Women Liberating Themselves from Liberation

[twinmama]

Thoughts?

Sad. Very very sad. These poor women.

 

[Sunstone]

No, the movement is about women being wimps.

It's also a con game.

Back many years ago, when I owned and operated a small business, I was heartbroken more than a few times by some middle-aged woman in to apply for a job who, in the process, would tell me her story. The story was basically the same. She had been raised up in a good Christian home to believe that someday a good Christian man would take care of her. Then she had married someone she thought was that good Christian man. Around about middle age, he had divorced her. Now she had to fend for herself, but without job skills or experience. I can't count the number of times I heard that same story told to me by different women seeking an entry level job at middle age.

 

[Kerr]

I grew up in a very untraditional family. My mother can hardly be called to be led by anyone, not society or my father. But it has been a good family. So I do not believe in traditional rolls for men and women, all I have seen during my childhood proves those traditions are wrong.

 

[Duck]

If they prefer to be their husband's property, rather than an individual, then so be it :sad:

As long as they don't start telling other women that they need to do the same.

thats part of the problem though, I think that they would be perfectly willing to and I think that their manifesto is aimed at telling other women they need to do the same.

 

[Kathryn]

Sure, if "traditional" roles work for you and you're happy, then great. But should that be the standard and only option for every other woman? And do you think that women's rights, equality and liberation movements should be denounced and protested against like those in the OP article did?

I don't know enough about the group to denounce them or say they're great. I DO believe that the feminist movement has done harm as well as good to women.

I'll just speak from personal experience: I've been a stay at home mom,and I've been a career woman. I've "had it all." I can tell you that my years as a stay at home mom were by far the most satisfying, even though I've enjoyed great success in my professional life.

My experience has been that it's difficult - not impossible, but very, very difficult - to be very successful at a full time career, and also be a very diligent wife and mother. In the standard 8 hour work day, 40 hours a week, there is little time and energy left over to be an above average wife and mom. Throw in overtime, business travel, or a very demanding profession, and it's even more difficult.

I know, I know - I'll probably get lots of stories about moms who do both well, but my point is this - it's not that it CAN'T be done, but to do all three well - it's exhausting, and any woman who tells you otherwise is lying through her teeth.

You CAN have it all - but you'll probably be too tired to enjoy it. In some ways, I believe women have been sold a bill of goods in the past 50 years.

I see some disturbing trends in our society. In the quest to have everything, I see delayed adulthood, later marriages (often with one or more abortions beforehand in order to accommodate education and "single" lifestyle expectations), childbearing put off during the most naturally reproductive years (nature is trying to tell us something here), ticking biological clocks that then create much older parents and fewer children (our low birth rates are having profound impacts on Western society, but that's a whole other story), children raised by daycare centers and television, lost arts (cooking, sewing, basic housekeeping, reading, the simple act of relaxing at home together, playing for hours in the backyard), undue stress caused by intense scheduling of school, work, extracurricular activities, etc, poor nutrition due to hectic schedules and lots of fast food eaten in the car hurring to and from appointments, families broken due to stress and influences from outside the home, and grown children who feel no compulsion to take care of the now elderly parents who, frankly, didn't set too good an example of nurturing care themselves.

In the quest to have everything, some very precious things are often lost. And, like a great line in a good movie, everybody's bill comes due.

Like I said, I've had it both ways. I can assure you that my 11 years as a stay at home mom raising four children (born to me in six years) were by FAR the most simple, and satisfying, years of my life "career wise." I felt a much greater sense of accomplishment after an afternoon of baking cookies with my toddlers than I have ever felt closing a deal. My biggest regret in life is that I made some life choices resulting in a failed marriage that forced me into the job market and a professional career when my children were in grade school. Frankly, I don't regret the divorce as much as my choice of a man that resulted in the divorce.

If I had it to do all over again, I would look specifically for a man who would provide the sort of spiritual and physical leadership that would allow me to stay home with my children till they were adults.

I know this is just MY story, and doesn't carry much authoritative weight. I don't believe in forcing this view on others. But I DO believe in my right to speak out to other young men and women, and to strongly encourage others to consider the benefits of being a stay at home mother and more traditional wife.

It's a very legitimate and satisfying option. My oldest daughter is married to a man who is a great provider and who fully supports her choice to stay home and be a full time wife and mom. Out of my four children, she is by far the most content. Her four children lead simple, uncomplicated and unsophisticated lives. She homeschools and is a very accomplished cook. She also keeps herself very attractive to her husband, who is completely smitten by her and more than glad to work hard outside the home to allow her to do an amazing job as the mother of their children.

My youngest daughter took the career path. She and her husband have two precious little girls. They agreed not to put the children in daycare and this has created a lot of stress in their lives - they have had to work opposite shifts in order to do this and to actually raise their children themselves. After five years of this, they are now in the process of regrouping, so that my daughter can leave her career in two years and free lance part time from home and spend more time with their children and as a "housewife." I am very, very proud of her accomplishments, but even more proud of her goal to get out of the rat race.

I fully support any individual or group that would help get this particular message out to others.

 

[gnomon]

Whether or not it can be done has absolutely zero to do with this discussion.

I just have to wonder why people feel compelled to put forth an argument when they are thoroughly ignorant of the subject.

I can only think of all those women who take careers because the thought that every single husband works a job that earns enough for an entire household is laughable, naive and just plain stupid in this society.

I fully support any individual or group that would help get this particular message out to others.

Then you fully support a group being discussed in this thread that also teaches that homosexuality, transsexuals and intersex are derived from Satan, exist as one of the greatest affronts against God and that they need to be reformed. They will teach this to their children. Exactly like many parents teach their children that Jews are greedy and blacks are inferior.

They will teach them a revisionist history of feminism. They are figuratively taking a dump on all those women who were able to move into great careers denied to them prior to the women's movement.

I see some disturbing trends in our society. In the quest to have everything, I see delayed adulthood, later marriages (often with one or more abortions beforehand in order to accommodate education and "single" lifestyle expectations), childbearing put off during the most naturally reproductive years (nature is trying to tell us something here), ticking biological clocks that then create much older parents and fewer children (our low birth rates are having profound impacts on Western society, but that's a whole other story), children raised by daycare centers and television, lost arts (cooking, sewing, basic housekeeping, reading, the simple act of relaxing at home together, playing for hours in the backyard), undue stress caused by intense scheduling of school, work, extracurricular activities, etc, poor nutrition due to hectic schedules and lots of fast food eaten in the car hurring to and from appointments, families broken due to stress and influences from outside the home, and grown children who feel no compulsion to take care of the now elderly parents who, frankly, didn't set too good an example of nurturing care themselves.

Can you link any of this to feminism? Do you know any history of the United States prior to the women's movement?

Many people make the same claims and blame it on illegal immigration, legal immigration, pot, liberals, conservatives.......

 

[Alceste]

You know, if I had really small kids - like before-school kids - I'd want to be home with them. It's not the message of putting your kids first I object to. It's the message that women have no other purpose, and need to have one particular personality, or they're not really women. That mentality is what the feminist movement has worked so hard to liberate us from. If your husband makes enough dough for you to stay home and that's what you want to do, you can do it. Lots of people do. But, if you wake up one day and say "I want to be a pilot", you can do that too. If you want to obey your husbands every command, you can do it. I'm sure a few women do. But if you decide one day to disagree and have things your way, you can do that too.

And we can vote, and openly enjoy sex, and own property. I think these women's heads are full of nonsense. The feminist movement has given them everything they think of as their civil rights, and taken nothing away from them. They're insane.

 

[MissAlice]

I assume that many of the women who are against fememinism want to be stay at home moms which I personally have no problem with.

The only thing I don't like is that they assume most women will find a husband who will take care of them. I've seen enough women and shelters who'd use the excuse that their man took care of them inspite of the abuse that was going on.

If you have a man that is willing to work for you and take care of you and your child, great. But don't assume all men are like that and don't assume women work out of their houses because they want to be away from their kids. My mom had no choice in the matter after my dad divorced her.

Oh and just to add, not all women want to have children after they marry. So I think society needs to stop assuming that women are automatically going to have children once they're in a relationship with a man. Some people don't know what they're getting into once they decide to have children. The cost, the care the time, and so one. It was one big blessing but one big hardship my sister had to face after she had all three of her children. Now she's living with my mom and working two jobs.

 

[Kerr]

Kathryn, thing is people are different. If this has worked for you I can only be happy for you, however different people want different things with their lives. I have seen women who have chosen another path then you and are perfectly happy with that, fact is I know women who would never dream of being a homewife, and they have still some good kids and good lives. That is what this is about, the freedom to be who we want to be, no matter if we are men or woman.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's also a con game.

Back many years ago, when I owned and operated a small business, I was heartbroken more than a few times by some middle-aged woman in to apply for a job who, in the process, would tell me her story. The story was basically the same. She had been raised up in a good Christian home to believe that someday a good Christian man would take care of her. Then she had married someone she thought was that good Christian man. Around about middle age, he had divorced her. Now she had to fend for herself, but without job skills or experience. I can't count the number of times I heard that same story told to me by different women seeking an entry level job at middle age.

Thanks for sharing that. What is interesting to me, is that everything about this ideology serves to empower men over women, but the participants do not realize it. Your experience demonstrates one way in which this happens. Similarly, witch hunts served to disempower women but those who participated thought it was merely about fighting the Devil, etc.

 

[Willamena]

Sounds familiar.

However, what freedom are they being denied? I think the thread needs to move in that direction as it's own idea.

As to their model, I covered that with their website and their view towards homosexuality. Thousands of women. Imagine how many children they have. What is the probability of those children not fitting the norm of their view of women and men created to God's design. Relatively good. I find it to be a horrible model to teach to these children. Not different from the worldview of racists.

My comment, though, wasn't about the quality of the model(s), but simply the fact that they have one that they feel is being over-written by another. That's the part that speaks to "women's" rights.

However, as to whether or not the feminist movement in the West has inhibited the freedom of women would probably make an interesting discussion in it's own thread separated from this group.

It's unlikely that feminism would have any such impact apart from a group precisely like this, who define their roles differently than feminism does.

 

[Inky]

I think it is kind of sad.
If some women want to be submissive to men, then fine, let them (though I don't think they should have to be). But you can't expect every woman to live that way.
I dislike their definition of "femininity."

This sums up my perspective well. The most disturbing part of this to me is not the compulsory submission or the lack of gratitude for the basic rights women have gained. It's the fact that, first, they want to convince other Christians that they're not dedicated enough to their religion if they don't follow this path, and second, they want to raise their children to see this as the only way to live.

I have a friend who is the sub in a full-time dom/sub relationship. The "rules" sound very similar to what this group talks about, but the reasons and motives are different. The major difference is that they defend their right to do it as an individual choice, and make a point to warn others that it's not for everyone and shouldn't be undertaken lightly. This group seems to want all women to live submissively, whether it fits their personality or not.

My experience has been that it's difficult - not impossible, but very, very difficult - to be very successful at a full time career, and also be a very diligent wife and mother.

No more difficult than doing the same and being a diligent husband and father. There are many different ways to split up the money-making, housework and child-rearing to the benefit of both partners, depending on their own preferences. I'm friends with a couple where the dad is the primary caretaker for the kids and the mom has a pretty intense job as a neurologist. It fits their personalities much better than if they had to do it the other way around. She's happy, he's happy, and the kids are happy. It's possible you're the stay-at-home type, which is great, but not all women are happy doing that, and not all the people who are happy doing that are women.

I also know at least two unmarried men who specifically want to be stay-at-home dads if it works out with their future wife's plans and earning potentials. Their desire to take that path is no more or less valid than it would be if they were women.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't know enough about the group to denounce them or say they're great. I DO believe that the feminist movement has done harm as well as good to women.

Care to fill us in? What "harm" does having rights and equality bring?

I'll just speak from personal experience: I've been a stay at home mom,and I've been a career woman. I've "had it all." I can tell you that my years as a stay at home mom were by far the most satisfying, even though I've enjoyed great success in my professional life.

My experience has been that it's difficult - not impossible, but very, very difficult - to be very successful at a full time career, and also be a very diligent wife and mother. In the standard 8 hour work day, 40 hours a week, there is little time and energy left over to be an above average wife and mom. Throw in overtime, business travel, or a very demanding profession, and it's even more difficult.

How is being successful at a full time career and being a diligent spouse and parent easier for a man than is it for a woman?

I know, I know - I'll probably get lots of stories about moms who do both well, but my point is this - it's not that it CAN'T be done, but to do all three well - it's exhausting, and any woman who tells you otherwise is lying through her teeth.

You CAN have it all - but you'll probably be too tired to enjoy it. In some ways, I believe women have been sold a bill of goods in the past 50 years.

I see some disturbing trends in our society. In the quest to have everything, I see delayed adulthood, later marriages (often with one or more abortions beforehand in order to accommodate education and "single" lifestyle expectations), childbearing put off during the most naturally reproductive years (nature is trying to tell us something here), ticking biological clocks that then create much older parents and fewer children (our low birth rates are having profound impacts on Western society, but that's a whole other story),

Just because some societies mindlessly and irresponsibly breed like fruit flies doesn't mean that the more civilized societies need to follow suit. We're not in a race to overpopulate the earth and deplete it's resources. Unless they were to be used as either a food or fuel source, creating a baby surplus would do no one any favors.

children raised by daycare centers and television, lost arts (cooking, sewing, basic housekeeping, reading, the simple act of relaxing at home together, playing for hours in the backyard), undue stress caused by intense scheduling of school, work, extracurricular activities, etc, poor nutrition due to hectic schedules and lots of fast food eaten in the car hurring to and from appointments, families broken due to stress and influences from outside the home, and grown children who feel no compulsion to take care of the now elderly parents who, frankly, didn't set too good an example of nurturing care themselves.

So in other words you're disturbed by the fact that many women choose to be more than mere baby factories? You're right that doing everything is strenuous and time consuming, which is why some choose not to squeeze out a litter, or even none at all.

In the quest to have everything, some very precious things are often lost. And, like a great line in a good movie, everybody's bill comes due.

Like I said, I've had it both ways. I can assure you that my 11 years as a stay at home mom raising four children (born to me in six years) were by FAR the most simple, and satisfying, years of my life "career wise." I felt a much greater sense of accomplishment after an afternoon of baking cookies with my toddlers than I have ever felt closing a deal. My biggest regret in life is that I made some life choices resulting in a failed marriage that forced me into the job market and a professional career when my children were in grade school. Frankly, I don't regret the divorce as much as my choice of a man that resulted in the divorce.

If I had it to do all over again, I would look specifically for a man who would provide the sort of spiritual and physical leadership that would allow me to stay home with my children till they were adults.

What leadership roles would the husband fill that a wife couldn't handle herself, or on mutual, equal, cooperative grounds as a team?

I know this is just MY story, and doesn't carry much authoritative weight. I don't believe in forcing this view on others. But I DO believe in my right to speak out to other young men and women, and to strongly encourage others to consider the benefits of being a stay at home mother and more traditional wife.

It's a very legitimate and satisfying option. My oldest daughter is married to a man who is a great provider and who fully supports her choice to stay home and be a full time wife and mom. Out of my four children, she is by far the most content. Her four children lead simple, uncomplicated and unsophisticated lives. She homeschools and is a very accomplished cook. She also keeps herself very attractive to her husband, who is completely smitten by her and more than glad to work hard outside the home to allow her to do an amazing job as the mother of their children.

My youngest daughter took the career path. She and her husband have two precious little girls. They agreed not to put the children in daycare and this has created a lot of stress in their lives - they have had to work opposite shifts in order to do this and to actually raise their children themselves. After five years of this, they are now in the process of regrouping, so that my daughter can leave her career in two years and free lance part time from home and spend more time with their children and as a "housewife." I am very, very proud of her accomplishments, but even more proud of her goal to get out of the rat race.

I fully support any individual or group that would help get this particular message out to others.

Well, when one makes decisions in life, of course they have to make compromises and sacrifices. No one is debating that. What is being debated is that all women should make the exact same choices, sacrifices and compromises. Some might not want to home school their children, or only have one child, or none at all. If your way has worked for your and others, great. But not all women want to take the pregnant, barefoot housewife in the kitchen approach and should be allowed whatever option they wish to take.

 

[Kathryn]

Kathryn, thing is people are different. If this has worked for you I can only be happy for you, however different people want different things with their lives. I have seen women who have chosen another path then you and are perfectly happy with that, fact is I know women who would never dream of being a homewife, and they have still some good kids and good lives. That is what this is about, the freedom to be who we want to be, no matter if we are men or woman.

Absolutely! I am all for the freedom to make our own moral decisions, as long as we don't trample the rights of others when we do so.

In this sense, I guess I am a feminist, because I believe in empowering women to direct their own lives. Being a stay at home mom, or a traditional housewife, or a career executive are all decisions that women and families have to make for themselves based on their own circumstances.

What I want though is a balanced approach to these decisions. I do not believe that one woman or one family can have all the benefits of all scenarios. There is sacrifice involved in each different scenario. There are pros and cons that must be weighed.

My point is that over the past 50 years, the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. I am merely trying to explain that there can be great dignity, honor, and achievement in a career as a stay at home mother/housewife AS WELL as in a career outside the home. I would encourage young men and women to strongly consider that option - and with that in mind, I wanted to share my own personal experiences as an example.

I'm sure others have other examples - and that's all these are, personal examples. They don't prove or disprove either point. But the more examples we can share, the more information we have and we can make more informed decisions.

 

[Alceste]

It's also a con game.

Back many years ago, when I owned and operated a small business, I was heartbroken more than a few times by some middle-aged woman in to apply for a job who, in the process, would tell me her story. The story was basically the same. She had been raised up in a good Christian home to believe that someday a good Christian man would take care of her. Then she had married someone she thought was that good Christian man. Around about middle age, he had divorced her. Now she had to fend for herself, but without job skills or experience. I can't count the number of times I heard that same story told to me by different women seeking an entry level job at middle age.

Funny you should mention, while my eyes were slipping off their website, I noticed some woman lecturing who had been divorced twice, both times due to her Christian husbands' marital infidelity, without any skills or income, and was well into her third marriage. Not once did she ask if maybe there was something amiss with her taste in men, or if maybe she should learn how to go it alone for a while. She thought every marriage was God's will at first, but Satan had turned her men into sinners and sexual deviants. Of course NOW, this THIRD marriage is the right one - God's will. What kind of a life is that? And why does she hate feminism when without that movement she'd still be stuck with Satan-loving, deviant, sexually depraved and unmanly Husband Number One?

BTW, here's one for Knight, who mistakenly believes they're not pushing an anti-gay agenda:

"One of the most liberal sexual studies ever conducted was out of the University of Illinois right here in Chicago... The goal of the study was, in part, to research the homosexual lifestyle so that they could advise homosexuals on their lifestyle, provide counsel to them... they had a computer randomly select addresses. They didn’t know who lived at those addresses. They didn’t know whether they were male or female; they didn’t know whether they were homosexuals or heterosexuals. ... One of the things they found was they had to actually abandon their goals, because they could not find a relevant percentage of homosexuals in the overall American population. "

Can't think of anything more "anti" than the outright denial of a group's very existence.

 

[Alceste]

It's unlikely that feminism would have any such impact apart from a group precisely like this, who define their roles differently than feminism does.

I think the point is that feminism does not define their roles for them. The whole point of it has been to allow them to define their roles any way they choose, including being stay-at-home moms and having a tonne of babies.

 

[Kathryn]

What is being debated is that all women should make the exact same choices, sacrifices and compromises. Some might not want to home school their children, or only have one child, or none at all. If your way has worked for your and others, great. But not all women want to take the pregnant, barefoot housewife in the kitchen approach and should be allowed whatever option they wish to take.

Who's debating this? Certainly not me. I don't think that all women should choose to be stay at home wives and mothers. Some are CLEARLY not cut out for it, and should not do it.

Your tone clearly shows your bias by the way. A woman's choice to stay home, have children, and support her husband's career by running the household smoothly is an honorable option. It doesn't mean she's a subservient barefoot and pregnant housefrau. It's a viable option that enriches many lives and families and I feel that your description cheapens and degrades the families that choose that option.

Liberation is about the freedom to choose the option that works best for you and your family, and to support others who may want to explore the same options.

It takes a very strong woman to successfully manage a home, the finances, and small children, especially while pregnant - just for the record.

 

[Father Heathen]

Who's debating this? Certainly not me. I don't think that all women should choose to be stay at home wives and mothers. Some are CLEARLY not cut out for it, and should not do it.

But you did say that it also caused harm (you never specified what sort of harm, however).

Your tone clearly shows your bias by the way.

And yours never does?

A woman's choice to stay home, have children, and support her husband's career by running the household smoothly is an honorable option. It doesn't mean she's a subservient barefoot and pregnant housefrau. It's a viable option that enriches many lives and families and I feel that your description cheapens and degrades the families that choose that option.

I'm sure it is, but you know as well as I that those of more traditional and fundamentalist mindsets tend think that a woman is out of line if she does not fill this specific role. Also, there are many cases where taking the traditional old fashion route isn't the best approach.

Liberation is about the freedom to choose the option that works best for you and your family, and to support others who may want to explore the same options.

Of course.

It takes a very strong woman to successfully manage a home, the finances, and small children, especially while pregnant - just for the record.

I don't doubt it.

 

[Willamena]

This group seems to want all women to live submissively, whether it fits their personality or not.

Their manifesto is for them, for the women who sign the petition because they have agreed with the position represented in the manifesto. If someone doesn't agree, they wouldn't be signing.

 

[Willamena]

I think the point is that feminism does not define their roles for them. The whole point of it has been to allow them to define their roles any way they choose, including being stay-at-home moms and having a tonne of babies.

Feminism is in large part about breaking out of particular gender molds, from Margaret Sanger to Helen Reddy, from suffragism to Women's Lib. These women felt that society held particular roles for them, and fought for the right to define their own roles.

The women in this movement, in the OP, feel very strongly that their religion defines their gender roles, not them. That is their right; and their protest is to make people more aware that not everyone can occupy a self-defined role.
(Yes, I stated it poorly in the post above.)