Why Feminism is Bad

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Backroads said:

But doesn't quantity beget quality?

Not necessarily. But it's still a bad conclusion. The fact that quality time is paramount does not relegate quantity of time to a meaningless status. Of course quality time is of key importance. That is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether mothers should be out of the home or not.

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well . . . it's both.  My parents were both schoolteachers, and they were able to do OK by us kids--all four of us served missions, married in the temple and are active.  That said--they put a lot of effort into planning LOTS of family vacations during the summer break (which they could do, being on vacation themselves for the same period); and even then in hindsight I'd trade several of those vacations for not having had to spend three hours after school each day waiting for my parents to get home.

Economic issues are a real concern; but I think dwelling too much on that issue also feeds into a sense of economic helplessness that is (generally speaking) inappropriate to the economy in which we live.  

 

Thanks for sharing your experience.

I would like to add another aspect to the topic and how is being discussed (generally speaking). It is done from a position of privilege. Yes, people can take to heart the word privilege but having a car in some places is a luxury (no matter how old) . We are really out of touch with reality if we think about "sacrificing" this way. Sacrificing in some instances do mean having both parents working and  not to afford the latest car model but putting normal food at the table.

[Backroads]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not necessarily. But it's still a bad conclusion. The fact that quality time is paramount does not relegate quantity of time to a meaningless status. Of course quality time is of key importance. That is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether mothers should be out of the home or not.

Very true.

My passing thought was merely you're probably not going to find those moments of quality, such as in @MormonGator's video game example, if you aren't hanging around in the vicinity of your family.

[Blueskye2]

12 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Yes, but what caused the increase in prices?

 

12 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Yes, but what caused the increase in prices?

In what period of time and where?

Edited June 24, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Backroads]

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

 

In what period of time and where?

70s and 80s

 

Heck, ask anyone in real estate. Houses are meant to be sold to two-income families.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Backroads

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Yes, people can take to heart the word privilege but having a car in some places is a luxury (no matter how old) . We are really out of touch with reality if we think about "sacrificing" this way.

Agreed. So working two jobs, or having both parents work, just to afford a second vehicle, is completely out of touch with the reality of what children need.

7 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Sacrificing in some instances do mean having both parents working and  not to afford the latest car model but putting normal food at the table.

True enough. But this is very rarely the case in the United States. "Normal food" shows up on the table even of those who eschew working altogether, as long as they want normal food and not potato chips and McDonald's.

[Blueskye2]

1 minute ago, Backroads said:

70s and 80s

In short, Richard Nixon.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-great-inflation.asp

 

 

[Backroads]

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well . . . it's both.  My parents were both schoolteachers, and they were able to do OK by us kids--all four of us served missions, married in the temple and are active.  That said--they put a lot of effort into planning LOTS of family vacations during the summer break (which they could do, being on vacation themselves for the same period); and even then in hindsight I'd trade several of those vacations for not having had to spend three hours after school each day waiting for my parents to get home.

Economic issues are a real concern; but I think dwelling too much on that issue also feeds into a sense of economic helplessness that is (generally speaking) inappropriate to the economy in which we live.  

Good jobs, stable income, and a sound assets/liabilities ratio don't just happen; they are the result of careful long-term planning and (often) short-term sacrifice.  Nor are they unobtainable to the masses.  To the extent that Mormon men seem to gravitate towards high-paying, white-collar jobs; I think a lot of that arises from a conscious goal to support a single-income household.

What of the Mormon men who aren't in high-paying, white-collar jobs?

Eh, I work with a guy who supports a wife and 5 kids. Then again, he has his master's degree so is probably making comfortably in the 50,000s as a teacher.

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Agreed. So working two jobs, or having both parents work, just to afford a second vehicle, is completely out of touch with the reality of what children need.

True enough. But this is very rarely the case in the United States. "Normal food" shows up on the table even of those who eschew working altogether, as long as they want normal food and not potato chips and McDonald's.

I said having a car in some places is a luxury, hence my comment. These people cannot even conceive the notion of two vehicles.

Yes, I agree it is rarely the case in the United States and that's why my comment of talking from a position of privilege. I travel quite a lot and have lived in many countries. This issue of stay-home mothers isn't emphasize as much during Church meetings. I suppose it is because reality rears its ugly head and let's face it,  it will practically be a slap on their face for a couple who work for pennies in order to provide.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Thanks for sharing your experience.

I would like to add another aspect to the topic and how is being discussed (generally speaking). It is done from a position of privilege. Yes, people can take to heart the word privilege but having a car in some places is a luxury (no matter how old) . We are really out of touch with reality if we think about "sacrificing" this way. Sacrificing in some instances do mean having both parents working and  not to afford the latest car model but putting normal food at the table.

Fair enough, in some cases.  Obviously, by the time you're in your thirties and forties, you're increasingly going to have to play whatever's in your hand.  

But within much of the first world, and especially towards a younger audience--discussions about supporting a family on a single income are less a case of the privileged versus the unprivileged; and more a case of those who believe they can control their circumstances versus those who think they must be controlled by them.  Actors versus reactors.  Survivors versus victims.

(And yes, even that mentality is a result of privilege to some degree; but the solution to this disparity is not to lower our expectations; rather, it is to improve our ministry to the "underprivileged" to show them how they can achieve their dreams and build a better life for their children.)

53 minutes ago, Backroads said:

What of the Mormon men who aren't in high-paying, white-collar jobs?

Eh, I work with a guy who supports a wife and 5 kids. Then again, he has his master's degree so is probably making comfortably in the 50,000s as a teacher.

I'm not saying it's easy.  I'm just saying it's possible; and the more time and planning goes into the process, the more possible it becomes.  Like I say above--at a certain point in life, you just have to play the hand you're dealt.  But we're doing our youth a real disservice if we teach them to give into that sort of fatalism when they're still in their teens and twenties.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...That said--they put a lot of effort into planning LOTS of family vacations during the summer break (which they could do, being on vacation themselves for the same period); and even then in hindsight I'd trade several of those vacations for not having had to spend three hours after school each day waiting for my parents to get home....

I find this strange. Both my parents worked and I had siblings and friends to keep me occupied after school until the parents got home. Is this something you would have wanted while you were younger, like elementary school aged or did you feel the same way even in high school?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I find this strange. Both my parents worked and I had siblings and friends to keep me occupied after school until the parents got home. Is this something you would have wanted while you were younger, like elementary school aged or did you feel the same way even in high school?

M.

Both.  I had friends whose moms were full-time homemakers.  My parents were great, of course, but . . . I was envious even then.  (I could be surly and withdrawn as a teenager, but I never really met through an openly rebellious streak and I don't remember ever resenting my parents the way it seems many teenagers do). 

And now that my parents are getting on in years and we live so far away, in retrospect I feel that absence even more acutely.  Time is a precious, precious thing.

[Guest]

On 6/23/2017 at 9:46 PM, Vort said:

By the way, men also belong in the home.

On 6/23/2017 at 3:03 AM, MarginOfError said:

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.

On 6/24/2017 at 8:19 AM, Suzie said:

Men generally work and they are the main providers, yet no one seems to question (generally speaking, at least not firsthand) the possibility of them neglecting their families in other areas (because well, providing it is just one of many aspects). But when women work outside the home, one of the first things they hear often is that they will be neglecting their families.

To expound on Vort's statement, and a commentary on Suzie's post, and a response to MOE, the primary misconception here is that today's society has no idea what the primary role of the father is anymore.

We know very well that the mother's primary role is to "nurture".  But as what the primary paternal role is and you'll get things like "provider", "protector", "disciplinarian", and others that are equally inaccurate.  "Provider" is the most common, yet it is still incorrect.

The primary role of a father is to "praise".

While both mother and father can and should both praise and nurture, our childish psyches (sp) are wired to feel and react very differently towards a mother who nurtures vs a father who nurtures; a mother who praises vs a father who praises.

A line from Hollywood (unlikely source, yes.  But true nonetheless): "I wish I could say you've been like a father to me.  But I've never had one, so I wouldn't know.  But if there was someone that I'd like to please, someone I'd want to make proud of me, it would be you."  And I can think of many more examples.

Somehow this trait of fatherhood has survived Hollywood yet has all but died in American society.  It doesn't matter if a father provides all the material goods and a spiritual upbringing by taking his kids to church and activities.  If the father fails to praise his children honestly and appropriately at every opportunity possible, he has failed his role as father.

A mother likewise can contribute to the financial support of the family. But if she fails to nurture her children, she has failed her role as a mother.

-----

It is also said that the woman's role is to civilize the husband.  The man's role is to civilize the children.  When you take the father out of the family circle, women don't civilize anyone, and there is no one to civilize the children.  We eventually see an end to civilization.

I'm not completely sold on this one yet.  But it has some compelling corollaries.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:38 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There is a silver lining though--they agree with us that pornography is bad. Different reasons, but we can join hands on that issue. 

Actually, it depends on the feminist.  Some feminists will argue that pornography (and even prostitution) is a great liberating path for women as it gives them a source of income on their own terms without the need for a husband.  In fact, some of the most vocal feminists are either porn stars or prostitutes (if there's a substantive difference).  Yes, it is just as incorrect as many other stereotypical feminist plank.  But it is their argument.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

t is also said that the woman's role is to civilize the husband.  The man's role is to civilize the children.  When you take the father out of the family circle, women don't civilize anyone, and there is no one to civilize the children.  We eventually see an end to civilization

It's nice to see @LeSellers posting again.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

It's nice to see @LeSellers posting again.

Has he already posted that before?  I didn't remember that.  But yes, he was the one that told me that.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We eventually see an end to civilization.

 

I think I've heard this before. From the dawn of time till now people have been convinced that civilization will end shortly. Sure, eventually it will happen-so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Like someone who gets up every morning and says "Today I will die." Well, you'll be right some day. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think I've heard this before. From the dawn of time till now people have been convinced that civilization will end shortly. Sure, eventually it will happen-so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Like someone who gets up every morning and says "Today I will die." Well, you'll be right some day. 

It's important to note that he talks of an "end to civilization", not an "end of the world".  And yes, civilizations do come crashing down with startling frequency and brutal consequences.  Hitler's rise to power marked the end of a civilization, as did Stalin's, and Mao's.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think I've heard this before. From the dawn of time till now people have been convinced that civilization will end shortly. Sure, eventually it will happen-so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Like someone who gets up every morning and says "Today I will die." Well, you'll be right some day. 

It's not just the result that is important when considering such claims.  It is the logic and the history behind the claim that would lend credibility.  "Radio" is the end of civilization proved to be wrong.  "TV" is the end of civilization was only partially correct.  It is a contributor, but not a primary one.

When civilization depends on the social order that keeps families (the basic and most important unit of society) together, and we see something that threatens the family, then it is highly credible that such will at least be a contributor to the end of civilization.

[mordorbund]

 

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think I've heard this before. From the dawn of time till now people have been convinced that civilization will end shortly. Sure, eventually it will happen-so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Like someone who gets up every morning and says "Today I will die." Well, you'll be right some day. 

It's important to note that he talks of an "end to civilization", not an "end of the world".  And yes, civilizations do come crashing down with startling frequency and brutal consequences.  Hitler's rise to power marked the end of a civilization, as did Stalin's, and Mao's.

The USSR was considered America's #1 foe, and a viable threat for several decades. Yet, Senator Strom Thurmond was born before its founding and outlived it!

[MBKnabe]

On 6/23/2017 at 3:25 PM, Rob Osborn said:

A mans place is out working, providing for his family as much as he is able to do.

And being a loving, present father. An example for his sons about who he should grow into. An example for his daughters about what to expect from the men in their lives. The place of a father is in the lives of his family. Money is always secondary. We need it to survive. We need love to thrive. We need good, strong men in the home as much as we need loving, compassionate mothers. That is my feminism.

[MBKnabe]

On 6/22/2017 at 1:06 PM, Rob Osborn said:

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

Really? Not militant groups throughout the world that murder Christians in cold blood, in the name of religion? Not wars that devastate homes and livelihoods, leaving thousands of stranded refugees with nothing but the clothes on their backs? Not drug addiction, rapists, murderers and criminals? With all of these atrocities going on, the greatest threat is from people who want to be treated with fairness?

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

And being a loving, present father. An example for his sons about who he should grow into. An example for his daughters about what to expect from the men in their lives. The place of a father is in the lives of his family. Money is always secondary. We need it to survive. We need love to thrive. We need good, strong men in the home as much as we need loving, compassionate mothers. That is my feminism.

Yes, fathers need to be in the home too. What you are saying isnt feminism though.

[MBKnabe]

49 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, fathers need to be in the home too. What you are saying isnt feminism though.

Oh but it is. Suggesting husbands and wives must be equally yoked is feminism. Feminism is about equality. Differing roles between men and women do not contradict the tenants of feminism. 

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, MBKnabe said:

Oh but it is. Suggesting husbands and wives must be equally yoked is feminism. Feminism is about equality. Differing roles between men and women do not contradict the tenants of feminism. 

Feminism is all about equality, until someone says that women ought not have free reign to kill their unborn children. Then, suddenly, feminism is about women "controlling their own bodies", as if the fetus is merely an extension of themselves, and they ought to be able to murder the unborn child as casually as they might clip their fingernails, and with no more repercussions. Or until someone says that preferential hiring is unAmerican and evil, when feminism suddenly is about women escaping the hegemony of the patriarchy.

Not all feminists are evil; some are among the best people on earth, and doubtless there are self-proclaimed feminists who stand better justified before God than do I. Not all feminist ideals are corrupt; some are basic standards of human decency that have been proclaimed for centuries by the honest and well-intentioned. But even the devil cites scripture for his own purposes. As a political and social movement in the United States of America, feminism as a whole is rotten down to its dark heart. It exists to destroy the family and to widen the gap in the Satanic "war between the sexes."