Originally posted by Revolution_AM
Feminism isn't a "bizarre sexual ideology." By using a blanket term like feminism or feminist for a very specific set of agendas or people, you not only do injustice to the word but you also reveal your sledgehammer-like lack of nuance.
As the quote goes, "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." It examines the roles of sex and gender in the social order, to see which ones are socially-constructed (and hence most likely illegitimate).
That premise itself says that society is artificial, that people are nothing more than clay to be molded by angelic potters (be they legislators or academics). This is Rousseau.
Ever since day 1, I've been consistant that the ways to deal with woman (and with men) are defined by Nature, which is above artificial laws, ideologies, and philosophies. We have all our shiny theories only to have Nature pull the rug from underneath our feet.
Many of these 'artificial' laws and standards enshrined by the marriage and divorce industries (for example, do you REALLY need to buy a huge diamond ring or is it an advertising campaign from Da Beers?) are beginning to buckle. This is a good thing.
This forum is on the cutting edge of change in society. When the buckling of the marriage issue becomes more felt, people are going to ask, "How did this occur? How could we pass laws that make men pay child support for children that aren't their own? How did this maddness creep into the system?"
I believe the answer was through massive influence over the humanities, which then that influence could spread to other arenas (such as law). If you look at it on the reverse way, you ought to become very optimisitic. If Humanities reclaims the sexuality and standards it was once held to, we cut this influence off at the root. But no matter how many laws get fixed, the worm is still in the Humanities and must be flushed out.
We also already know that the traditional media outlets are cracking up. The Washington Press Core, for example, is one of the most hated institutions in America and their influence will only be fading, just as their television viewers and newspaper readers are decreasing in number. I suspect the big book industry will be the next apple to fall, the next system to crack up.
Don't use feminism as the generic "evil" at the root of society's problems.
I'm not. And feminism isn't. There are 'traditional' American women I know when asked, "So if you're traditional, that means you're satisfied taking caring of the house while the husband works all day?" "No! He must do his fair share!" Or if you ask, "In the church, it says materialism is bad. So why quest for a super big house, with new cars, and with multiple vacations around the the world monthyl?" And they stare at you like a deer in headlights. But what IS interesting is that they try to sell themselves as being, "You should savor me, for I am not like *those* feminist girls." But if you should ever suggest that American women ought to take their men into more consideration, rather than speaking of them like domestic appliances, they will say, "You would have us be like radical Islam and put us all in hoods!" This, of course, is a ridiculous response but shows that the issue is not feminism but deeper than it, ones that American women, both liberal and conservative, profit on. (And, interestingly enough, they play against each other for their own benifet. The liberal girl will happily proclaim she is not a 'stepford girl' while the conservative girl will happily proclaim she is not a 'feminist who wants to work'. But if you compare them to a woman from a country that doesn't speak English, OH BOY, they both get equally furious.
It should be noted that the divorce rates and cohabitation rates are the same in the Bible Belt and in the religious in America. So instead of framing this thread into a "Feminism is evil" or "Liberal vs. Conservative", consider that both political ideologies face the same issue and that the issue goes deeper, beyond and independent of politics.
You also fail to elaborate as to why marriage is "facing a trainwreck:" is it those nasty, marriage-wrecking feminists, or those confused and evil homosexuals? Is it the act of marrying, or is it the state of being married that's under assault?
I've done several posts on this issue already. But one has to be used to reading demigraphics to see the change occuring.
Demigraphically, feminists are irrelevant. Why? Because feminists are the least likely to have children (and rarely more than 2). Values are passed from one generation to another through parent to child. Feminists don't matter in the long term since they are so low on having children. (And on the reverse, devout religious people have a big impact on demigraphics due to the larger families. More children = more influence over the demigraphics.)
Homosexuals have ZERO influence demigraphically since they, obviously, do not have children. Homosexuals also have a lower life expectancy than the rest of the population, making whatever influence even less. The future of nations and politics will be influenced more by the breeding rate (and immigration) of populations than by any iota of political sophistry.
Numbers do not lie. The marriage rate
is dropping, and has been decreasing more rapidly several years now. It seems that it will simply continue to drop.
Divorce rate is slightly dropping too, but this is expected if the marriage rate drops as well.
"This is depressing, Pook. Why mention it?" Because it is reality, and it must be dealt with. When you were a Nice Guy, you didn't close your eyes to reality. You swallowed the pain of truth and realized a whole new world of possibilites out there. It got better for you. This is no different.
At sosuave, we've dealt with 'getting women' in all sorts of encounters and all, but there has never really been a discussion about the Law. Marriage and divorce laws
can destroy you and ought to be looked at with more examination. (Worst marriage laws in the country, it seems, is California. Just read it and see for yourself:
http://www2.familyinjustice.com:8080/marriage_fact_sheet.html)
What if all these marriages ending in divorce weren't good marriages after all, and would have done more damage than good if they had stayed in them? Isn't then the concern that people aren't making good decisions in who they should marry, rather than some foreign force is coming in and shattering these social and legal bonds?
A better question is, "Why is the state involved at all with marriage?" When you get married, the contract is between you, the girl, and the state. This means a galaxy of divorce laws hangs over your head like a Sword of Damocles, and when it drops you will be paying an artificially determined child support fee for at most 18 years (per child). There is no supervision with the money. The wife could spend it to get boob jobs to go to bars to get rammed by 'bad boys', and there is nothing you can do.
I've never heard anyone answer why the government is involved in marriage in the first place. If the matter was simply dealing with compatibility or with male/female nature, that is one thing. But we are dealing with very expensive laws (to the male) that can rape you for life in court. There are both bad husbands and bad wives. But the difference is that the Law will side with the wife/mother most of the time. I didn't believe this myself until I sat in at Divorce Court. And even the marriages that *are* together, there are a great many of them that are unhappy. Sexless marriages is very rampant currently (who does that benifet? The wife of course).
In one thread I posted, it announced the news that men could do paterntity tests to find out if their children were really theirs. Your feminist group, NOW, was opposed to this oddly, believing that men ought to pay child support for children that isn't theirs.
One of the biggest stressors on marriage does not come from the Literature Departments in Universities, or student rallies in Berkely, but from their workplaces. American workers are working far longer hours for far less pay and with far less benefits (and much more job insecurity) than they did 35 years ago. The idea of one of the spouses staying at home just isn't an option anymore. This changes the dynamic of the home, especially for the children. I'd argue it's this dynamic that is the fault of the decline of the "traditional" family in America, not women standing up for themselves, or men not knowing how to change their car's oil.
I can support myself just fine, and even buy a house. I even have lots of free time. This is because I do not buy a brand new car, or a super big house, multiple vacations, or other liabilities.
When a girl writes down what she wants in a guy (big house, new car, vacations, etc.), it sounds like what a little boy asks from Santa Clause (new train set, helicopter toys, video games). Most marriage problems revolve around money, and many of the money issues comes from the princess demanding her suburban kingdom.
Have you considered that job insecurity rose with women entering the workforce? Business owners often have a low regard for their female employees and will admit it only in the most private of circumstances. There have been cases of American corporations going overseas just to avoid the woman issue (HP is an example).
