I once lost a friendship over the fact that I started wearing lipstick! She said I was a sellout. lol
 

carter

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,921
Location
Corsicana, TX
miss_elise said:
to be honest, I'm grumpy with the feminist movement for making it less okay for women to stay home with their children, or even stay home and tend to their houses, as if somehow they are not accualising their full potential.

I always thought feminism was about choice, yet some choices appear to be more valid than others.

This is an interesting comment. My question is, where does validation come from if not from ourselves, our families and those who are closest to us? Why should a woman (or a man) who is leading a full and self-fulfilling life in the home be made to feel as if her choices are less valid than others?
 

Widebrim

I'll Lock Up
miss_elise said:
to be honest, I'm grumpy with the feminist movement for making it less okay for women to stay home with their children, or even stay home and tend to their houses, as if somehow they are not accualising their full potential.

I always thought feminism was about choice, yet some choices appear to be more valid than others.


Very true. In many ways, stay-at-home wives/mothers are looked down upon by society. We need to realize that the backbone of civilization is the family unit (not to discount the role of religion), not economics, education, government, or the military.
 

reetpleat

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,681
Location
Seattle
LizzieMaine said:
Exactly. Modern thinkers, in their emphasis on middle-class issues, tend to forget that it was the social norm for working-class women to work outside the home, long before the second wave was ever heard of. Women worked hard, long hours in factories long before they had the right to vote, and continued to do so long before the Rosie-the-Riveter days of World War 2. Around here, women always made up the bulk of the workforce in the fish canneries -- you'll still see plenty of elderly ladies with scars all over their hands from cutting sardines.

My own grandparents were a good example of a pre-feminist-era couple who shared the load equally: my grandfather did the dirty-hands work at the family business, and my grandmother did all the bookkeeping and executive work. They weren't enlightened modern-thinking people in any way, but they understood the practical value of working as a team, and never had any sense that "a woman doesn't have any head for business." There was, even then, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Umm, I don't think the second wave of feminism was about women having the right to work in canneries. Of course they could, or be seamstresses, secreteries, and other limited jobs. It was about women being able to work and do whatever they wanted. Hopefully, someday that will be the case.
 

PrettySquareGal

I'll Lock Up
Messages
4,003
Location
New England
reetpleat said:
Umm, I don't think the second wave of feminism was about women having the right to work in canneries. Of course they could, or be seamstresses, secreteries, and other limited jobs. It was about women being able to work and do whatever they wanted. Hopefully, someday that will be the case.

You just insulated all people, men and women, who choose the above career paths. As for women being able to do whatever they want, did I miss the part where the second wave of feminism took donations from the wealthier counterparts and donated them to the lower working classes so they had the same opportunities?
 

Paisley

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,439
Location
Indianapolis
Time was when it was very hard for a woman to go into law, accounting, engineering, etc. unless she was wealthy and well connected. One of the partners where I work told me that they used to have to ask the client's permission to send female staff members on an assignment. Another told me that when she started in accounting, men didn't take women seriously. Some of them felt free to harass female employees because ladies didn't work.

I'm a secretary, mostly because I couldn't find engineering work. (I don't feel that's entirely due to gender bias, though.) And yeah, it's a limited job.
 

LizzieMaine

Bartender
Messages
33,768
Location
Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
reetpleat said:
Umm, I don't think the second wave of feminism was about women having the right to work in canneries. Of course they could, or be seamstresses, secreteries, and other limited jobs. It was about women being able to work and do whatever they wanted. Hopefully, someday that will be the case.

Sure -- but what I was saying here was that from my readings, I didn't get any sense at all that the second wavers were especially interested in the issues faced by women who work in canneries, women who simply had nothing in common with the college-educated middle-class culture that the second wavers represented, women who come from a culture where work was never a matter of choice, or option, or personal fulfillment, but rather something that had to be done in order to survive. For these women, the postwar suburban ennui of frustrated Hunter College grads was completely irrelevant. (And that takes us all the way back to the original issues at the beginning of this thread!)
 

reetpleat

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,681
Location
Seattle
LizzieMaine said:
Sure -- but what I was saying here was that from my readings, I didn't get any sense at all that the second wavers were especially interested in the issues faced by women who work in canneries, women who simply had nothing in common with the college-educated middle-class culture that the second wavers represented, women who come from a culture where work was never a matter of choice, or option, or personal fulfillment, but rather something that had to be done in order to survive. For these women, the postwar suburban ennui of frustrated Hunter College grads was completely irrelevant. (And that takes us all the way back to the original issues at the beginning of this thread!)

I agree. But it is natural for people to focus on what is familiar to them. Their efforts made improvements for all women. We can get down on people for not doing "enough" for other people besides their own racial or cultural, or economic, or gender level, but whee does that get us. at least they did something.

Most revolutions are led by the educated and "elite" if you like.

To what extent they include the other classes often depends on how much they need them.

And as for the other poster who felt that I somehow insulted cannery workers, I would think they would be the first to tell me their job is limited. If they wish to stay there, it is because of their own choice now.

I would hope all cannery workers everywhere have some hope of a better job. But if they like it fine, great.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
109,311
Messages
3,078,651
Members
54,243
Latest member
seeldoger47
Top