Extremists only define labels for the misinformed and the willfully ignorant.
Woman of the Week #5: Simone de Beauvoir
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
Not that I want to continue the debate, but just wanted to point out that the US isn't the only Western country struggling with this issue. Poland is another one where the topic is constantly hot.
I started typing long posts in a temporary MS Word Document (or something like that) long ago for that very frustrating reason. It helps, and I recommend it.
I'm sorry to read your story here. As to losing ground, I think that was the idea by the ones in power all along: Make sure the real achievements are temporary by slowly and stealthily taking them away while pretending/posturing and professing that they still exist. This is a very powerful and effective tool used against any "other" group.
I guess I don't have to say how I answered the poll.
And therein lies the problem. If the number were not so great...
I feel bad (not to mention ridiculously uninformed) that I'd never heard of this woman until she was mentioned as an idea for WotW. I do consider myself a supporter of feminism, too, which just makes it worse.
Then these threads have done some good
Aw, I was expecting Helen Gurley Brown this week. 
de Beauvoir definitely gets a Thumbs Up. She was a very influential Feminist in the mid-20th Century and most of what she said made plain and simple sense. She advocated exactly what Feminists have always advocated historically (i.e. for thousands of years): Cultural, financial and sexual freedom and equality. As I keep repeating, there's two aspects to a person: Their Humanity and their individuality. Everything else is irrelevant.
I've been a Feminist since the days of the Civil Rights Era and the Sexual Revolution, back when it was called Women's Lib. In many ways, I'm very gratified by the incredible progress that's been made, as it has in many areas. But I'm also dismayed by how backward contemporary culture is. As someone mentioned, it's not about the law, it's about the mindset. Lame stand-up comics who talk about women shopping for shoes and men not asking for directions, tired sitcoms whose plots consist of women rolling their eyes and saying "Men!" and men rolling their eyes and saying "Women!", the commonly accepted idea that their are "girl things" and "guy things." At the level of the lowest common denominator, society has regressed to the 1950s.
As for the discomfort of some with the term Feminism, it's unpleasant because we live in an age of extremism and Feminism has not been immune. Feminism is just about freedom and equality. The angry people who twist it around are just the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention; and that's usually their main goal.
And as for the abortion issue, the error there is the assumption that opposition to abortion is a religious concept, when in fact the opposite is true.
de Beauvoir definitely gets a Thumbs Up. She was a very influential Feminist in the mid-20th Century and most of what she said made plain and simple sense. She advocated exactly what Feminists have always advocated historically (i.e. for thousands of years): Cultural, financial and sexual freedom and equality. As I keep repeating, there's two aspects to a person: Their Humanity and their individuality. Everything else is irrelevant.
I've been a Feminist since the days of the Civil Rights Era and the Sexual Revolution, back when it was called Women's Lib. In many ways, I'm very gratified by the incredible progress that's been made, as it has in many areas. But I'm also dismayed by how backward contemporary culture is. As someone mentioned, it's not about the law, it's about the mindset. Lame stand-up comics who talk about women shopping for shoes and men not asking for directions, tired sitcoms whose plots consist of women rolling their eyes and saying "Men!" and men rolling their eyes and saying "Women!", the commonly accepted idea that their are "girl things" and "guy things." At the level of the lowest common denominator, society has regressed to the 1950s.
As for the discomfort of some with the term Feminism, it's unpleasant because we live in an age of extremism and Feminism has not been immune. Feminism is just about freedom and equality. The angry people who twist it around are just the ones who make the most noise and get the most attention; and that's usually their main goal.
And as for the abortion issue, the error there is the assumption that opposition to abortion is a religious concept, when in fact the opposite is true.
That's interesting. Can you explain? I'm curious.
So which one is "sideways"?
I'd sure like to hear that, too.
^^ You just described me to the letter... My objection to abortion AND the death penalty is based, not on biblical belief, but on moral grounds that murder is murder, whether it's for punishment, convenience, or just because... I've struggled with the rape and incest issue for a long time, but I've come to a conclusion that I'm comfortable with, morally speaking...
Bingo... I know several couples where the man is the dominant figure and the woman is the typical stay at home mom/homemaker... One of them hates it, but has little viable alternative.. The husband is not abusive, physically, just won't let her do anything.
The other woman is fine with the arrangement and enjoys being at home, doing the June Cleaver thing. To each her own, I guess..
Neither of these couples are conservative or overly religeous... It's a "macho" thing that is culturally driven by both men's ancestral heritage.. And that is a tough mindset to crack.. When one generation teaches it to another, it's hard to break the chain.
Bingo... I know several couples where the man is the dominant figure and the woman is the typical stay at home mom/homemaker... One of them hates it, but has little viable alternative.. The husband is not abusive, physically, just won't let her do anything.
The other woman is fine with the arrangement and enjoys being at home, doing the June Cleaver thing. To each her own, I guess..
Neither of these couples are conservative or overly religeous... It's a "macho" thing that is culturally driven by both men's ancestral heritage.. And that is a tough mindset to crack.. When one generation teaches it to another, it's hard to break the chain.
Having put my foot in my mouth a few times when I was much younger, I've come to accept the fact that, try as I might, I know zip about "the curse of being a woman." To riff Sergeant Schultz, "I know nothing."
I can tell that some feminists have an ax to grind, and I have no doubt that some extremists are unreasonable. But there are legitimate issues. One obvious example is that the over-involvement of men in the abortion debate in the US is proof-positive of a problem, as far as I'm concerned.
I can tell that some feminists have an ax to grind, and I have no doubt that some extremists are unreasonable. But there are legitimate issues. One obvious example is that the over-involvement of men in the abortion debate in the US is proof-positive of a problem, as far as I'm concerned.
I started typing long posts in a temporary MS Word Document (or something like that) long ago for that very frustrating reason. It helps, and I recommend it.
I'm sorry to read your story here. As to losing ground, I think that was the idea by the ones in power all along: Make sure the real achievements are temporary by slowly and stealthily taking them away while pretending/posturing and professing that they still exist. This is a very powerful and effective tool used against any "other" group.
I guess I don't have to say how I answered the poll.
And therein lies the problem. If the number were not so great...
Thank you! You have summarized exactly what I was feeling but couldn't find a way to express! (and thanks for the posting hint as well!)
If the issue is mindset, is one point of view more preveliant within certain age groups.
Though mindset is only another aspect of it, some of it might be cultural as well.
So what if the female partner in a relationship earns more than the male.
So what if a man raises a child & looks after the home instead of a woman.
Sure. The justification for abortion, the idea that a fetus isn't Human until some point in the pregnancy, is derived from the religious notion of "quickening," which was usually, but not always, determined by the point at which a women could feel the baby move (in current society, it's determined by dating criteria). This idea was officially opposed by the AMA sometime in the mid 19th century, when enough scientific evidence existed to know that the individual begins at conception-- many decades before the corroboration of genetics, molecular biology, electron microscopy, ultrasonography and so on (this was not the origin of scientific opposition to abortion in Western civilization, of course-- the Hippocratic Oath forbids it). It's kind of amusing to think that the official position of the modern church is based on the recommendations of the AMA.
