Why aren't all women feminists?

Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,917
Women only earned the right to VOTE about 100 years ago, this isn’t “old news” - in the span of human history that’s like ten minutes ago.
Yeah and men only gained the right to vote about 100 years before that. So in the span of human history it was extended to women almost right away
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,063
I’m sure you’ve seen me go at it with morita. I agree with her about almost nothing and I don’t like the way she posts or her attitude at all. She doesn’t represent feminism. She’s just a shitty person. And a bit of a hypocrite. Which I’ve said directly to her as well so I don’t care.
hate speech morita said this to me



Nice to see a feminist sticking up for another woman.
Interesting how important she feels male attention is.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,063
Yeah and men only gained the right to vote about 100 years before that. So in the span of human history it was extended to women almost right away
I guess you missed my constant insistence on the fact that I don’t like identity politics.. at all. I’m more into class based issues and how money creates power and lack of money creates strife. Men have historically had it better on certain fronts, and on others have gotten the shit end of the stick. I won’t disagree with that. They are seperate issues but most real feminists are actually concerned with how society hurts men as well. I’ve spoken about this thousands of times on this forum before I decided to just never click on a thread with the word feminism in it again. Broke my own rule today for some odd reason.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,063
You mean women getting paid to be mothers? I think that would be a great idea. I never hear that raised among feminists, literally I’ve never heard it and I’ve hung out with a lot of self proclaimed feminists. I think some incentive to raise a stable family, have children, homeschool if needed, with some sort of monetary compensation from the government would be great. That is getting into the fields of feminism that are not touched, because it would promote the inherent values of femininity and womanhood, the true enemy of modern feminism. They’re more concerned with women being allowed in the army and stuff like that
And yes.. I do. That would be one solution. A child allowance Plus work credits for SS during years you stay home to care for children or elderly or sick family members... or more family friendly policies that encourage and allow women to stay home when they want to that I haven’t thought of. Just because you haven’t encountered this idea or argument from feminists you know doesn’t mean it isn’t something that’s been floating around various feminist circles for years. It has. It just never gets anywhere and it should.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,917
I guess you missed my constant insistence on the fact that I don’t like identity politics.. at all. I’m more into class based issues and how money creates power and lack of money creates strife. Men have historically had it better on certain fronts, and on others have gotten the shit end of the stick. I won’t disagree with that. They are seperate issues but most real feminists are actually concerned with how society hurts men as well. I’ve spoken about this thousands of times on this forum before I decided to just never click on a thread with the word feminism in it again. Broke my own rule today for some odd reason.
Being a man didn’t historically grant you any more privileges than having to go to battle for the emperor and die when you’re 14 or having to work the most appalling jobs that women were thankfully protected from. Fair enough on the rest of your post though
 






Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
4,200
I made the only choice I could. Someone had to support that child.

As far as unpaid physical labor..I will refer to my statement above regarding the reason why some women choose to work regardless of finances - prior to their ability to work if their male benefactor died they were left destitute with no options to provide for themselves. This is where unpaid domestic labor comes in... that was a woman’s only approved work domain in the past; and at this point when women choose for it to be their only work domain it leaves them with the same issue in the event of tragedy that our forebears has because domestic labor is not recognized as work.

You can not collect disability or retirement benefits on your own record if you choose to stay home or do so out of necessity. After a certain amount of years out of the workforce it is near impossible to get back in, especially to a position with sustainable wages. By not entering the workforce at all to take care of the domestic front women are leaving themselves at substantial financial risk. If domestic labor was recognized in some way as work then it would free up more women to choose not to enter the workforce or to leave the workforce when their children were young etc. This applies to stay at home dads equally as much it’s just a more rare occurance.

While I’m sure your wife appreciates the physical labor you put into your home (I surely appreciate everything my husband does) doing those things is not at the expense of earning a living OUTSIDE the home and does not have the same effect on your overall lifetime ability to provide for yourself and your financial security. In a few words, it’s different.

I will give you the personal tip on this: I’ve been arguing with my husband for weeks about my insurance on keeping my day job. Even at reduced hours. He wants me home. And I understand his position and agree on many fronts that it makes the most sense. The business is very busy and we need someone who can full time manage it.
I don’t make enough at my job to justify paying someone else something I could be doing myself. On top of that preschools aren’t taking admissions because of covid so we have massive childcare issues right now and it would be better if I could be home with my daughter... but still I’m refusing and compromised to reduce my hours unless they will give me health insurance which I’m still negotiating so the final outcome to this marital disagreeement is still pending atm.

Why am I refusing? Because my grandpa died randomly when my mom was young and my grandma lived In absolute poverty the rest of her life because it was a time before she could really work. Because my aunt stayed home to raise her three kids and as soon as the youngest turned 18 my uncle left her and she has not been able to support herself ever since, she is also living in poverty and has been for years now. Because my mother in law left her abusive husband after staying home and helping him start his business and has had to clean other people’s toilets and break her back for all the years that have passed since then. There are a million and one stories like that and those aren’t even all of the ones I know personally.

So no, I will not set myself up for That and if it means I have to work ten hours a week and pay someone my whole paycheck to take up my Responsibilities while I do then that’s what I will do. Because for a woman there are more considerations then what they want to do or even money. I’d much prefer to stay home but I’m too old to be stupid.
I understand your concerns. I do. Do what you think is right. I want to be a stay at home farmer. I know it won't happen, but still I daydream. The market is not right for you to stay home now, but you can still want it.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,063
Being a man didn’t historically grant you any more privileges than having to go to battle for the emperor and die when you’re 14 or having to work the most appalling jobs that women were thankfully protected from. Fair enough on the rest of your post though
“Men have historically had it better on certain fronts, and on others have gotten the shit end of the stick”

I thought that covered your comments tbh. The only job open to women back Then was prostitution and while I’m sure there are jobs worse then that in some ways I can’t imagine anything worse then being forced to sell your body to eat because you have no other options. Being forced to fight a war is pretty much the same thing. As I said.. it boils down to money.
 






kerrichinchilla

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
373
Citation needed. There's ample feminist literature saying exactly what she is pointing out. What youre saying is little more than a platitude
im a feminist and its very much about choice, being a wife and mother, never having a career or going to university sounds like hell for me, id hate to do nothing but clean cook and care for children. however i believe in choice, if thats what you want or some part of it then go for it, just dont expect me to join in or worship your choice.

like i said before feminism isnt one way fits all, some feminists are against housewifery and see it as slavery, some like me dont care as long as you dont try and push it on me, some feminists are house wives.

its about choice.

but i will point out the idea of a housewife is a very modern thing, it was invented in the Victorian age by middle class women. working class and aristocratic women have always worked, and not always in the house. before the industrial revolution women worked the farm, everyone worked the farm as soon as you could walk you had a role, once the industrial revolution happened, women moved to cities and became mill, factory and yes mine workers, everybody worked. it was not until the Victorian era when the middle class appeared than it became a sign of wealth that the wife could stay home.
During WW1, interwar and WW2 women went into the work force for a multitude of reasons, it was only when the war ended and the 1950s saw a resurgence of the house wife due to nostalgia for the pre world war eras of the Edwardian and Victorians.

this is the only time i get annoyed with the idea of housewifery, is when people push it as some sort of ancient noble tradition, when it really isnt, never has been.

1602813847581.png1602813973447.png
 






kerrichinchilla

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
373
That's first wave. Waves after that shunned for not choosing the "right" choice.
you clearly have no clue what feminist history is or what the waves are. so ill give you a simplified version

First wave - late 19th century -1914/ 1918-1930 - fights for votes for women, the right for women to have an education including universities, the right for women to work as doctors.

Second wave - 1959 - 1982 - fight for women to work and have the same rights of men, fighting against sexist tropes like beauty standards, fights for worker rights such as maturity leave, equal pay, the removal of sacking women for being pregnant or married, contraceptive, reproductive and abortion rights. by modern standards classed as a middle class white woman's movement

Womanism - 1970s-1980s - a fight back against white feminism/ second wave, about black women's rights and civil rights.

Third wave - 1982 - 2015 - Intersectional feminism, feminism that includes, black women, lesbian/bi women, focus on LGBT rights, focus on disability rights, girl power. intersectionality is the acknowledgement of how different parts of a persons life can effect discrimination. for example a black woman will experience prejudice due to her colour and her sex separately, a disabled white woman will experience sexism and ableism, a gay asian man will experience, racism and homophobia ect.

Fourth wave - 2015 - cont - focus on trans rights, gay rights and victimisation. mostly marxist, however does have fascist tendencies.

resurgence of second wave - 2019 -2020 - feminists who are feeling fourth wave and third wave has left them behind or have become to extreme have reverted back to the principles of second wave, not anti trans rights just anti erasure of women, fights to end trans radicals changing the definitions of sex and gender.
Focus's exclusively on womens rights only.
 






Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
805
I made the only choice I could. Someone had to support that child.

As far as unpaid physical labor..I will refer to my statement above regarding the reason why some women choose to work regardless of finances - prior to their ability to work if their male benefactor died they were left destitute with no options to provide for themselves. This is where unpaid domestic labor comes in... that was a woman’s only approved work domain in the past; and at this point when women choose for it to be their only work domain it leaves them with the same issue in the event of tragedy that our forebears has because domestic labor is not recognized as work.

You can not collect disability or retirement benefits on your own record if you choose to stay home or do so out of necessity. After a certain amount of years out of the workforce it is near impossible to get back in, especially to a position with sustainable wages. By not entering the workforce at all to take care of the domestic front women are leaving themselves at substantial financial risk. If domestic labor was recognized in some way as work then it would free up more women to choose not to enter the workforce or to leave the workforce when their children were young etc. This applies to stay at home dads equally as much it’s just a more rare occurance.

While I’m sure your wife appreciates the physical labor you put into your home (I surely appreciate everything my husband does) doing those things is not at the expense of earning a living OUTSIDE the home and does not have the same effect on your overall lifetime ability to provide for yourself and your financial security. In a few words, it’s different.

I will give you the personal tip on this: I’ve been arguing with my husband for weeks about my insurance on keeping my day job. Even at reduced hours. He wants me home. And I understand his position and agree on many fronts that it makes the most sense. The business is very busy and we need someone who can full time manage it.
I don’t make enough at my job to justify paying someone else something I could be doing myself. On top of that preschools aren’t taking admissions because of covid so we have massive childcare issues right now and it would be better if I could be home with my daughter... but still I’m refusing and compromised to reduce my hours unless they will give me health insurance which I’m still negotiating so the final outcome to this marital disagreeement is still pending atm.

Why am I refusing? Because my grandpa died randomly when my mom was young and my grandma lived In absolute poverty the rest of her life because it was a time before she could really work. Because my aunt stayed home to raise her three kids and as soon as the youngest turned 18 my uncle left her and she has not been able to support herself ever since, she is also living in poverty and has been for years now. Because my mother in law left her abusive husband after staying home and helping him start his business and has had to clean other people’s toilets and break her back for all the years that have passed since then. There are a million and one stories like that and those aren’t even all of the ones I know personally.

So no, I will not set myself up for That and if it means I have to work ten hours a week and pay someone my whole paycheck to take up my Responsibilities while I do then that’s what I will do. Because for a woman there are more considerations then what they want to do or even money. I’d much prefer to stay home but I’m too old to be stupid.
Justjess I respect your ideas and views, even if I don't entirely agree, with them.

Based on your anecdotal experiences it would appear the women of your family have been unjustly burned by their male counterparts when it comes to shouldering the burden of responsibility within the family unit.
I do agree, in this day and age, it is "dangerous" to not have some type of financial independence established for one's self, before entering into the contract/institution of marriage.

That's why there should be some kind if mandated contractual agreement/financial agreement for stay at home parents entitled to financial compensation for their "work" inside the home, from their income-earning partners (like life insurance, or a pension). Would love for feminists to fight for that concept!
Work done inside the home is JUST as valuable (if not more), as outside the home.
Bottom line, nobody should be "off the hook" when it comes to childcare expenses, or other life expenses.
I find it disgraceful that the men you described above, abandoned their families the way they had....
I'm sorry you've experienced this....

ETA: yes, feminists may just argue "the woman should just go out and work a paying job, then"...well, what if she has reduced income earning ability? What if she values family life more than monetary or societal acceptance? I suppose in these scenarios one could argue that "you get what you "pay" for, or "earn" or whatever...but what I'm suggesting is putting the income earning partner legally "on the hook" financially, no matter what, especially if children are involved. No midlife crisis man abandoning his family and running away from the financial obligations of life....freeing himself from the debt itself.
If kids are involved both parties pay/burden themselves equal responsibility, for life. Even after the kids are grown. Yes, I know alimony is a way to commit this obligation but I'm speaking of long term....the agreement needs to be written contractually that whomever cares for the children will always be compensated for their "work" IE; like a pension or life insurance, as stated before...(*for the 18 years of "work history").
Any thoughts on this?
 






Last edited:

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,063
Justjess I respect your ideas and views, even if I don't entirely agree, with them.

Based on your anecdotal experiences it would appear the women of your family have been unjustly burned by their male counterparts when it comes to shouldering the burden of responsibility within the family unit.
I do agree, in this day and age, it is "dangerous" to not have some type of financial independence established for one's self, before entering into the contract/institution of marriage.

That's why there should be some kind if mandated contractual agreement/financial agreement for stay at home parents entitled to financial compensation for their "work" inside the home, from their income-earning partners (like life insurance, or a pension). Would love for feminists to fight for that concept!
Work done inside the home is JUST as valuable (if not more), as outside the home.
Bottom line, nobody should be "off the hook" when it comes to childcare expenses, or other life expenses.
I find it disgraceful that the men you described above, abandoned their families the way they had....
I'm sorry you've experienced this....

ETA: yes, feminists may just argue "the woman should just go out and work a paying job, then"...well, what if she has reduced income earning ability? What if she values family life more than monetary or societal acceptance? I suppose in these scenarios one could argue that "you get what you "pay" for, or "earn" or whatever...but what I'm suggesting is putting the income earning partner legally "on the hook" financially, no matter what, especially if children are involved. No midlife crisis man abandoning his family and running away from the financial obligations of life....freeing himself from the debt itself.
If kids are involved both parties pay/burden themselves equal responsibility, for life. Even after the kids are grown. Yes, I know alimony is a way to commit this obligation but I'm speaking of long term....the agreement needs to be written contractually that whomever cares for the children will always be compensated for their "work" IE; like a pension or life insurance, as stated before...(*for the 18 years of "work history").
Any thoughts on this?
I agree that domestic labor should be compensated. But not all my examples were bad men, that’s the point. Tragedy happens. My grandfather DIED. Men get sick or injured and can’t work. Car accidents, illnesses, violent crimes, crashing economy.. there is so much outside of our control and that doesn’t hinge on “bad choices” of anyone involved. Men were most impacted by the 2008 recession and only recently started getting back their prior level of employment, I haven’t seen the stats for this one yet but I’d assume it probably had a similar effect.
 






Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
805
Oh sorry, I misread that.
Some of the men you wrote of were duds, not all.
Yes, domestic labor should be compensated/secured in the same manner that paying jobs, are.
Its valuable, also!
We need new laws/options available to protect the interests of the home-maker/at home parent (too).
That "work" is largely ignored and uncompensated...

Life and lemons, it's a wild and crazy world, out there! o_O
 






morita

Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
736
For the same reason that white women are the most hostile group towards metoo. They benefit from the system and don't want to give up their privilege. As long as people are comfortable they don't want to think too hard about anything.
Screenshot_2020-10-16 Feminist Witch on Twitter(1).png
White feminism is basically just another tentacle of white supremacy. It's a fucking joke.
 






morita

Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
736
THE FEMINIST WAR AGAINST MOTHERHOOD
I have been collecting some of their more juicy and jaundiced quotes for quite some time now. Let me present just some of them for your enjoyment and edification:










Nice of them to spill the beans. It sure ain’t pretty.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/03/29/feminist-war-motherhood/
I think what Simone de Beauvoir addresses in her quotes is that women can very often be complicit in their own oppression.
There is a reason you rarely see married women with kids rallying against men. They have the least incentive to overthrow patriarchy. In fact, they'll be first in line to defend men like rabid attack dogs.
Or even white women who benefit from their proximity to white men, you'll rarely see them take any stand against male oppression, but they'll throw other races of women under the bus anytime. Because that's what the real goal of white feminism has always been: having a seat at the table with white men and be just as oppressive and exploitative.

And yes, marriage is slavery. Or at least it was at some point. When women didn't have the right to chose their husband and had no other choice to survive than be married to men who were old enough to be their grandads, in exchange for financial security. Because they couldn't join the workforce. I can't believe people are still being willfully oblivious about this.
The radical feminists are the ones really doing anything significant. The "hairy angry lesbians" who hate men won't get married to men or have their kids are the ones who really have consciousness of women as a class.
I don't know what men are complaning about, yall have your attack dog on this very forum. According to this dumbass (theyll recognize themselves), refusing to date ugly or broke men is "oppression against men" lol. Dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.
 






morita

Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
736
1603435161774.png
Actually, I don't think the future generations of women will be more willing to stand up as a class. Simone de Beauvoir wrote her introduction of the Second sex in 1949 and everything she says still rings true to this day. I wish it was less relevant, bcause it would mean there had been improvement but it's not the case.
 






Top