#Phonepunk#
Banned
are you proposing a different way to propogate the species? if not then how do we survive past a single generation? kind of a silly question.Yeah, no. Your take on what radical feminism is off kilter. No feminist or sane women under this earth would agree with you that the womens primary role is to produce babies,
feminists of the 1960s-70s didn't think women SHOULD be doing that. they criticized it. as unpaid domestic labor. labor is important to them, especially the socialists. it is the true signifies of power. Woman as Class was born. they did all this work for no pay. labor including the only known way to perpetuate the species and yet THEY are charged by the hospitals, and don't see any money for their labor. Woman as Class was a wage slave all her own, chained to her role as Mother even before birth, giving of her body and mind to the life growing inside of her 24/7 for 3/4 a year. then afterwards as a housewive chained to the home as husband goes off to (imagined) freedom. all of this is traditional work that women did, they did not get paid for it, they worked all day for free, while the man got money. thus the socialist feminist argues, this is pure economic exploitation and in one way forced labor (they don't really have a choice). stereotype or not, the inherited roles of femininity were central to 2nd wave feminism. read the Feminine Mystique, the book that started modern feminism. she is all about ranting about feminine stereotypes:
The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night--she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question--"Is this all?"
For over fifteen years there was no word of this yearning in the millions of words written about women, for women, in all the columns, books and articles by experts telling women their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers. Over and over women heard in voices of tradition and of Freudian sophistication that they could desire--no greater destiny than to glory in their own femininity. Experts told them how to catch a man and keep him, how to breastfeed children and handle their toilet training, how to cope with sibling rivalry and adolescent rebellion; how to buy a dishwasher, bake bread, cook gourmet snails, and build a swimming pool with their own hands; how to dress, look, and act more feminine and make marriage more exciting; how to keep their husbands from dying young and their sons from growing into delinquents. They were taught to pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted to be poets or physicists or presidents. They learned that truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights--the independence and the opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for. Some women, in their forties and fifties, still remembered painfully giving up those dreams, but most of the younger women no longer even thought about them. A thousand expert voices applauded their femininity, their adjustment, their new maturity. All they had to do was devote their lives from earliest girlhood to finding a husband and bearing children.
By the end of the nineteen-fifties, the average marriage age of women in America dropped to 20, and was still dropping, into the teens. Fourteen million girls were engaged by 17. The proportion of women attending college in comparison with men dropped fro m 47 per cent in 1920 to 35 per cent in 1958. A century earlier, women had fought for higher education; now girls went to college to get a husband. By the mid-fifties, 60 per cent dropped out of college to marry, or because they were afraid too much education would be a marriage bar. Colleges built dormitories for "married students," but the students were almost always the husbands. A new degree was instituted for the wives--"Ph.T." (Putting Husband Through).
*****
If I am right, the problem that has no name stirring in the minds of so many American women today is not a matter of loss of femininity or too much education, or the demands of domesticity. It is far more important than anyone recognizes. It is the key to these other new and old problems which have been torturing women and their husbands and children, and puzzling their doctors and educators for years. It may well be the key to our future as a nation and a culture. We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: "I want something more than my husband and my children and my home."
the 1960s brought The Pill and sex without consequences meant women had more power. babies could no longer hold them back. by the 1970s feminism was mainstream and they were competitors to men rather than co-workers. alienated from one another by this ideology, they had to both work jobs because their wealth was being shipped overseas (by the same people pushing feminism), leaving the Latch Key Kid generation to grow up without parents for most of their young lives. instead, they were raised at school, at the mall, in the subdivision, by their peers, by the system. perhaps their parents are right wing and into the 2nd amendment and their teachers and classmates - the culture - laugh at them and say "your parents are morons". they want to fit in, they think that it is true. besides, we have the internet (LOL), who needs generational knowledge? there is a marked generational difference from how families interacted during this era and the one before it. with how the present interacted with the past. the ideology turns people against their families from the start -- look at Betty thinking of "something more" than children and home -- and see where it has taken us as of 2020.
this book was written in 1963. have the feminists found something better than children and home?
imo the nuclear family is underrated.
more explicitly socialist feminism from 1978:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Patriarchy_and_the_Case_for_Socialist_Feminism#:~:text=Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism is a,the socialist-feminist position".
at any rate i feel like all the oldschool feminism i just posted above is mostly rendered entirely irrelevant by the gender madness of idpol feminism.
Last edited: