Is feminism inherently negative?

[Yuri2356]

I don't quite get what you're trying to say here. what is done is that the generated wealth is summed up and then halved. so if one generates nothing, he/she just gets half of the generated wealth of the other partner.

Ok then. Although this still means that whoever earned more money is being penalized.

Does that statistic of Men having higher average earnings than women hold true over there?

 

[Swedishguy]

The problem with this so-called 'feminism' is that it wants to stay there for all time. The leaders of the most extremist movements are like little Napoleons - they want to be remembered forever. Thus, even when their original goal has been practically fulfilled, they still want to be on the pedestal.

You're right - the feminist party in Sweden has the half-crazy ***** Gunilla Schyman. She was the former leader of Vänsterpartiet but - right after her demise - she suddenly figured feminism could be used for power. So she went all over the country, picking up other suffragettes as she went. And so Feministiskt Initiativ was created.

 

[Gladi]

We need a standard definition of "feminism" before we can establish whether it is inherently negative.

If by "feminism" we mean classical feminism, meaning women deserve, and should get equal rights before the law I disagree, and I think feminism is, on the whole, a positive thing, with regrettable but almost inescapable negative consequences.

If, however, we mean the "women are better than men/I'm proud I had an abortion" "empowered" women of today type of feminism, then I agree that it is most definitely a negative force in almost every area.

Bright day
And even modern feminism is not a monolithic evil society aimed at undermining our grand civilization. Fair amount of accomplished feminist writers and authors support women's magazines like Cosmopolitan, while some other see as utterly evil.

Of course you don't read much of the former unless, you have some interest in the field. Likewise in my country you won't hear about gypsy dentist and how good father he is to his three children. You will just hear of houses being demolished and goods stolen.

EDIT: For example some feminists have taken up the case of rape of men by a women. Which is too extremely traumatizing, but because of certain inherent views on the "nature of genders" was not addressed at all or made fun of.

 

[Grisu]

Ok then. Although this still means that whoever earned more money is being penalized.

Does that statistic of Men having higher average earnings than women hold true over there?

yeah on average, men have higher salaries here too. Though I don't quite understand this 'penalized' part. If you want to keep everything separated and basically lead two separate live, why marry in the first place. Marriage as I understand it is a union between two people, so sharing seems natural to me. And if you don't want that you can still decide to do so through a wedding contract.

 

[Azash]

Feminism is as negative as manchauvinism.

 

[RedWolf]

Ok then. Although this still means that whoever earned more money is being penalized.

Does that statistic of Men having higher average earnings than women hold true over there?

And this goes back to the other thread - "Why do men make more money than women?". One of the main reasons is that they bear and raise children. Presumably the man also wanted these child(ren). While the man worked, the woman provided free child care and house cleaning services. Thus, during the term of the marriage (an economic union) the money earned (and saved) as part of this union belongs to both members.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

of course we can't and I think that's a good thing.

But a woman who behaves aggressively is considered "empowered." Even the word "*****" no longer carries a pejorative connotation. You obviously don't see the double standard.

I most certainly did not. you said she gets half of his wealth, which is not the case. she only gets half of the wealth generated during the marriage, while getting none of his pre-marriage wealth, so marrying a rich guy won't benefit her directly. Personally I think it's fair that she gets half of what is generated during the marriage, since marriage is supposed to be a union of two people. Btw, it works the same way the other way around, the man gets half of the wealth the woman generated. so how are women treated better there?

Swiss divorce laws appear to be the same as American. Yes, so what it's only the wealth earned during the marriage and not before? Men don't usually wait a whole lifetime of wealth-gathering before they marry. Any income earned before marriage is pennies by comparison.

Men earn vastly more wealth in general than women, so it comes out of the man's pocket, rather than being equitable. There is no societal expectation for a wife to work. It is considered optional, not mandatory. And btw, where have you been? You think there are no such things as gold-diggers? They are widespread, or haven't you heard of Anna-Nicole Smith?

As far as a husband collecting from the wife in a divorce... you show me a case of that, and I'll show you a horse with wings.

Great way of debating, calling people who disagree with your world-view ignorant. I do know first hand, at least what concerns swiss society, and I seriously doubt that our societies are that different in this regard. Men certainly are not expected to provide for the women here. If, however, what you write in the last paragraph really is true (which I'm not quite prepared to accept), then it would be more proof that you guys just messed up your society, not feminism per se. Look at 'stereotypical' feminist societies like Sweden. They have probably the largest percentage of working women in the world.

Switzerland may or may not be different, but you certainly wouldn't know it. You are naive enough to believe there are no such things as gold-diggers.

What reality is this that you're talking about? And what do you know first-hand? I really think you don't know what you're talking about.

The lip service of equality. It is anything but. I'm 34 years old, have dated and been married. I have a perspective I doubt many of you have. Everything that you say is just a repetition of social propaganda. The reality is that feminism has shifted women from a position of social and economic inferiority to superiority, not equality.

 

[Grisu]

But a woman who behaves aggressively is considered "empowered." Even the word "*****" no longer carries a pejorative connotation. You obviously don't see the double standard.

actually no, a woman that behaves in this way very quickly will get the lable slut or worse

Swiss divorce laws appear to be the same as American. Yes, so what it's only the wealth earned during the marriage and not before? Men don't usually wait a whole lifetime of wealth-gathering before they marry. Any income earned before marriage is pennies by comparison.

Men earn vastly more wealth in general than women, so it comes out of the man's pocket, rather than being equitable.

What about the women who care for the kids, earning nothing in the time? aren't they doing one of the most important jobs of all? And let's face it, even today, the vast majority of kids gets raised primarily by their mothers, not their fathers.

There is no societal expectation for a wife to work. It is considered optional, not mandatory.

yeah, right, I don't know a single woman who's married yet doesn't work. All the ones I know either care for the kids, or have a job.

And btw, where have you been? You think there are no such things as gold-diggers? They are widespread, or haven't you heard of Anna-Nicole Smith?

yes, because we all know that degenerate celebs are such a good mirror image of society. What's more, what do you think was her man's wealth generated during the marriage, compared to what he had before

As far as a husband collecting from the wife in a divorce... you show me a case of that, and I'll show you a horse with wings.

of course, that can't possibly exist, since that would totally wreck your world view, wouldn't it? What's so hard to believe here? There are women that earn more money than their spouses, so if they get divorced, the guy ends up getting more.

Switzerland may or may not be different, but you certainly wouldn't know it. You are naive enough to believe there are no such things as gold-diggers.

yes, of course, I'm helplessly naive. Oh thank you so much for showing me the error of my ways
Or maybe you're just so bitter, perhaps because you've been treated unfairly in the past, that you assume that all women are like that. I never said there are no gold-diggers, of course there are, but they are a minority. To claim that all, or even most women are gold-diggers is simply ludicrous.

 

[IglooDame]

As far as a husband collecting from the wife in a divorce... you show me a case of that, and I'll show you a horse with wings.

Pegasus lives!

But yes, certainly not a normal circumstance.

But yes, to the extent that feminists try to restrict a female's lifestyle choice (via peer pressure, social influence, or lawmaking), rather than making more options available and respecting her decision whatever it may be, I think they are indeed a negative influence.

 

[LucyDuke]

There is no societal expectation for a wife to work. It is considered optional, not mandatory. And btw, where have you been? You think there are no such things as gold-diggers? They are widespread, or haven't you heard of Anna-Nicole Smith?

Where have you been? Seriously, I want to come visit this happy fantasy land where women aren't expected to work because they are married.

Anna Nicole Smith is widespread? I mean, her legs, maybe, but she's not exactly everywoman.

You are naive enough to believe there are no such things as gold-diggers.

You're saying there's nothing but gold-diggers. Of course there are some. They're not as common as you're insisting, though.

The lip service of equality. It is anything but. I'm 34 years old, have dated and been married. I have a perspective I doubt many of you have. Everything that you say is just a repetition of social propaganda. The reality is that feminism has shifted women from a position of social and economic inferiority to superiority, not equality.

A repetition of social propaganda, huh? How about a repetition of social reality? Of all the married couples I know, there are two in which the women don't work. In those marriages, both partners came from money, and neither of them need to work. I also know three in which hubby doesn't work, and the lady is the breadwinner for herself, her husband, and in one case, her children. Sure, "the people I know" is hardly a statistically significant sample size, but I suspect it's not that unusual.

What kind of economic background do you come from? Because it sounds like you do have a perspective unlike most. Gold-digging is a lot more common in social circles lubricated by cash. In reality, though, where most of us are, and where work isn't "optional" for anyone, there's nowhere to dig.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

actually no, a woman that behaves in this way very quickly will get the lable slut or worse

No, a slut is a woman who sleeps around. Acting *****y isn't at all related to sluttiness.

What about the women who care for the kids, earning nothing in the time? aren't they doing one of the most important jobs of all? And let's face it, even today, the vast majority of kids gets raised primarily by their mothers, not their fathers.

Raising children and earning money aren't the same thing. If it were equitable, the children would be placed in the father's care, in such a case, to give him a taste of that medicine. But that's not what happens.

yeah, right, I don't know a single woman who's married yet doesn't work. All the ones I know either care for the kids, or have a job.

That's a contradiction.

yes, because we all know that degenerate celebs are such a good mirror image of society. What's more, what do you think was her man's wealth generated during the marriage, compared to what he had before

I'm simply pointing out a well known example, but it is by no means limited to celebrities. It is widespread.

of course, that can't possibly exist, since that would totally wreck your world view, wouldn't it? What's so hard to believe here? There are women that earn more money than their spouses, so if they get divorced, the guy ends up getting more.

If the law were fair, that would happen, but if that were the case, then housewives wouldn't be able to collect from their ex-husbands either. So the law isn't fair. The Spears-Federline case is a rare example of an exception, but even there, it appears, according to the news article, that it came about only because the couple negotiated between themselves, away from their lawyers. It makes me wonder how often lawyers poison their client's minds.

yes, of course, I'm helplessly naive. Oh thank you so much for showing me the error of my ways
Or maybe you're just so bitter, perhaps because you've been treated unfairly in the past, that you assume that all women are like that. I never said there are no gold-diggers, of course there are, but they are a minority. To claim that all, or even most women are gold-diggers is simply ludicrous.

Gold-diggers are more widespread than you think. My ex-wife didn't get much out of me. In fact, I ended up ahead because I left her with more property that had more debt. But I am an anomaly among ex-husbands. They usually end up impoverished and take years to recover.

But yes, certainly not a normal circumstance.

Thanks for the link.

Where have you been? Seriously, I want to come visit this happy fantasy land where women aren't expected to work because they are married.
Anna Nicole Smith is widespread? I mean, her legs, maybe, but she's not exactly everywoman.
You're saying there's nothing but gold-diggers. Of course there are some. They're not as common as you're insisting, though.

They are more widespread than you think. ANS is just an extreme example (of everything, not just gold-digging). In any case, it doesn't matter. Gold-digging wouldn't be possible without courts to enable such behavior.

A repetition of social propaganda, huh? How about a repetition of social reality? Of all the married couples I know, there are two in which the women don't work. In those marriages, both partners came from money, and neither of them need to work. I also know three in which hubby doesn't work, and the lady is the breadwinner for herself, her husband, and in one case, her children. Sure, "the people I know" is hardly a statistically significant sample size, but I suspect it's not that unusual.

I find most of this hard to believe. No one needs to work? Where is the money coming from? Stock dividens?

What kind of economic background do you come from? Because it sounds like you do have a perspective unlike most. Gold-digging is a lot more common in social circles lubricated by cash. In reality, though, where most of us are, and where work isn't "optional" for anyone, there's nowhere to dig.

The definition of gold-digging makes that clear. Gold-diggers don't search the ghetto.

 

[Gladi]

Raising children and earning money aren't the same thing. If it were equitable, the children would be placed in the father's care, in such a case, to give him a taste of that medicine. But that's not what happens.

Dear God! Oh my Lord, oh my Lord. No wonder, you have been married. And while I personally am single and childless being part of actual family I see the amount of work given to my nephews.

The definition of gold-digging makes that clear. Gold-diggers don't search the ghetto.

You may have missed on this, but most people don't live even in twelve room houses. And even most people who are somewhat well-off don't have anything that would interest a gold-digger. So you say that it is somewhat prevalent in extremely small slice of population? Hmm, wonder about that.

 

[Atlas14]

Femnazis are inherently negative, although feminism isn't necessarily.

 

[Eukaryote]

Feminism used to be a fight for equal freedom and opporunity but now, it's like this:

You know how little boys think little girls are yucky, and little girls think little boys are yucky. Todays feminists are just women who never got past that stage.

 

[Grisu]

No, a slut is a woman who sleeps around. Acting *****y isn't at all related to sluttiness.

agreed, though the latter is usually not seen as a positive trait either, at least around here

Raising children and earning money aren't the same thing.

agreed, it's not the same, though it's still hard work.

That's a contradiction.

I thought you might see that as a contradiction I don't.

I'm simply pointing out a well known example, but it is by no means limited to celebrities. It is widespread.

sure, probably about as widespread as that spears thing just go on believing that most women are gold diggers at heart, it ain't true, but oh well, if it suits your bitter heart....take a look outside, the average guy doesn't carry millions with him, and doesn't marry a ANS-type either.

It makes me wonder how often lawyers poison their client's minds.

I won't argue with this, though.

 

[Grisu]

You know how little boys think little girls are yucky, and little girls think little boys are yucky. Todays feminists are just women who never got past that stage.

hooray for generalization. there are some feminists (or ********s as atlas seems to call them) for which that description is true (I'd count Alice Schwarzer among them), but for the vast majority of feminists this statement most certainly isn't true

 

[LucyDuke]

sure, probably about as widespread as that spears thing just go on believing that most women are gold diggers at heart, it ain't true, but oh well, if it suits your bitter heart....take a look outside, the average guy doesn't carry millions with him, and doesn't marry a ANS-type either.

Thanks for that, KaeptnOvi. I think I might've kept on trying.

 

[Elrohir]

Bright day
And even modern feminism is not a monolithic evil society aimed at undermining our grand civilization. Fair amount of accomplished feminist writers and authors support women's magazines like Cosmopolitan, while some other see as utterly evil.

Of course you don't read much of the former unless, you have some interest in the field. Likewise in my country you won't hear about gypsy dentist and how good father he is to his three children. You will just hear of houses being demolished and goods stolen.

EDIT: For example some feminists have taken up the case of rape of men by a women. Which is too extremely traumatizing, but because of certain inherent views on the "nature of genders" was not addressed at all or made fun of.

I don't deny that there are some women who count themselves as feminists and do good things. What I do doubt is that all, or even most feminists truly desire actual equality. As far as I can tell, the majority of feminists don't want actual, true equality, they want subtle superiority. They want to be "equal", but to have a woman striking her husband treated as a less serious offense than for a man to strike a woman. They want men to have to pay women alimony and child support, without having a right to see their children. (Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand - men shouldn't have to pay child support unless they have equal custody, should they want it) There is a ton of crap that goes on in our society that doesn't belong in one that teaches equality.

Most feminists want to have their cake, and eat it too. They want to preach "equality" and all that good stuff, and then turn around and set up the system to benefit women over men. That isn't equality, it's superiority. If women want equality, then fine - I have no problem giving it to them. But they'd better be willing to give up all their nice cushy privileges as well, because you can't have the advantages of being a protected, weaker group without any of the disadvantages. That isn't equality in any sense of the word.

Feminism is as negative as manchauvinism.

The word is "misandry".

 

[CaptainF]

In short, I believe it is indeed.

 

[CaptainF]

Another bit of itneresting (actualy very interesting) information:

Research (see Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz - from 1978) indicates that men are abused at least as much by their wives. However it could actually be higher because men are afraid to call this stuff out.

Interesting, no? I was kind of shocked when I learned this.

I love how this was ignored.

Just goes to show...