Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:23 am
male domination
What an easy myth with which to warm yourself. Women were just victims until the late Modern period. After that, they mysteriously were able to throw off the shackles. What a lovely story.
"Housewives" is anachronistic. In past times and in different parts of the world women and children were and are economically active including hard manual work.
Ah, the myth begins to disintegrate...Yes indeed. Women participated in this world. They always have. But as for the men, life was a brutal struggle to avoid death, for most of human history.
The reason divorce statistics in the developed countries are not a full indication of the security of the nuclear family is , before easy divorces, many more nuclear families were unhappy with the women and the children being abused by the male head of the household.
So you say. But statistics again don't bear you out.
If what you were saying were true, children would be benefitting from having been freed from the tyranny of the nuclear family, and women would be
happier than in the past. But women today self-report being unhappier than ever, and beyond question, childen are seriously harmed by the disintegration of even a minimally-functional nuclear family.
Meanwhile, women's self-reports of happiness continue to decline. What role did Feminism play in that?
misogyny is an ideological disease.
It's a relatively rare one. Our society is organized to favour women.
Men do more dangeous jobs, have more social pathologies, are incarcerated far more, have more difficulty being employed (prior to childbirth years), are marginalized everywhere in education, have no "affirmative action initiatives, lose their children more often, report more loneliness, and die younger.
But we know they'll be a whole lot less happy when being a "woman" has no cachet at all.
What " cachet" ?
You don't get it, do you? You can't see the train headed down the tracks at conventional Feminism.
Well, the female athletes certainly see it coming. You should listen to them, before it becomes too late.
If men can "be" women, then we have no need of women.
In fact, "being a woman" must be nothing: for any person who merely imagines himself to achieve it can achieve it. So why have a category for "women's rights"? If they're not special, not unique, not valuable in any particular way, why give them the pole position in social situations? A trans-man is supposed to be exactly the same thing. And why talk about "women's history," or "women's studies," or "women's rights," or have particular concern for "violence against women," when there's no substance to the whole category "woman"?
Feminism can lose every gain it made here.