Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[Autodidact]

BTW, I can also let them explain in their own words why they're against feminism:

My Liberation from Feminism

"There is a certain response from men that both feminist and Christian women desire to elicit: a masculine benevolence facepalm Secular feminists approach this desire stridently, from a position of anger. Christian women are taught to approach it gently"

"Marginalizing men through anger has had disastrous cultural effects... (including) pornography, child abuse, public murders of estranged wives, fatherless children, and sexually transmitted diseases" (OMG! feminism causes STDs, porn and murder! )

"I reached college filled to the brim with the “wisdom” of Cosmopolitan magazine, but I was to encounter something more insidious than fashion magazines—feminism and the Women’s Studies Department. Class after class promoted perpetual victimhood, disrespect toward all men, an overt embrace of lesbianism, and a broadly-directed, militant anger."

"...I remember that when I was 29 I was so confused and depressed that I entered into therapy to figure out why I was so angry ... and for that matter, why I was still single. (Not that the two could possibly be related, right?!)..." (Note: she is still single, despite being a True Woman who is ostensibly no longer "angry")

"However, God graciously intervened...

"I ... studied (fundamentalist) marriages ... to see what this Christian concept of joyful feminine submission actually looked like in real life. I saw that my married women friends...seemed free from much of the discord, sarcasm, and disappointment I usually encountered in modern marriages. "

So, to sum it up, it seems to me they're against feminism because they know feck-all about what it is and what it has accomplished, they are mired in bigoted caricatures of what feminists are like, and they think feminists make it hard for them to find and / or keep husbands.

Oh no, lesbianism!!! We can't have that! After all, Jesus preaches against it...never mind.

 

[Autodidact]

Kudos to the brave women who are standing up for what they believe in. :clap

I find it disturbing that so called feminist want to deny the rights of women who follow their convictions. Part of having equal rights gained from feminism is the ability to choose how they want to live their life. If they want to be head of household they can, if they want to be a more of a traditional role they can choose that as well.

Anyone who tries to deny these women of either right is anti-equal rights period (this goes for race,sexual pref,religion, etc). They are not going to force anyone to live any particular lifestyle (we all know it is futile and silly to try and force anyone to do anything), but they are leading by example showing that the traditional role can work in the modern world.

Hey, they can live in submission to men if they so desire. Please don't come crying to feminists to help you when he beats you.

Can anyone explain to me why on earth women should submit to men? Are men better than women in some way? More intelligent? More moral?

 

[Autodidact]

Nobody is imposing it on anyone. Neither will women rights ever be revoked or "voted out".

Because we won't let them. If these women had their way, however, they would.

 

[Autodidact]

You are just using that lame excuse to justify your argument. How could a handful of women deny or revoke the rights of others?

They can't. It's only if their movement spreads and gains influence that this could come about. That's why it's so important to resist the rise of Christian Theocratism in this country at every opportunity.

The fact that they are bound to fail does not make their cause just. Obviously.

 

[Autodidact]

If it is immaterial then why is it an issue. Call them hypocrites all you want, but don't say that they are trying to deny the rights of others when you know it is immaterial.

It's not immaterial and they do want to deny me equal rights. You don't see me trying to get laws passed to make their submissive, sexist marriages illegal, do you?

So that is why you are against these women. Because some of them denied your rights. Yes some of them are hypocrites, but then so is anyone who wants equal rights for gays but opposes these women. Either you are for civil rights or you are not. Either everyone is equal or not.

Wrong. Because I am in favor of equal rights, I am opposed to those who oppose equal rights.

 

[Autodidact]

If that is how you truly feel then you are not better than they are. Equal rights for all sometimes means equal rights for people who disagree with you. If you cannot support the equal rights for the opposition then you do not believe in true equality.

No one's trying to deny them any rights. They can blather on about this baloney to their heart's content. By the same token, I have the right to stand up and say they'r wrong. Doing so does not deny them any right whatsoever.

Is anyone trying to get them banned?

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that a true feminist acknowledges and supports every woman's right to choose her role and live her life free from discrimination based on her gender. These roles may include lifestyles that individual feminists find repulsive.

I also think that any feminist who would deny a woman the right to teach her children what she believes is right or wrong should ask themselves if they want someone interfering with THEIR right to teach their own children what they believe is right or wrong.

As a feminist who has been both the traditional wife/stay at home mother, and the working, career-oriented woman - as a woman who has persevered thru and triumphed over abuse, prejudice, divorce, poverty and job discrimination, I know that there are pros and cons to EVERY lifestyle that a woman chooses, and there are also both negative and positive effects on her family with each of those choices.

I believe that anyone who tells you differently is either in denial or they are being less than honest - with themselves and others.

Be strong, know your values and live them, and be as independent as possible. Demand your rights - and respect and further the rights of others.

All sounds good to me.

 

[Alceste]

...perpetual victimhood, disrespect toward all men, an overt embrace of lesbianism,

Oh no, lesbianism!!! We can't have that! After all, Jesus preaches against it...never mind.

Personally, I prefer to embrace lesbians covertly.

 

[Alceste]

Hey, they can live in submission to men if they so desire. Please don't come crying to feminists to help you when he beats you.

Can anyone explain to me why on earth women should submit to men? Are men better than women in some way? More intelligent? More moral?

IMO, they're exceptionally pervy, creepy bottoms (i.e. bottoms who want to bottom 24/7 instead of just in the bedroom, and for every male, not just their spouse). The whole "because god says so" aspect simply adds to their extraordinary kink.

 

[Sunstone]

Can anyone explain to me why on earth women should submit to men?

I agree with Alceste. Some people are just kinky that way.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hey, they can live in submission to men if they so desire. Please don't come crying to feminists to help you when he beats you.

Can anyone explain to me why on earth women should submit to men? Are men better than women in some way? More intelligent? More moral?

Who's saying that a Woman choosing to be a housewife is instantly deemed submissive to the Husband?

Feminists (as I'm sure many do) need to recognise that there are Women who'd rather stay at home and raise kids with the Husband, as opposed to working. My mother and one of my sister's is an example, along with some of my friends.

Only problem is, Economically, it's not very viable since our Government has screwed up our country financially, and taxes are very strong.

I'd much rather have a system where Parent A works, and Parent B stays at home, rather than both A & B at work, whether the Woman chooses A or B doesn't matter, but if she chooses B, it certainly does not mean she's being submissive.

 

[Aquitaine]

And what's wrong with a lesbian feminist? Is that a polite way of stating dyke?

Nothing, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, I'm just pointing out my own observations.

Unfortunately, the "message" of Feminism is being blurred and "misrepresented" by Women who use it as an excuse to slag off Men all the time, and spout out female superiority. Not only that, but if I Man were to return the attitudes, he'd instantly be branded a Sexist Chauvenist Pig.

But when a Woman bad mouths Men, in person or on TV - everybody applauds. I think it's an attitude that needs to be distanced from "Feminism", because a lot of people are now lumping *Mysandry, Female Superiority* with *Feminism*.

 

[Kathryn]

Traditional roles means no employment outside the home, no property, no money, no freedom to choose a profession, no public speaking, no custody of children, no vote, no right to be on a jury. I don't find that very comfortable or natural, and I doubt that these women do either.

I'm going to speak generally - not strictly about the women in the OP. Though I personally probably wouldn't care much for them, or their group, it's their choice and more power to them. However...

I think we need a better definition of "traditional roles." Most Christian women uphold the ideal of the woman described in Proverbs 31. This woman manages a prosperous household, buys and sells property, earns money in investments, does community service, dresses herself and her family very well, sells goods in the marketplace, and is described as a strong woman imbued with dignity. Her husband is very proud of her and her reputation in her community is spotless. As for money, The passage mentions her earnings and her ability to buy, sell and trade several times.

30Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who (AC)fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.

Before anyone goes off on a diatribe about women's rights in biblical times, bear this in mind:

The beauty of this particular passage(Proverbs 31) is that the values described are timeless. They transcend societal and cultural variations. When you read Proverbs 31, you can easily fit these values and descriptions into just about any time period, country, race, or creed. The honor and freedom bestowed upon the woman described is obvious.

I don't think that many women today would want to give up their equal rights. That isn't what most women who embrace traditional values are seeking. When most women talk about traditional roles, they mean traditional VALUES. There's some difference between the two.

Let me describe something to you. There are men out there who love and cherish their wives, who would literally die for them if necessary. There are men who are gallant, chivalrous, protective, faithful, excellent providers for their families, loving fathers, wise, gentle, and filled with integrity.

Some men who embody these values also prefer to function and raise their children in a "traditional" family setting. They prefer that their wife choose to stay home and take care of the kids, manage the household (that the man provides via his income), cook a family dinner nearly every night, and get involved in volunteer work rather than a full time career. These men, who typically work long hours in order to provide their wife and children with a comfortable, secure lifestyle, want a woman in their lives whose goal is to support her husband and children by running an efficient and comfortable home. They want a woman who shows her appreciation for her husband by keeping herself attractive (because, like it or not,that's important to most men), keeping the house clean, managing the household finances responsibly, and by showing honor and respect to her husband by doing what she can to make his life comfortable. After all, he's doing the same for her, right?

Now - some people might call this scenario "traditional." After all, the man is working and the woman is staying home.

But I assure you - many women would find such a man, and such a lifestyle, VERY appealing.

This is a very valid lifestyle choice and it is in no way inferior to a woman pursuing a full time career alongside her mate. The balance of power is different, but not WRONG in my opinion.

I think that many men and women who strive for this more traditional model feel like this lifestyle is berated by modern day feminists, and this is what irritates them.

 

[Alceste]

I'm going to speak generally - not strictly about the women in the OP. Though I personally probably wouldn't care much for them, or their group, it's their choice and more power to them. However...

I think we need a better definition of "traditional roles." Most Christian women uphold the ideal of the woman described in Proverbs 31. This woman manages a prosperous household, buys and sells property, earns money in investments, does community service, dresses herself and her family very well, sells goods in the marketplace, and is described as a strong woman imbued with dignity. Her husband is very proud of her and her reputation in her community is spotless. As for money, The passage mentions her earnings and her ability to buy, sell and trade several times.

30Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who (AC)fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31Give her the product of her hands,
And let her works praise her in the gates.

Before anyone goes off on a diatribe about women's rights in biblical times, bear this in mind:

The beauty of this particular passage(Proverbs 31) is that the values described are timeless. They transcend societal and cultural variations. When you read Proverbs 31, you can easily fit these values and descriptions into just about any time period, country, race, or creed. The honor and freedom bestowed upon the woman described is obvious.

I don't think that many women today would want to give up their equal rights. That isn't what most women who embrace traditional values are seeking. When most women talk about traditional roles, they mean traditional VALUES. There's some difference between the two.

Let me describe something to you. There are men out there who love and cherish their wives, who would literally die for them if necessary. There are men who are gallant, chivalrous, protective, faithful, excellent providers for their families, loving fathers, wise, gentle, and filled with integrity.

Some men who embody these values also prefer to function and raise their children in a "traditional" family setting. They prefer that their wife choose to stay home and take care of the kids, manage the household (that the man provides via his income), cook a family dinner nearly every night, and get involved in volunteer work rather than a full time career. These men, who typically work long hours in order to provide their wife and children with a comfortable, secure lifestyle, want a woman in their lives whose goal is to support her husband and children by running an efficient and comfortable home. They want a woman who shows her appreciation for her husband by keeping herself attractive (because, like it or not,that's important to most men), keeping the house clean, managing the household finances responsibly, and by showing honor and respect to her husband by doing what she can to make his life comfortable. After all, he's doing the same for her, right?

Now - some people might call this scenario "traditional." After all, the man is working and the woman is staying home.

But I assure you - many women would find such a man, and such a lifestyle, VERY appealing.

This is a very valid lifestyle choice and it is in no way inferior to a woman pursuing a full time career alongside her mate. The balance of power is different, but not WRONG in my opinion.

I think that many men and women who strive for this more traditional model feel like this lifestyle is berated by modern day feminists, and this is what irritates them.

I think they feel wrong, then, and are irritated for nothing. They're simply incorrect about what feminism is, and what it wants. Third wave feminists want equality and to protect and enhance the right to self-determination our mothers and grandmothers fought for. Sunstone just posted an article by Naomi Klein - icon of modern feminism - defending Western Islamic women who choose wear the veil - saying she tried it, and it was kind of nice.

I think what they're really upset about is changes in the culture and economy overall, which make the "traditional family", as defined by Leave it to Beaver, all but impossible: For one thing, it's economically quite difficult to support a family without both parents working, for one thing. That's not the fault of women who fought for the right to work outside the home - that's the fault of inflation, house prices, the increasing gap between rich and poor and competing with a globalized labor market.

And, maybe they're annoyed that it's more socially acceptable for men to ditch their families, but the idea that sort of thing didn't happen in the 50s is poppycock. Feminism can't be blamed for that either. All feminism did was make it easier for an abandoned family to survive independently by fighting against the stigma of single motherhood, and fighting for living wages in the workplace.

Anyhow, it's not "staying at home while the hubby works" that I object to. Not at all. That's MY plan, even, although my reasons are "non-traditional". (I want more time to write and play music.) It's the "SHOULD" that a certain demographic attaches to this choice, for religious reasons. It's nobody else's business but mine what I "should" do.

 

[Mr Cheese]

And, maybe they're annoyed that it's more socially acceptable for men to ditch their families, but the idea that sort of thing didn't happen in the 50s is poppycock. .

My grandmother's father left his wife in the 1920's,.....

My great grandmother turned into a man hating suffaragette anarchist though....
:flirt: she was a commie though :flirt:
..................................................
I got Big Bird on the fishing line
with a bit of a shout a bit of a shout
a bit of an angry snout
he's my favourite hooker of the whole bunch
and I know about his only Bride
and how the Russians die on the ice
I got my rape hat on
honey but I always could accessorise
and I never cared too much for the money
but I know right now
that it's in God's hands
but I don't know who the Father is

--Tori Amos

 

[Willamena]

I think they feel wrong, then, and are irritated for nothing. They're simply incorrect about what feminism is, and what it wants. Third wave feminists want equality and to protect and enhance the right to self-determination our mothers and grandmothers fought for.

But that "right to self-determination" is founded in the philosophical idea that we can self-determine, and that is what their philosophy balks at. The right is truly inalienable only if its actually the case, and the actual case is a metaphysical issue the truth of which is not and cannot be known. In a very real sense, the right to not be self-defined is equally inalienable (and one we all practice in the many ways we allow others to define who we are).

 

[Autodidact]

Personally, I prefer to embrace lesbians covertly.

Oh you flirtatious thing you.

 

[Alceste]

Oh you flirtatious thing you.

That's just my traditional values talking. :flirt:

 

[Autodidact]

Who's saying that a Woman choosing to be a housewife is instantly deemed submissive to the Husband?

They are:

honor the God-ordained male headship of their husbands and pastors; that wifely submission to male leadership in the home and church reflects Christ’s submission to God, His Father

Feminists (as I'm sure many do) need to recognise that there are Women who'd rather stay at home and raise kids with the Husband, as opposed to working. My mother and one of my sister's is an example, along with some of my friends.

Feminists do recognize that. The people who are saying that includes submission to male rule are the people who published this MANifesto.

I'd much rather have a system where Parent A works, and Parent B stays at home, rather than both A & B at work, whether the Woman chooses A or B doesn't matter, but if she chooses B, it certainly does not mean she's being submissive.

Or the man.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that many men and women who strive for this more traditional model feel like this lifestyle is berated by modern day feminists, and this is what irritates them.

That's because the other side, people like the ones who wrote this MANifesto, are portraying them that way. Feminism seeks equal rights for women. Anti-feminists want to deny women equal rights. That's what it's all about: should women have equal rights to men, or not?