Why Feminism is Bad

[Maureen]

17 minutes ago, Suzie said:

You are the kind that "babysit" your own kids, don't you?

I get the impression that it is @Rob Osbornthat "babysits" his own children.

M.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Heaven forbid father's learn to be nurturing, compassionate, and to lead by building consensus. That might almost sound like D&C 121

Yes, we can nurture, be compassionate, etc. But are we women? No. As a man I have skills, abilities and callings that women will never have. Equality doesnt mean both sexes share everything alike. Equality means both sexes are equally important in their different yet supportive roles of the other.

[MarginOfError]

Aside from giving birth and lactating, I'm really not sure what it is you think women can do that men can't (or shouldn't). Ore vice versa.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Aside from giving birth and lactating, I'm really not sure what it is you think women can do that men can't (or shouldn't). Ore vice versa.

there are clear responsibilities and roles of each gender. There is no line dividing them (except in relationships and role in bringing life), but when one neglects their sacred responsibility given to them virtue of their gender, that is when serious problems arise. The problem with feminism, and when I say feminism, I am referencing the most outspoken ones, is that they are trying to remove those responsibilities. A woman should be a mother, a wife, a home maker, and should love and raise her family with her husband, and all this and more to the best of her abilities. A father's role is to preside and to provide among other things. Again, bleed over is good and important. The family proclamation states we are to assist each other in these. 

Want some evidence?

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

https://www.lds.org/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-participants-study-guide/part-b-parents-responsibilities-to-strengthen-families/lesson-10-the-sacred-roles-of-fathers-and-mothers-part-1-fathers-roles?lang=eng

I haven't met a single person in my life that has said "you can't do that because you are a girl." I believe that is just a small case that many blow up to try and prove a point. Much like the "college rape culture" and "gender pay gap"... it's just a phrase / statistic used to prove a point that isn't there. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Fether

[MarginOfError]

The maddening beauty of your source material is

"In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

which implies that spouses are equal partners in their divinely appointed roles. So, again, I don't see what it is that women should be doing that men shouldn't be, or vice versa.

[Guest Godless]

I am a feminist because multiple women in my life (and probably yours too, whether you're aware of it or not) have been victims of sexual assault/harassment, and yet the topic of rape culture is met with rolled eyes and dismissiveness. 

I'm a feminist because this legislation  was recently passed in Texas, and there are people who want to see similar laws passed on the federal level. This law will put women's health and lives at risk. 

I'm a feminist because there are still people who believe that women don't belong in the workforce. A woman's place is where she chooses it to be. Period. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Godless

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

there are still people who believe that women don't belong in the workforce

Where are these people?

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I am a feminist because multiple women in my life (and probably yours too, whether you're aware of it or not) have been victims of sexual assault/harassment, and yet the topic of rape culture is met with rolled eyes and dismissiveness. 

I'm a feminist because this legislation  was recently passed in Texas, and there are people who want to see similar laws passed on the federal level. This law will put women's health and lives at risk. 

I'm a feminist because there are still people who believe that women don't belong in the workforce. A woman's place is where she chooses it to be. Period. 

How do you feel about the patriarchal order where the father presides in the home?

[Guest Godless]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How do you feel about the patriarchal order where the father presides in the home?

If that's what your religion dictates and the woman in the household is on board with it, then cool. But as with all religious constructs, it is unreasonable to expect your idea of family structure to work universally. And yes, the patriarchal order as we're discussing it here is absolutely a religious construct.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Where are these people?

There a few on this very site, for starters. People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother. I'm heading out of town and pressed for time, otherwise I'm sure I could dig up some gems for you.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

There a few on this very site, for starters. People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother. I'm heading out of town and pressed for time, otherwise I'm sure I could dig up some gems for you.

I doubt it. What I expect you'll find is that many feel it is best for MOTHERS to stay home and not work while they have children in the home. That is, decidedly, different than the premise that women should not be in the workforce.

I very much doubt you'll find anyone here who goes to their jobs and looks at the women sitting in their offices or cubicles with disdain and judgement and an attitude that they, for the mere fact of being female, don't belong there. The idea is ridiculous. I suppose there may be a few 90 yr old codgers out there who may still hold such attitudes.

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, Godless said:

If that's what your religion dictates and the woman in the household is on board with it, then cool. But as with all religious constructs, it is unreasonable to expect your idea of family structure to work universally. And yes, the patriarchal order as we're discussing it here is absolutely a religious construct.

Yeah, it started with Adam and Eve. Outside of religious context the father was generally seen as head of household.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Godless said:

There a few on this very site, for starters. People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother. I'm heading out of town and pressed for time, otherwise I'm sure I could dig up some gems for you.

The best and most ideal is the father as the main breadwinner and the mother at home more.

[Guest MormonGator]

53 minutes ago, Godless said:

There a few on this very site, for starters. People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother. I'm heading out of town and pressed for time, otherwise I'm sure I could dig up some gems for you.

Yup, I've seen it too. I don't think people who think that way are bad people-just people stuck in a time warp who have a hard time understanding and accepting that in 2017 (even in religious and conservative circles) it's fine for the woman to work and man stay home or both sexes to work, etc. 

Travel safely my friend. 

[Vort]

58 minutes ago, Godless said:

People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother.

The horror of pure evil.

[Backroads]

11 hours ago, Fether said:

there are clear responsibilities and roles of each gender. There is no line dividing them (except in relationships and role in bringing life), but when one neglects their sacred responsibility given to them virtue of their gender, that is when serious problems arise. The problem with feminism, and when I say feminism, I am referencing the most outspoken ones, is that they are trying to remove those responsibilities. A woman should be a mother, a wife, a home maker, and should love and raise her family with her husband, and all this and more to the best of her abilities. A father's role is to preside and to provide among other things. Again, bleed over is good and important. The family proclamation states we are to assist each other in these. 

 

I agree, bleed-over is great.

My issue on the matter is when the bleed-over is replaced by a full-on switcheroo. Just because I can do a lot of men's work doesn't mean I should neglect my feminine duties. Just because a man can (and really ought to be) nurturing and caring doesn't give much of an excuse to neglect the preside and provide role. This is a dark and very real side of some extreme factions of feminism, to rocket women toward doing EVERYTHING a male ought to be doing and forcing men to the feminine roles that apparently aren't worth anyone's time according to such philosophy.

Personal example: I am a working mom during the school year. We are making strides to have me at home, which is a worthy goal. However, a small kink in the works is that... I actually like working. Just last week one of my mother's old friends said she suspected this from me since I was a little kid. In fact, multiple people including my own grandmother said they predicted me to be a career woman. There is a wonderful woman in my ward, a mother of one of my childhood friends, who was forced to leave her abusive husband way back when and raise her boys as a single and ultimately very successful mom. Hooray for feminism for giving us these opportunities, but wow, they're kind of addicting. I work to help provide for my family, this lady worked to solely provide for her family, and gosh darn it if we don't like it. But when does this become a problem? When does the desire to provide for the family go beyond practical necessity to just-because-we-can at the neglect of the family?

[Guest MormonGator]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

The horror of pure evil.

Chill. No one is saying that it's evil to think that way. 

I would never speak for @Godless, so this is just what I've seen. In some cultures men feel guilty if their wives have to work-they feel like they can't provide for their family. On the same side of the coin, wives feel guilty for working because some cultures still look down on that. What Gator is saying is that it's none of your (generic, not you meaning @Vort)  business. If a woman works outside the house, it's her and her families own choice.

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

People who perhaps accept the reality that some households require both parents to work, but lament that fact all the same, insisting that the ideal scenario is a working father and a SAH mother

Many economists admit this to be a financial ideal. A SAHM is an excellent wild card. You can always send a SAH mom to work if need be... but it's a lot harder to be dependent on two incomes.

[Backroads]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Chill. No one is saying that it's evil to think that way. 

I would never speak for @Godless, so this is just what I've seen. In some cultures men feel guilty if their wives have to work-they feel like they can't provide for their family. On the same side of the coin, wives feel guilty for working because some cultures still look down on that. What Gator is saying is that it's none of your (generic, not you meaning @Vort)  business. If a woman works outside the house, it's her and her families own choice.

 

We also need to keep in mind that there are still an awful lot of people who think it's downright evil for mothers to stay at home with children.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

 

We also need to keep in mind that there are still an awful lot of people who think it's downright evil for mothers to stay at home with children.

For sure, absolutely agree with you 100%. It's none of their business either. 

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, Godless said:

I'm a feminist because this legislation  was recently passed in Texas, and there are people who want to see similar laws passed on the federal level. This law will put women's health and lives at risk.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this proposed law say that my child needs to be dead before I start cutting off limbs? 

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this proposed law say that my child needs to be dead before I start cutting off limbs? 

Carrying a dead fetus puts a woman at risk of infection and clotting issues. Killing and dismembering a fetus is an incredibly unpleasant thing to think about, but sometimes that procedure is the safest option when a woman's health/life is at risk. Keep in mind, this method is NEVER used in elective abortions. We're talking about expectant mothers who WANT the child to live but something went horribly wrong. This aspect of the abortion debate us 100% about women's health, not reproductive rights.

[wenglund]

22 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Of all the things that threaten society feminism is by far perhaps the greatest threat to our society.

It is helpful to understand that there have been several "waves" of feminism, not all of which have been hostile to fatherhood and traditional families--at least not intentionally.  The antagonism towards men became more pronounced during the second wave, ironically under the guise of "equality." What most people fail to realize, particularly many lay feminists, is that the last three waves, and possibly the first,  were driven by a primary and ultimate motive to grow the government. Feminism has been a useful tool for advancing socialism. With all the talk against exploitation of women, feminism have been unwittingly used and abused to advance a male dictatorial political system. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 23, 2017 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

It is helpful to understand that there have been several "waves" of feminism, not all of which have been hostile to fatherhood and traditional families--at least not intentionally.  The antagonism towards men became more pronounced during the second wave, ironically under the guise of "equality." What most people fail to realize, particularly many lay feminists, is that the last three waves, and possibly the first,  were driven by a primary and ultimate motive to grow the government. Feminism has been a useful tool for advancing socialism. With all the talk against exploitation of women, feminism have been unwittingly used and abused to advance a male dictatorial political system. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Im not sure that anything good is coming out of feminists nowadays. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

...at least not intentionally...

I think this might be key.