http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl ... cleID=5096
The Cultural Devastation of American Women
Nancy Levant
Nancy Levant is a renowned writer for Constitutional governance and American culture. She is the author of The Collapse of Intuition: The Strange and Frightening Decline of the American Female (and her dreadful timing)via PublishAmerica.com She is an opponent of deceptive governance, global governance by deception, political feminism, the public school system, and political economics based upon manufactured wars and their corporate benefactors, and the Federal Reserve System.
January 24, 2006
I once read an article on a site that does not exist anymore entitled THE WORLD IN THE PALM OF THEIR HANDS: BILDERBER2005, and I pondered the amassing of power by men, and the historical results of men corrupted by power. It has been the downfall of so much, and has caused the brutal death of so many. And it seems to be one of the greatest errors of the human species and never seriously addressed. So much brutality and crime could have been avoided if mankind could or would have addressed the issue of the over-empowerment of men. And as the aforementioned article so clearly demonstrated, a handful of them now determine the fate of all human life on this planet while drinking in a hotel. Strange days.
This brought me to thinking about women who, as a gender, have had a difficult time - historically speaking. Sure, there have been a few female leaders in history, but the bulk of female experience has been unhappy in many ways. Until the 20th Century, the pleasantness of a woman’s life depended upon the decency and kindness of her husband. If she was given to a good man, she was lucky. If she was given to a cruel man, it didn’t matter. And this is true for most women of all cultures, for most women throughout history were not given the right to choose husbands until very recent history. Many, many women still do not have that right.
The 20th Century did, indeed, help some of the female gender. Mostly, it allowed for some opinions to be heard, and in many countries, for votes to be cast. This was a long time coming, and was certainly warranted as women had given birth, cleaned, cooked, planted, and toiled for these rights for centuries. However, many Westernized women took a wrong turn, and particularly so in the United States. American women allowed for the corruption of feminism – the complete and total corruption of feminism – and the results have devastated our nation.
Feminism was not born in the Suffragette Movement. The Suffragettes were women who fought, and mostly with dignity, for the right to vote and higher education. They were not culture-damaging women. They were mothers and wives. They fought for representation and fairness and nothing more. Feminism, as defined by today’s standards, was born during the Sexual Revolution, which was born from widespread recreational drug use by American teenagers. Why no one ever made the connection is beyond me, but that is the truth of the matter. When youths in high schools and colleges were high, widespread sexual activity was the fallout. It’s the same phenomenon as the “bar” mentality – get drunk and sleep with anybody who is willing. Once American youth were openly sleeping with all their friends, including ones of the same sex, and at the same time under the influence of a one or two decade-long marijuana, cocaine, LSD, hashish, amphetamine party, a mindset kicked in, which perverted the very essence of feminism.
The resulting politicizing of feminism all but destroyed what it means to be a natural and biological female. In fact, feminism became a movement based upon anger, demands, and a demand that women think and believe in a prescribed and documented agenda. Political feminism actually worked to recapture the free will of women. Try disagreeing with a political feminist and discover what a dumb ass your free will has become. Try disagreeing with anything a political feminist has to say about anything. You would get the same attitude and look from a radical environmentalist – no compromise, no reflection, no regard or respect for the opinion of another, no deals. They are unapproachable, arrogant, and believe themselves to be intellectual elites – much akin to their Trilateral/Bilderberg brothers.
Feminism is not brute-force politics. With bated breath, I will tell you what feminism is. Feminism is the result of women who feed and grow their spiritual and biological gifts. That is its sole definition. There is not one American woman who needs a political feminist to define her, represent her, craft her opinions, or her needs as a woman.
Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so. The instinctual and intuitive abilities of women, if nurtured, if paid attention to, and if understood, carry significant mental and intellectual power. Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation.
The easiest way to demonstrate this link is in their ability to develop a mental and loving relationship with children in utero. Most women love their children before they are seen, before they are born. Women have the ability to comprehend and to know the unknown, much like faith, and if this ability is nurtured and developed, it can carry forth with great accuracy into the world.
Women sense danger. Women sense problems. Women sense safety. Women sense future needs. These are vital skills and they are biological gifts, but they are also gifts that evolve around motherhood, children, and nest. So sorry, but truth is not a political agenda. Women who become what contemporary culture refers to as “psychic” are simply women who develop their instincts and intuitions.
Women who are working 70 hours a week, spending time in board meetings knocking out deals, running to gyms, hair, and nail salons, and shopping while their children are in daycare centers 12 hours a day are simply incapable of real feminism. Feminism happens when you develop your female strengths. High-powered careers, gyms, hair and nail salons, and shopping while the kids are sorrow-filled in daycare all work to create anger and resentments in women. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Most self-inflected wounds do.
Political feminism has taken motherhood, nest, the womanly arts of cooking, gardening, and nurturing away from women. Political feminism has also helped to mandate the two-income family by insisting that American women work outside of the home or be looked down upon by contemporary culture. Political feminism helped to build the deplorable daycare industry, which is literally filled with minimum wage female employees – thanks a lot. Political feminism helped to build the illegal immigrant nanny and handyman industry – thanks a lot. And political feminism helped to build the drive-through junk food industry since working women don’t want to cook, and therefore, don’t know how to cook – thanks a lot. Political feminism helped to build and grow the mental health/big pharma industry, which now specifically targets women and children as in New Freedom Initiative on Mental Health. Thanks one hell of a lot. AND political feminism helped to destroy, literally destroy, the public education system in the United States of America, which is now a full-blown dictatorship. How dare you, and how dare you claim to represent freedom for women.
Many, many contemporary American women are emotional messes. They are pathologically vain, materialistic as clearly demonstrated in their overly decorated, sterile home, and landscaped yards; are grossly self-involved, horrible and mean-spirited mothers and wives, and they are constantly, incessantly, angry and neurotic. American women are shallow. They openly accept television, Hollywood, and magazines as role models for their daughters and themselves. They abuse money and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars annually for beauty regimens, diet supplements, day spas, trinkets, and gym memberships. Many are addicted to a whole array of over-the-counter drugs and beauty aids. This is liberation?
American women wouldn’t understand feminism or liberation if it smacked them in the head. They are so far removed from their spiritual and biological natures that mirrors have become their solace and definition. And the results? Take a look at the condition of American children, marriages, and home lives, and then ask what role political feminism has played to make American women a global laughing stock while their children die spiritual and emotional deaths. American women are so off track they don’t even realize that 90% of televised commercials and programming are insulting, objectifying, or making light of their gender. Then add the death of the Constitution to this heap, which political feminism has been instrumentally shredding for decades and voila! Liberation and freedom of all kinds - gone – poof – just like that!
Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts men, which is historically provable and factual? Can we at least agree that American women have been absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS? We are all in want of truth, and our children suffer deplorably due to its lacking. We must try to restore as many foundations for our children as we can, but we have to begin with ourselves and go from there. If we don’t or won’t recognize basic, and I mean the really basic and core truths, complex Bilderberg-style lies, and those of their feminist sisters, rule the day.
I mean, seriously, you want to purposefully destroy a perfectly good culture? Give dictatorial powers to a small group of rich men and destroy the female psyche. Then sit back and watch that culture go up in flames.
Websites for Wisdoms:
www.newswithviews.com
http://www.acl.us.tt
Nancy Levant: The Cultural Devastation of American Women
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
UM.
This is a rant that seems to go all over the map. Let me see if I can try to break it down into parts and give some of my own reactions.
So how to combat it without making women more like men? Just a question.
As for the sexual revolution, I'm not completely sure it was born of drug use.
These are two HUGE leaps of perception.
Seems to me that the sexual revolution was born of more rights for women and increasingly effective, readily available forms of birth control. Also the decline of the Church as the bastion of morality had a lot to do with it.
What was wrong with the sexual revolution, then and now, is that women use the male model of sexual freedom and attempt to apply it to themselves. Very few women can do that with success. It causes unhappiness.
Did I say bullshit? Bullshit.
It's got nothing whatsoever do with women messing themselves up, and it's got everything to do with both women and men making decisions about what they want to do with their lives.
Too bad that some women now have no choice because jobs aren't as highly paid as they used to be, and a man generally can't support a whole four or five person family on one income alone. That is sad, but the answer is not for women to go back to the kitchen. The answer is to tailor our expectations of life to what we can realistically handle. That means having fewer children or none at all. Or it may mean marrying UP or down, so that one of you is positioned to be a huge success while the other is ready for the kitchen and the babies.
"Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts women???"
We can at least agree that power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely, and it doesn't seem to care about the sex of its victim.
Sorry, whimsicaldeb, I like you and your posts a lot, but this is just NOT my take on feminism. This is dangerously close to what the Right would like you to swallow, hook, line and sinker, about the place of women in the world. Bullcrackers.
Women should be where they want to be, doing what they want to do. I agree about the careful raising of children. Other than that, forget it.
This is a rant that seems to go all over the map. Let me see if I can try to break it down into parts and give some of my own reactions.
How did this even happen? It happened because women have babies and men don't, right?So much brutality and crime could have been avoided if mankind could or would have addressed the issue of the over-empowerment of men.
So how to combat it without making women more like men? Just a question.
No, feminism was NOT born of the sexual revolution.Feminism, as defined by today’s standards, was born during the Sexual Revolution, which was born from widespread recreational drug use by American teenagers. Why no one ever made the connection is beyond me, but that is the truth of the matter. When youths in high schools and colleges were high, widespread sexual activity was the fallout. It’s the same phenomenon as the “bar” mentality – get drunk and sleep with anybody who is willing.
As for the sexual revolution, I'm not completely sure it was born of drug use.
These are two HUGE leaps of perception.
Seems to me that the sexual revolution was born of more rights for women and increasingly effective, readily available forms of birth control. Also the decline of the Church as the bastion of morality had a lot to do with it.
What was wrong with the sexual revolution, then and now, is that women use the male model of sexual freedom and attempt to apply it to themselves. Very few women can do that with success. It causes unhappiness.
OK. I'll buy that. It's a pretty good definition.Feminism is the result of women who feed and grow their spiritual and biological gifts. That is its sole definition. There is not one American woman who needs a political feminist to define her, represent her, craft her opinions, or her needs as a woman.
REALLY. Most women can become more spiritually advanced than most men, eh? That's a pretty man-hating statement. Men are spiritually inferior to women. I don't know about you, but I'm a woman and I'm offended by the implications of that.Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so. The instinctual and intuitive abilities of women, if nurtured, if paid attention to, and if understood, carry significant mental and intellectual power. Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation.
Men aren't capable of developing close and unique bonds with their children? Women are gifted with a greater power to love BECAUSE they have wombs and men don't? C'mon, it's thinking like this that is keeping both men and women in the Stone Age. All men can do is grunt and swing clubs. How DARE they take over the world! THEY are not capable of half the spiritual advancement and love that women are gifted with. Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.The easiest way to demonstrate this link is in their ability to develop a mental and loving relationship with children in utero
Did I say bullshit? Bullshit.
OK, here's the REAL problem: SOMEONE (I don't care who -- not NEARLY as much as Ms. Levanter the Ranter) needs to care for those kiddies. Don't have some kids if they're going to be raised by someone else. Makes no sense. As for the rest -- if a woman wants to work 70 hour weeks -- let her do it. If a woman wants to run from the gym to the nail salon in her spare time, that is her prerogative. Spending time in board meetings and knocking out deals has been good enough for men for a long, long time. Why not for women too? Just let's figure out -- both of us -- female and MALE of this species -- tha having children is a SERIOUS activity, not to be taken lightly, and not to be accomplished between the nail salon and the boardroom. If you can't do the kid thing right -- DON'T DO IT AT ALL. End of story.Women who are working 70 hours a week, spending time in board meetings knocking out deals, running to gyms, hair, and nail salons, and shopping while their children are in daycare centers 12 hours a day are simply incapable of real feminism. Feminism happens when you develop your female strengths. High-powered careers, gyms, hair and nail salons, and shopping while the kids are sorrow-filled in daycare all work to create anger and resentments in women. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Most self-inflected wounds do.
It's got nothing whatsoever do with women messing themselves up, and it's got everything to do with both women and men making decisions about what they want to do with their lives.
No, no. NOT "political" feminism. It's "economic" feminism that has done this. It's women working outside the home that's done this. When women entered the workforce, they raised the bar for everyone. Now, there are twice as many people competing for the same number of jobs. There's more supply than demand. It happened because women entered the workfoce en masse, as soon as it became socially acceptable for them to do so. What does that tell you? It tells me that women WANTED to work! It tells me that they WANTED to develop OTHER skills, besides gardening and cooking and having babies. It tells me that this woman, who thinks she's telling women what they REALLY want, is full of garbage. No one forced women into the workforce. No one kicked us out of the kitchen and made us go. We went willingly and gladly.Political feminism has also helped to mandate the two-income family by insisting that American women work outside of the home or be looked down upon by contemporary culture.
Too bad that some women now have no choice because jobs aren't as highly paid as they used to be, and a man generally can't support a whole four or five person family on one income alone. That is sad, but the answer is not for women to go back to the kitchen. The answer is to tailor our expectations of life to what we can realistically handle. That means having fewer children or none at all. Or it may mean marrying UP or down, so that one of you is positioned to be a huge success while the other is ready for the kitchen and the babies.
How did feminism do THIS? I'm clueless. Can someone enlighten me?AND political feminism helped to destroy, literally destroy, the public education system in the United States of America, which is now a full-blown dictatorship.
LOL. And these are the SAME women she claims have more ability to be "spiritually advanced" than men, and so on. Make up yer mind, Nancy the Ranter. If we're so HOT -- so amazing and intuitive and spiritually advanced and full of love, then HOW did we let this happen to ourselves? Think about it. What a stupid, jacked up thing for these spiritually advanced creatures to become in a mere few decades.Many, many contemporary American women are emotional messes. They are pathologically vain, materialistic as clearly demonstrated in their overly decorated, sterile home, and landscaped yards; are grossly self-involved, horrible and mean-spirited mothers and wives, and they are constantly, incessantly, angry and neurotic. American women are shallow.
This is particularly funny.Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts men
"Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts women???"
We can at least agree that power corrupts, and it corrupts absolutely, and it doesn't seem to care about the sex of its victim.
Sorry, whimsicaldeb, I like you and your posts a lot, but this is just NOT my take on feminism. This is dangerously close to what the Right would like you to swallow, hook, line and sinker, about the place of women in the world. Bullcrackers.
Women should be where they want to be, doing what they want to do. I agree about the careful raising of children. Other than that, forget it.
-
judih
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 7:38 am
- Location: kibbutz nir oz, israel
- Contact:
Interesting responses, Laurie.
i'm particularly happy with deb's posting this article by Nancy Levant cause of my recent exposure to the works of Julia Kristeva, an activist, psychoanalyst and a feminist.
She states that feminism has had 3 stages:
1. Emancipation (the right to vote)
2. Fight for equality (in income, job opportunities, sexuality, status and all else that we can think of)
3. Recognition of differences between men and women and utilizing those differences to advance our culture.
Julia is a Bulgarian who lives in France. She says she's adopted America as her home as well, but she speaks very much in European tones.
That's why I appreciate hearing Nancy. She's very forthright in her condemnation of the sexual revolution. What was highly freeing, became a tool for increased slavery. The joy of sexual expression turned into a culture of celebrating youth and superficial beauty.
To escape that cultural weight requires unique individuals and determination.
What does childbirth do to a woman that a man can never experience? Womb to heart is a good title for a poem, but how to explain what i mean? Carrying another being within your body is no ordinary situation. The fetus interacts with every known bodily function and a woman is totally aware of being pregnant almost from the moment of conception (even if she refuses to admit it, and that happens also).
That approx. 9 month situation cannot be described and no man can imagine it. There are tales of women spontaneously leaking milk just by walking by a crying infant. Men don't. (Men can nurse, it's been shown, but it requires a great deal of effort).
Julia Kristeva speaks of creation and childbirth as two alternative forms of expression given to women. Both forms of creativity are part of the feminine experience.
Yes, men are creative! Most certainly, but women seem to have a natural affinity for the other. Not that we're generous and unselfish, but we do overcome narcissism because of our deeply ingrained feminine selves.
What i'm stating here is paraphrased from Julia Kristeva. She was in Tel Aviv this past week and after taking notes and typing them and considering them, i find her ideas to suit me.
Most certainly they would not suit everyone.
This is a link that i like:
http://www.engl.niu.edu/wac/kristeva.html
i'm particularly happy with deb's posting this article by Nancy Levant cause of my recent exposure to the works of Julia Kristeva, an activist, psychoanalyst and a feminist.
She states that feminism has had 3 stages:
1. Emancipation (the right to vote)
2. Fight for equality (in income, job opportunities, sexuality, status and all else that we can think of)
3. Recognition of differences between men and women and utilizing those differences to advance our culture.
Julia is a Bulgarian who lives in France. She says she's adopted America as her home as well, but she speaks very much in European tones.
That's why I appreciate hearing Nancy. She's very forthright in her condemnation of the sexual revolution. What was highly freeing, became a tool for increased slavery. The joy of sexual expression turned into a culture of celebrating youth and superficial beauty.
To escape that cultural weight requires unique individuals and determination.
What does childbirth do to a woman that a man can never experience? Womb to heart is a good title for a poem, but how to explain what i mean? Carrying another being within your body is no ordinary situation. The fetus interacts with every known bodily function and a woman is totally aware of being pregnant almost from the moment of conception (even if she refuses to admit it, and that happens also).
That approx. 9 month situation cannot be described and no man can imagine it. There are tales of women spontaneously leaking milk just by walking by a crying infant. Men don't. (Men can nurse, it's been shown, but it requires a great deal of effort).
Julia Kristeva speaks of creation and childbirth as two alternative forms of expression given to women. Both forms of creativity are part of the feminine experience.
Yes, men are creative! Most certainly, but women seem to have a natural affinity for the other. Not that we're generous and unselfish, but we do overcome narcissism because of our deeply ingrained feminine selves.
What i'm stating here is paraphrased from Julia Kristeva. She was in Tel Aviv this past week and after taking notes and typing them and considering them, i find her ideas to suit me.
Most certainly they would not suit everyone.
This is a link that i like:
http://www.engl.niu.edu/wac/kristeva.html
Re: Nancy Levant: The Cultural Devastation of American Wome
I like this.There is not one American woman who needs a political feminist to define her, represent her, craft her opinions, or her needs as a woman.
I don't like this so much. Sounds chauvinistic to me.Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so. Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation.
I don't like this much, either. Too vague, alarmist, not substantiated.Then add the death of the Constitution to this heap, which political feminism has been instrumentally shredding for decades and voila! Liberation and freedom of all kinds - gone – poof – just like that!
Oh yes, absolutely. And increasing numbers of women will get their shot at holding power as time goes on. Let's see how they do. Are women immune to corruption? No. For example, I think power had a corrupting influence on Margaret Thatcher when she led England, judging by some of her corporatist policies.Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts men, which is historically provable and factual?
Oh yes, absolutely. Men and women, without a doubt. But I wouldn't put most of the "cultural BS" on political feminism, (whatever that really means). I think runaway materialism and greed in general, along with increasingly militant, intolerant, powerful, and oppressive right-wing zealotry pose greater threats.Can we at least agree that American women have been absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS?
Note: This essay has an air of sensationalism about it. I know the author is probably in real life a great human being-- brilliant, insightful, spiritual-- but there's just something about this essay.... She complains about the "elitist" approach of political feminists, but her own words at times come across as something akin to elitist belief..... just an impression I got while reading this piece. It gave me plenty to think about, however. Thanks for posting, Deb.
Last edited by mnaz on January 31st, 2006, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
men are subjected to dramatically biased cultural ideas. we just dont throw up about it.
we distance ourselves from our children about it, we focus too much on career and money about it. we become hypermacho about it. we cant cry about it. we cant acknowledge it. we cant find ways to deal with it.
acknowledging the 9month experience at the expense of other female experiences is bad, same as at the expense of uniquely male experiences.
power corrupts all humanity. men are not unique in this, it's just that men have been more powerful due to very non-feminist cultural norms throughout history. i canNOT agree that too much power corrupts ONLY men or even men more than women. i canNOT agree that american women have been ONLY absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS.
the article is based in feminist tactics, even while trying to distance itself from feminist politics. men and women are different just like young and old are different, just like black and white, just like tall and short, type A and type B, creative and noncreative, mechanical-oriented and nonmechanical-oriented. too attach differences to people beyond gender based solely on gender is to stereotype, and is wrong, and his precisely the harmful cultural movements that the article complains about.
we distance ourselves from our children about it, we focus too much on career and money about it. we become hypermacho about it. we cant cry about it. we cant acknowledge it. we cant find ways to deal with it.
acknowledging the 9month experience at the expense of other female experiences is bad, same as at the expense of uniquely male experiences.
power corrupts all humanity. men are not unique in this, it's just that men have been more powerful due to very non-feminist cultural norms throughout history. i canNOT agree that too much power corrupts ONLY men or even men more than women. i canNOT agree that american women have been ONLY absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS.
the article is based in feminist tactics, even while trying to distance itself from feminist politics. men and women are different just like young and old are different, just like black and white, just like tall and short, type A and type B, creative and noncreative, mechanical-oriented and nonmechanical-oriented. too attach differences to people beyond gender based solely on gender is to stereotype, and is wrong, and his precisely the harmful cultural movements that the article complains about.
and knowing i'm so eager to fight cant make letting me in any easier.
[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]
[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]
[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]
[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
When I first read this article I went ... Ummm. Ultimately, I ended up liking this article. Like you folks, I agree with something, but not others. But, I find in myself, I'm happy she brought this subject up.
I like that she's questioning feminism; and specifically b]political[/b] feminism and it's use, history, and power and use. She's passionate about the subject, so her biases are tending to bend her perspectives, none the less … I truly feel she’s on the right track. Like Judih's comment ... she's finding/beginning/stepping out unto that '3rd way' of feminism - equality.
In questioning the value of feminism, in all it’s forms and places, she’s living what she said (and I agree with) and knows needs to be, a balanced and better world … looking at and questioning the use of power… using pros & cons to decide and decipher ...
Equally true is – but new to the mix – is political power in a woman’s hands; and feminism is the most active area where women are holding/using this power. So, how well are we? So I see this author as putting her actions and attentions where her ideals are, and questioning how well we’ve used this power so far.
But, I think she didn't express herself as well as she could have. Like water through a pipe ...if there is a lot of 'other stuff' inside the pipe, it comes out with the water as well. (biases, emotions, too much passion)
It's hard to talk about something, bring something up for the first time, when you're not sure how it's going to be perceived. Or when you know there are already a lot of polarized emotions around the subject, and I like to read another article written by her about this same subject, only with that other 'stuff' removed. Or at least lessened.
That’s why I posted - and I’m glad I did because that's what those of you who replied ended ended up doing! Hitting the key parts (pros & cons) without the biases.
Now, there is one place that I was also completely baffled (Laurie posted this as well):
I don’t quite get this one. I agree, our education system is mucked up, but I don't know how got to the place where its feminism fault.
So, you know what I’m going to do ... I'm going to write her. I'm going to ask her and could she elaborate, and if she replies -- I’ll post her response.
I may even ask her to check this thread out. I think she'd be pleasantly surprised to read the qualtiy of the responses.
I like that she's questioning feminism; and specifically b]political[/b] feminism and it's use, history, and power and use. She's passionate about the subject, so her biases are tending to bend her perspectives, none the less … I truly feel she’s on the right track. Like Judih's comment ... she's finding/beginning/stepping out unto that '3rd way' of feminism - equality.
In questioning the value of feminism, in all it’s forms and places, she’s living what she said (and I agree with) and knows needs to be, a balanced and better world … looking at and questioning the use of power… using pros & cons to decide and decipher ...
This is true. Political power.I pondered the amassing of power by men, and the historical results of men corrupted by power. It has been the downfall of so much, and has caused the brutal death of so many. And it seems to be one of the greatest errors of the human species and never seriously addressed. So much brutality and crime could have been avoided if mankind could or would have addressed the issue of the over-empowerment of men.
Equally true is – but new to the mix – is political power in a woman’s hands; and feminism is the most active area where women are holding/using this power. So, how well are we? So I see this author as putting her actions and attentions where her ideals are, and questioning how well we’ve used this power so far.
But, I think she didn't express herself as well as she could have. Like water through a pipe ...if there is a lot of 'other stuff' inside the pipe, it comes out with the water as well. (biases, emotions, too much passion)
It's hard to talk about something, bring something up for the first time, when you're not sure how it's going to be perceived. Or when you know there are already a lot of polarized emotions around the subject, and I like to read another article written by her about this same subject, only with that other 'stuff' removed. Or at least lessened.
That’s why I posted - and I’m glad I did because that's what those of you who replied ended ended up doing! Hitting the key parts (pros & cons) without the biases.
Now, there is one place that I was also completely baffled (Laurie posted this as well):
.AND political feminism helped to destroy, literally destroy, the public education system in the United States of America, which is now a full-blown dictatorship.
I don’t quite get this one. I agree, our education system is mucked up, but I don't know how got to the place where its feminism fault.
So, you know what I’m going to do ... I'm going to write her. I'm going to ask her and could she elaborate, and if she replies -- I’ll post her response.
I may even ask her to check this thread out. I think she'd be pleasantly surprised to read the qualtiy of the responses.
I´ll check your link, judih. Kristeva was a hard reading for me. Too much implicit intrincated theory. I partly read "Histoires d´amour" -1983- for an exam I want to take in april-may.
I did a cut-up from the last pages of the book (I had to do something with the book).
Here it is (I´ll try an english translation later):
¿construcción or deriva?
flotar
a veces vacío, inauténtico e hilvanado
apariencia tomada en serio
fragmentos de cuerpos rotos
arrastrados por la corriente de su placer
decirse y escribirse
en espacios inestables, abiertos, indecidibles
sin llenar de sentido la crisis
sólo work in progress
construcciones fantasiosas,
osadas
violentas
críticas
exigentes
tímidas
vacío y prohibiciones
déjenlos hablar
los ET son cada vez más numerosos
todos somos ET
polivalentes, indecibles, infinitos
los ET vivirán
I did a cut-up from the last pages of the book (I had to do something with the book).
Here it is (I´ll try an english translation later):
¿construcción or deriva?
flotar
a veces vacío, inauténtico e hilvanado
apariencia tomada en serio
fragmentos de cuerpos rotos
arrastrados por la corriente de su placer
decirse y escribirse
en espacios inestables, abiertos, indecidibles
sin llenar de sentido la crisis
sólo work in progress
construcciones fantasiosas,
osadas
violentas
críticas
exigentes
tímidas
vacío y prohibiciones
déjenlos hablar
los ET son cada vez más numerosos
todos somos ET
polivalentes, indecibles, infinitos
los ET vivirán
here it goes, something like an english translation:
construction or deriva?
to float
sometimes empty
not authentic & tack-ed
appearance taken seriously
fragments of broken bodies
pulled by the stream of their own pleausure
to speak (ourselves)
to write (ourselves)
in unstable, open, unsettled spaces
without filling the crisis with sense
only work in progress
fantastic
audacious
violent
critic
exigent
timid
constructions
emptiness and prohibitions
let them talk
the ET´s are more each time
we are the ET´s
polivalent, unspeakable, infinite
the ET´s will live
construction or deriva?
to float
sometimes empty
not authentic & tack-ed
appearance taken seriously
fragments of broken bodies
pulled by the stream of their own pleausure
to speak (ourselves)
to write (ourselves)
in unstable, open, unsettled spaces
without filling the crisis with sense
only work in progress
fantastic
audacious
violent
critic
exigent
timid
constructions
emptiness and prohibitions
let them talk
the ET´s are more each time
we are the ET´s
polivalent, unspeakable, infinite
the ET´s will live
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
Judih, I liked what you had to say, and it is more what I think feminism is really all about. It's about women finding their own way. Whatever that way happens to be.
While I don't deny that women have a unique approach to life because of their childbearing abilities, I hesitate to use phrases like "Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so." and, "Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation." That goes over the top, in my opinion.
The whole article, from beginning to end, seems to imply that MEN are responsible for this whole f--ked up mess that we are in today and women are mere victims of social pressures and male dominance and so on. Well, phooey. For men to take control, women had to relinquish it. That was once a function of female biology.
What's our excuse now? Thanks to birth control, we've got choices now. And, as the article accurately points out, there are some ways in which WOMEN -- the allegedly spiritual superiors of the human race -- haven't evolved too far past lipstick and nail polish and trips to the gym. We're still WAYYY too into the things that got us into the subjugated position in the first place.
We've got a VERY long way to go. And the men have an even longer way to go. Men have to learn to tap into the feminine side, and women (I stand by this assertion) have to learn to tap into the MASCULINE side. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with women being less like women for a while if that's what we need to do. Same for men being less like men.
Lamenting lost choices doesn't do much for me. Don't know if that's what Levant was trying to do, but it sure seemed like it to me.
I was disappointed by the lack of reasoned argument and the overwhelming amount of anger steaming from the article. From my point of view, women aren't so very oppressed any more. Why look for other reasons to be mad and feel victimized? I can do what I want. Sure, I may run up against some glass ceilings, and I may have some logistical problems to work out if I want to have children. Undeniably, my ability to find a mate is affected by conventional definitions of female beauty. That's a hurdle. But I really don't feel RAGEOUS about it. It was less than a hundred years ago, wasn't it, when a man was legally entitled to beat his wife and the law couldn't interfere? What was a woman's life like in 1906? Change doesn't happen overnight in most societies, and yet we've made astronomical leaps in a mere few decades. I don't wanna get mad, I wanna move forward. That means, primarily, getting male buy-in -- which we can't get if we're screaming about our victimhood. Especially if the theme of this screaming is that we want to go back to cooking and gardening.
C'mon dude. Women's lives are generally MUCH better than the men's these days -- women still get to CHOOSE which type of life they want to live. I support myself, but my sister-in-law stays home and does the mom thing. How many men get the choice of staying home?
whimsicaldeb: Yeah, bring Nancy Levant into this. I'm interested.
firsty:
Mnaz: As usual, we seem to agree. I missed that stuff about feminism "shredding" the Constitution. WTF is THAT all about???
Does she mean because it says "all MEN are created equal?" Good GRIEF. Talk about emotionalism and not getting it straight! Ugh.
Power corrupts. Always. If it is capable of corrupting one sex, it can easily corrupt the other.
While I don't deny that women have a unique approach to life because of their childbearing abilities, I hesitate to use phrases like "Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so." and, "Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation." That goes over the top, in my opinion.
The whole article, from beginning to end, seems to imply that MEN are responsible for this whole f--ked up mess that we are in today and women are mere victims of social pressures and male dominance and so on. Well, phooey. For men to take control, women had to relinquish it. That was once a function of female biology.
What's our excuse now? Thanks to birth control, we've got choices now. And, as the article accurately points out, there are some ways in which WOMEN -- the allegedly spiritual superiors of the human race -- haven't evolved too far past lipstick and nail polish and trips to the gym. We're still WAYYY too into the things that got us into the subjugated position in the first place.
We've got a VERY long way to go. And the men have an even longer way to go. Men have to learn to tap into the feminine side, and women (I stand by this assertion) have to learn to tap into the MASCULINE side. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with women being less like women for a while if that's what we need to do. Same for men being less like men.
Lamenting lost choices doesn't do much for me. Don't know if that's what Levant was trying to do, but it sure seemed like it to me.
I was disappointed by the lack of reasoned argument and the overwhelming amount of anger steaming from the article. From my point of view, women aren't so very oppressed any more. Why look for other reasons to be mad and feel victimized? I can do what I want. Sure, I may run up against some glass ceilings, and I may have some logistical problems to work out if I want to have children. Undeniably, my ability to find a mate is affected by conventional definitions of female beauty. That's a hurdle. But I really don't feel RAGEOUS about it. It was less than a hundred years ago, wasn't it, when a man was legally entitled to beat his wife and the law couldn't interfere? What was a woman's life like in 1906? Change doesn't happen overnight in most societies, and yet we've made astronomical leaps in a mere few decades. I don't wanna get mad, I wanna move forward. That means, primarily, getting male buy-in -- which we can't get if we're screaming about our victimhood. Especially if the theme of this screaming is that we want to go back to cooking and gardening.
C'mon dude. Women's lives are generally MUCH better than the men's these days -- women still get to CHOOSE which type of life they want to live. I support myself, but my sister-in-law stays home and does the mom thing. How many men get the choice of staying home?
whimsicaldeb: Yeah, bring Nancy Levant into this. I'm interested.
firsty:
Yap, I agree. I see "feminist politics" written all over this, and I RESENT it when anyone tries to imply that I'm somehow less in touch with my feminine side because I WORK full time, have a career (well, on a good day, lol) and have chosen not to have children. Maybe that's a leap of perception on my part, but when she talks about gardening and cooking and childbearing as GOOD and being in the boardroom and making decisions as BAD, then I take umbrage. In my view, these are just CHOICES, so get off my case. Women have more of 'em now, and did anyone miss my point ?? -- If we didn't WANT to be in the boardroom and so on, we wouldn't have RUSHED to the workforce to do it as soon as we had the chance!the article is based in feminist tactics, even while trying to distance itself from feminist politics.
Mnaz: As usual, we seem to agree. I missed that stuff about feminism "shredding" the Constitution. WTF is THAT all about???
Does she mean because it says "all MEN are created equal?" Good GRIEF. Talk about emotionalism and not getting it straight! Ugh.
Haven't we already seen it? Doesn't her article illustrate it? Women are quite capable of being greedy, self-serving sons-of-bitches. Just check out my boss. She's a classic example of the boardroom to nail salon running women Levant talked about in her article. It's all MONEYMONEYMONEYPOWERMONEYMONEYPOWERMONEY for this person. Just nuts. No different than a man in the same position. It's revolting in either sex.And increasing numbers of women will get their shot at holding power as time goes on. Let's see how they do.
Power corrupts. Always. If it is capable of corrupting one sex, it can easily corrupt the other.
women as victims is feminism's ultimate portrayal, and necessary to promote their agenda. that women are victims, then, of feminism, is starting to beg the question a bit. if women are victims of feminism, then perhaps they dont deserve feminism, perhaps they dont deserve an empowering movement, if all theyre going to do is march in line. of course, i dont feel that any of that is true. i just feel it shows that feminism, at its core, is invalid.
and knowing i'm so eager to fight cant make letting me in any easier.
[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]
[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]
[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]
[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]
-
whimsicaldeb
- Posts: 882
- Joined: November 3rd, 2004, 4:53 pm
- Location: Northern California, USA
- Contact:
Feminism, at it's core is equality. Period. Nothing more – but nothing less, either.
Now what do we do if we don’t like how it’s all turning out? Should we blame the men, blame the women ... or should we finally go directly to the source of problem: our shared desires for power & greed, pleasure & possessions.
My husband and my son are spiritual beings, as am I – but our expression of that spirituality is different. Not superior, different. Furthermore, I’ve found that our difference are complimentary to each other – but only when we’re honest, and NOT pursuing power, greed, materialism, or selfish pleasure. If either/any of us is pursuing any of those things; we clash.
----
I received a reply to my email, where I invited her to S8, and as my question about how political feminism corrupted our school system and here is my email to her, and her reply:
What I wrote:
Also, I think she might be ‘out of touch’ … writing from old beliefs.
I have some experience in dealing with the public system. Eric’s in the public school system. Both of us; my husband and myself, together have been tackling this over burdened system. It’s a mess … and it has not been easy, and we’ve not been successful in some areas, yet have been in others. But at the core of this is the FACT that “Parental Involvement” consistently has included mothers AND fathers all the way through our experience. Not ‘just’ Cal & myself… but other mothers and fathers, together – as well as fathers by themselves, and yes – mothers by themselves.
This is why I say, and feel, that while she’s accurate in what she’s seeing, she’s off on the cause, thus she’s off on the solutions.
Feminism is not the cause; the cause is the level of greed and power and control and materialism within the people within “politics” and “economics” – and it’s that, which is the problem.
Feminism was born from a lack of balance, in order to restore balance… and to a large degree – it has. Because now I see equally men & women working to restore balance, as well as the men & women who aren’t.
And if you ask me, we already have it... currently women are being as equally corrupted by power, and greed, pleasure and possessions as men. Hallelujah! It worked.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism
fem·i·nism
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women
Now what do we do if we don’t like how it’s all turning out? Should we blame the men, blame the women ... or should we finally go directly to the source of problem: our shared desires for power & greed, pleasure & possessions.
My husband and my son are spiritual beings, as am I – but our expression of that spirituality is different. Not superior, different. Furthermore, I’ve found that our difference are complimentary to each other – but only when we’re honest, and NOT pursuing power, greed, materialism, or selfish pleasure. If either/any of us is pursuing any of those things; we clash.
----
I received a reply to my email, where I invited her to S8, and as my question about how political feminism corrupted our school system and here is my email to her, and her reply:
What I wrote:
Her reply ...Hello Ms. Levant,
I read your article "The Cultural Devastation of American Women" and while I don't fully agree with all you say, I don't disagree with all your comments either. I felt your article was so important, I decided to share it with others at the Studio Eight discussion boards:
Studio Eight is a showcase for artists, writers, musicians, and other creatives.
http://www.studioeight.tv/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6188
I hope you'll come by and read the exchanges over your article; I think you'll be surprised at the responses.
I'm writing main because I have a question .... in your article you wrote: /AND political feminism helped to destroy, literally destroy, the public education system in the United States of America. /I don't understand, in your opinion, how did political feminism destroy the public education system. Could you elaborate? I don't disagree at all that our public education system is in horrible shape. I know it is .. my son is 15, is in the California public school system, and I see it first hand. However, I don't understand how 'political feminisms' is a part of the problem.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debra A. Hegerle
Martinez, CA
After reading this, and all the replies here, each of our thoughts ... I'm thinking, it's not about 'feminism' -- it's about economics. And that at the core, it’s not that guys have messed things up – we’ve all messed things up; women and men in a multitude of ways … by being distracted by possessions, and pleasures, and greed, and power.Hi Debra,
Thanks for writing and for circulating this article, which always causes a lot of thinking and controversy. It's actually the briefest of summations to a full-length book entitled The Collapse of Intuition: The strange and frightening decline of the American female (and her dreadful timing), which is coming out in the next several months via Publish America.
The commentary about schools, which I realize is a one-liner in the article, speaks to the fact that American women, prior to working in mass numbers, use to watchdog schools because 1) the schools wanted their involvement, which they do not today, 2) were not burning the candle at both ends, 3) had the cultural power and backing to be regarded as a mother. In today's world and schools, that is not the case. Parental questioning of the decisions of the public schools has become a borderline criminal activity. It didn't help matters that women's presence and authority lessened as women became paychecks to hold down all home forts, and stay-at-home motherhood was all but eliminated in the last 40 years. Talk about a primordial earthquake that led to culture-changing events. And what good is had from the "liberation" of women? I don't know - ask their children. Look at the condition of the children's world, which is the world of mandatory education. Where were the mothers as the entire public school system in the entire nation went to complete hell in the last 2 decades? They were working their asses off paying bills. That's some liberation.
Careers - fine and wonderful - but the fact is that men can't alone carry the financial burdens of families anymore (and if you want to get particular - due to the Federal Reserve Corporation and its debt-based economics).
As far as the comment regarding women having the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, I stand by it. Look at the world's religions - all headed up by males - and 98% of all governments - also headed up by males, and then talk to me about the spiritual condition of men. From what I can see, and what all recorded history has documented, is that men prefer conflict over peace, choose conflict and competition over peace, will fight for anything of monetary value (like oil, for instance), and base entire careers upon the planning and strategies of competition, crisis, game planning, and war. All men - no, but men in positions of power? History will back me up. Men in power lead, change, destroy, and rebuild cultures and societies. I don't see improvements in this culture. Do you?
Pregnancy is a reflective time for most females, in my opinion. They are attuned to their bodies and movements of babies, and women do develop emotional relationships to babies in utero. They are emotionally attached to them before they come forth, so to speak. I'm sure this was true over the millennium. I think women have had the biological opportunity to develop spiritually due to their bodies, and I think they did just that until politically-based feminism dove into the female psyche and told her who she was and what to think - lest she be an asshole. I think political feminism took more intellectual and emotional power from women, and in a faster amount of time, than all the other enslavements combined - with media a close 2nd.
Well, it's all food for thought, and I sure hope women are thinking. This culture took a wrong turn - a very wrong turn, and instead of reflective problem solving, we're stuck on the conservative/liberal divide because our egos got all caught up in so many societal/intellectual manipulations. What a mess. I just hope for the real brains of womanhood to return - the ones that got us through a dark and oppressive history. Political feminism, which turned us into non-stop worker drones, did not help our gender, in my opinion. Freedom is not defined by one for another. That's slavery.
Also, I think she might be ‘out of touch’ … writing from old beliefs.
I have some experience in dealing with the public system. Eric’s in the public school system. Both of us; my husband and myself, together have been tackling this over burdened system. It’s a mess … and it has not been easy, and we’ve not been successful in some areas, yet have been in others. But at the core of this is the FACT that “Parental Involvement” consistently has included mothers AND fathers all the way through our experience. Not ‘just’ Cal & myself… but other mothers and fathers, together – as well as fathers by themselves, and yes – mothers by themselves.
This is why I say, and feel, that while she’s accurate in what she’s seeing, she’s off on the cause, thus she’s off on the solutions.
Feminism is not the cause; the cause is the level of greed and power and control and materialism within the people within “politics” and “economics” – and it’s that, which is the problem.
Feminism was born from a lack of balance, in order to restore balance… and to a large degree – it has. Because now I see equally men & women working to restore balance, as well as the men & women who aren’t.
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
Ok, Deb: Actually now that she's explained her stance on how feminism ruined the school system, I can agree a lot more. I still don't think feminism, per se, ruined the school system, but the fact that we now mostly have dual career families has certainly contributed to its demise.
When I was a kid -- in my time and place -- the midwest in the 1960s -- I didn't see a whole lot of parental interference in the way the school system did things. My mother stayed home with us until I was 14, but whenever there was a clash, my mother reverently bowed out to the higher authority in the schools. And I believe her attitude was fairly common for back then. On the other hand, if there had been parent watchdogs in place when education started to seriously go south, in the late 1970s and 1980s, it might not have been so extreme, or it might have stopped altogether.
The fact of the matter is that MOST parents rely on the educational system and day schools to raise their kids.
It sucks.
It's OUTRAGEOUS.
These people shouldn't even be PARENTS in my humble opinion.
Parenting is a serious, serious thing.
The longer you live the more you realize how responsibility for another life is the biggest job you could ever take on. Bopping around in a boardroom of a major corporation pales in comparison. That's why I don't have kids and why, hell, I won't even get a DOG.
So I agree with her take on the school system and why not having women at home instead of at work might have allowed it to get majorly off-track.
And ya know ...
Nancy Levant : Lots of women have rebelled against these social pressures. There's a growing movement for home schooling. Many women stay at home and raise their children there. There's been a backlash. My sister-in-law stays home with their only child.
And there are women like me who have elected NOT to have children .... how do you feel about that? Is there anything WRONG with my working and supporting myself and earning the same wage as a man to do it? 100 years ago there would have been something TERRIBLY wrong with it.
Anytime there's a dramatic social change, there are consequences. Within 100 years, women have risen from a position of almost absolute subjugation to one of almost complete empowerment. It's going to balance out. It just takes time. So far, nobody has been locked into anything.
Women went to work en masse as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so. My mother was typical example. She gave birth to three children, her last in 1967. By the time I was 11 (1971) she was selling Queensway (women's clothes) to her friends, and when I was 14 she was working full time for our church. She went from that to various jobs, with increasing responsibility and today, at 75, she is STILL working part time in spite of Social Security. She told me she WANTED to work. She did not HAVE to work. I know this. My father was a fairly high-powered marketing VP for a well-known telecommunications company. She could have stayed home but she chose not to.
My point is, this isn't a government conspiracy to disenfranchise women. Women went willingly and gladly to work. They weren't forced. NOW of course, there are twice as many people in the workforce, or nearly. That reduces pay. That makes it more or less mandatory for women to work, in a lot of cases. That is sad, but eventually it's going to balance out. Give it time. Slowly, people WILL realize that efficient parenting can't be done from a two-career position. Kids aren't dogs or cats. You can't neglect them and get away with it. Neglecting kids has serious consequences.
That's WHY there's a backlash. It's WHY some women (even women in their early 20s, I'm finding out) refuse to have children, and why women who DO have kids insist that someone stays home with them.
I would like to bring MEN into this. What's wrong with a man caring for his children? Nothing, it's just a new precedent. We're starting to get into it.
I DON'T believe that just because women have two X chromosomes they are more inclined to be spiritual. Or that because YOU think history is fucked up and history is MALE (HIS-STORY) that means women could have done a better job. Hell, Gandhi was male, and so was St. Augustine. Jesus was male. Gimme a break. And I don't think history is so messed up. Yes, WAR has been a major part of history, but so has some major progress. I don't even have to PROVE that. It's gotta be obvious to anyone who reads. We've cured diseases, created so many positive advances. IMHO, the human race has only ONE problem -- that it has been TOO successful and it has wiped out other species on the planet as a result of its success. But my point is, this SUCCESS has happened under PATRIARCHY.
I'm not saying it should continue to be a patriarchy. Its high time women had more control over stuff -- but the Women's Movement has given us that control and it is still giving it. You need to be patient. Let it play out. We are in a weird point in time, and things haven't balanced, but they will. Offering men an olive branch and allowing them to connect with their more feminine natures isn't a bad thing. It will work.
I see my brother working 12 hours days, earning 110K a year. He's longing to connect with his son, but he can't, because he's too damn busy. He works because of Aaron -- his SON. But he can't enjoy his company because he works. These disparities are WRONG. With my father it was the same. He worked long hours and traveled thousands of miles, sleeping in lonely hotel rooms, so his wife and children could live in comfort. Then when he finally came home, he had no energy for us. He loved us, but he couldn't get to know us. And then, as children do, we BLAMED him for not caring enough.
Nancy, I don't want to see more generations of men go through this torture. Men have the ability to be "spiritually" evolved. They can love and care just as much as we can. But they haven't been given the chance. I'm not going to stand on my spiritual superiority or whatever in order to be the one who gets to stay home. It's THEIR turn to do some of that.
Deb: This is about economics. If the Neoconservs don't aboslutely take over our world, things will balance out. It is going to be another 50 years before we see it all.
firsty:
Yeah, no kidding. I agree and agree.
stilltrucking:
Why did we go from a woman-worshipping culture to a man-worshipping culture?I am clueless about why that might have happened, other than the dependency of women during pregnancy, childbirth and in the years after.
When I was a kid -- in my time and place -- the midwest in the 1960s -- I didn't see a whole lot of parental interference in the way the school system did things. My mother stayed home with us until I was 14, but whenever there was a clash, my mother reverently bowed out to the higher authority in the schools. And I believe her attitude was fairly common for back then. On the other hand, if there had been parent watchdogs in place when education started to seriously go south, in the late 1970s and 1980s, it might not have been so extreme, or it might have stopped altogether.
The fact of the matter is that MOST parents rely on the educational system and day schools to raise their kids.
It sucks.
It's OUTRAGEOUS.
These people shouldn't even be PARENTS in my humble opinion.
Parenting is a serious, serious thing.
The longer you live the more you realize how responsibility for another life is the biggest job you could ever take on. Bopping around in a boardroom of a major corporation pales in comparison. That's why I don't have kids and why, hell, I won't even get a DOG.
So I agree with her take on the school system and why not having women at home instead of at work might have allowed it to get majorly off-track.
And ya know ...
She's got a point there too. Basically, The State is raising our children now, and that's monstrous, and it brings up a whole other set of questions. Part of that set of questions leads me to ask whether women staying at home would have helped at all. But truly this is an argument for another day ....Parental questioning of the decisions of the public schools has become a borderline criminal activity.
Nancy Levant : Lots of women have rebelled against these social pressures. There's a growing movement for home schooling. Many women stay at home and raise their children there. There's been a backlash. My sister-in-law stays home with their only child.
And there are women like me who have elected NOT to have children .... how do you feel about that? Is there anything WRONG with my working and supporting myself and earning the same wage as a man to do it? 100 years ago there would have been something TERRIBLY wrong with it.
Anytime there's a dramatic social change, there are consequences. Within 100 years, women have risen from a position of almost absolute subjugation to one of almost complete empowerment. It's going to balance out. It just takes time. So far, nobody has been locked into anything.
Women went to work en masse as soon as it became socially acceptable to do so. My mother was typical example. She gave birth to three children, her last in 1967. By the time I was 11 (1971) she was selling Queensway (women's clothes) to her friends, and when I was 14 she was working full time for our church. She went from that to various jobs, with increasing responsibility and today, at 75, she is STILL working part time in spite of Social Security. She told me she WANTED to work. She did not HAVE to work. I know this. My father was a fairly high-powered marketing VP for a well-known telecommunications company. She could have stayed home but she chose not to.
My point is, this isn't a government conspiracy to disenfranchise women. Women went willingly and gladly to work. They weren't forced. NOW of course, there are twice as many people in the workforce, or nearly. That reduces pay. That makes it more or less mandatory for women to work, in a lot of cases. That is sad, but eventually it's going to balance out. Give it time. Slowly, people WILL realize that efficient parenting can't be done from a two-career position. Kids aren't dogs or cats. You can't neglect them and get away with it. Neglecting kids has serious consequences.
That's WHY there's a backlash. It's WHY some women (even women in their early 20s, I'm finding out) refuse to have children, and why women who DO have kids insist that someone stays home with them.
I would like to bring MEN into this. What's wrong with a man caring for his children? Nothing, it's just a new precedent. We're starting to get into it.
I DON'T believe that just because women have two X chromosomes they are more inclined to be spiritual. Or that because YOU think history is fucked up and history is MALE (HIS-STORY) that means women could have done a better job. Hell, Gandhi was male, and so was St. Augustine. Jesus was male. Gimme a break. And I don't think history is so messed up. Yes, WAR has been a major part of history, but so has some major progress. I don't even have to PROVE that. It's gotta be obvious to anyone who reads. We've cured diseases, created so many positive advances. IMHO, the human race has only ONE problem -- that it has been TOO successful and it has wiped out other species on the planet as a result of its success. But my point is, this SUCCESS has happened under PATRIARCHY.
I'm not saying it should continue to be a patriarchy. Its high time women had more control over stuff -- but the Women's Movement has given us that control and it is still giving it. You need to be patient. Let it play out. We are in a weird point in time, and things haven't balanced, but they will. Offering men an olive branch and allowing them to connect with their more feminine natures isn't a bad thing. It will work.
I see my brother working 12 hours days, earning 110K a year. He's longing to connect with his son, but he can't, because he's too damn busy. He works because of Aaron -- his SON. But he can't enjoy his company because he works. These disparities are WRONG. With my father it was the same. He worked long hours and traveled thousands of miles, sleeping in lonely hotel rooms, so his wife and children could live in comfort. Then when he finally came home, he had no energy for us. He loved us, but he couldn't get to know us. And then, as children do, we BLAMED him for not caring enough.
Nancy, I don't want to see more generations of men go through this torture. Men have the ability to be "spiritually" evolved. They can love and care just as much as we can. But they haven't been given the chance. I'm not going to stand on my spiritual superiority or whatever in order to be the one who gets to stay home. It's THEIR turn to do some of that.
Deb: This is about economics. If the Neoconservs don't aboslutely take over our world, things will balance out. It is going to be another 50 years before we see it all.
firsty:
that women are victims, then, of feminism, is starting to beg the question a bit.
Yeah, no kidding. I agree and agree.
stilltrucking:
That's a good question. And I can't help thinking that PERHAPS if anyone let this species down , it was WOMEN. Just an idea.Since women have so much more to think with in their bellies why would they not be better at it then wombless males.
Why did we go from a woman-worshipping culture to a man-worshipping culture?I am clueless about why that might have happened, other than the dependency of women during pregnancy, childbirth and in the years after.
-
hester_prynne
I should never have read this. It's exactly the kind of stuff that makes my blood boil hell red. I could only find one thought that I could sort of agree with....or that didn't make me want to yawn.....:
"Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts men, which is historically provable and factual? Can we at least agree that American women have been absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS"
Only I would change the"corrupts men" to "corrupts people", and the 'cultural BS' to "still buying into this perceived male power".....shit, more like dancing around it! That's all women have really done, is dance around percieved male power a little more daringly, a little more nakedly, but never really very seriously, always, ever submissive...to this day.
There are consequences if a woman really, and openly goes to her depth and power, and all women know this deep down.
"Yes dear, I'll give myself up in preference to your life...okay, yeah you need me to take care of you and your male power, i'm nothing really, or at least second to you dear, i mean, i'll play the part for you, yes".....
ugh. what is that all about?
Heck, with Alito in now, we women are going to get to backtrack for miles!!!!!!We'll surely get to go back to being the helpless, needy, June Cleaver type women that most women, I think, secretly want to be, because they are fucking and simply lazy!
I don't get that many women care about being independent.
Those of us that do care about it are told to shut up, are ignored, or called "feminists". Those that do are being arrested for wearing clothes that reflect how they feel.....i.e. that poor Cindy, she's just a misguided feminist who got caught up in the drug infested sexual revolution....
Look, I don't mean to offend but, whatever happened to the goal of striving to become a whole self to offer to one another, two genders, equally human and deserving, on equally respected footing?. Seems to me, that being a whole self somehow became interpreted, or waylaid, (pun intended), as meaning a sexual revolution.
Whose idea was that?
Think about it.....
I strongly urge that both men and women experience living by themselves, on their own for a few years. No handouts, no "connections". I truly think that that would bring about more equality for all of us as a natural result.
But what do I know?
H
"Can we at least agree that too much power corrupts men, which is historically provable and factual? Can we at least agree that American women have been absurdly vulnerable to cultural BS"
Only I would change the"corrupts men" to "corrupts people", and the 'cultural BS' to "still buying into this perceived male power".....shit, more like dancing around it! That's all women have really done, is dance around percieved male power a little more daringly, a little more nakedly, but never really very seriously, always, ever submissive...to this day.
There are consequences if a woman really, and openly goes to her depth and power, and all women know this deep down.
"Yes dear, I'll give myself up in preference to your life...okay, yeah you need me to take care of you and your male power, i'm nothing really, or at least second to you dear, i mean, i'll play the part for you, yes".....
ugh. what is that all about?
Heck, with Alito in now, we women are going to get to backtrack for miles!!!!!!We'll surely get to go back to being the helpless, needy, June Cleaver type women that most women, I think, secretly want to be, because they are fucking and simply lazy!
I don't get that many women care about being independent.
Those of us that do care about it are told to shut up, are ignored, or called "feminists". Those that do are being arrested for wearing clothes that reflect how they feel.....i.e. that poor Cindy, she's just a misguided feminist who got caught up in the drug infested sexual revolution....
Look, I don't mean to offend but, whatever happened to the goal of striving to become a whole self to offer to one another, two genders, equally human and deserving, on equally respected footing?. Seems to me, that being a whole self somehow became interpreted, or waylaid, (pun intended), as meaning a sexual revolution.
Whose idea was that?
Think about it.....
I strongly urge that both men and women experience living by themselves, on their own for a few years. No handouts, no "connections". I truly think that that would bring about more equality for all of us as a natural result.
But what do I know?
H
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Sorry cat I deleted my post, not sure if it was offensive. There is a small statuette of a woman from about 25,000 BCE. It was named The Venus of Willendorf by a male anthropologist as a sexist joke. here is my original post for what it is worth.
I rambled all over the place as if I know what I am talking about.
Hester I wonder how much progress has been made by integrating all women colleges? I read somewhere that a man sued to enter a woman's colleges that did not wish to go co-ed.
Here is my stupid post that I deleted. In the book Savage God the author writes about the marriage of Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath during the good times. When power flowed between them like water being poured from one vessel to another.
I don’t have time now but I will try to post some more links. The first Cro-Magnons lived in matrilineal societies headed by Queen /Mothers.
I have a gut feeling you are wrong about that.
Haragei
http://members.aol.com/sokogakuen/haragei.html
Since women have so much more to think with in their bellies why would they not be better at it then womb less males.
"Yet you don’t need scientific proof to experience the fact that by simply putting your attention in the hara your body becomes settled and your mind quiets down".[/i]
http://www.mro.org/zmm/dharmateachings/ ... isho20.htm
WD You know I am just a frustrated want to be scientist, if you consider anthropology to be a science. Not sure how patriarchy got started. The evidence seems to suggest that Old Stone Age people were matriarchal. Where did we go wrong, was it agriculture, (they say women are to blame for civilization) without the surplus there would have been no Priests. Joseph Campbell pins the death of the goddess on Cro-Magnon killers like the Hebrew children. Hunter-gatherers replaced by herdsman. I think the story of Adam and Eve was the beginning of this mess we are in. If you ask me, which you did not.
I think the wheel is turning, I hope the wheel is turning, the wheel better be turning. The earth is dieing from testosterone poisoning. If women don't save themselves we are all doomed.
I have deleted and re edited this post so many times because
because
I probably don't have a clue what you all are talking about. I am just going with my gut reaction, which tells me that I have probably said too much.
She argues that feminism has become the domain of extremist radicals and, like Denfeld, asserts that it has little or no connection to the lives of contemporary women. Women Who Run from the Wolves: Feminist Critique as Post-Feminism
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras ... nahan.html
I think about the diversity of human societies. There is one in Africa or South America that I call the "don't give a dam about women tribe." When A woman is pregnant nobody wants to know her. Not the men, not the other women. When it is her time she goes off into the bushes and has her baby by herself and then comes back to the tribe. So much for the noble savage.
I rambled all over the place as if I know what I am talking about.
Hester I wonder how much progress has been made by integrating all women colleges? I read somewhere that a man sued to enter a woman's colleges that did not wish to go co-ed.
Here is my stupid post that I deleted. In the book Savage God the author writes about the marriage of Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath during the good times. When power flowed between them like water being poured from one vessel to another.
Maybe so but it sounds wrong to me. As if you are saying women got a rotten deal. I can not speak much about this subject but I stumbled across a web site about The Phenomenology Of Female Spatiality, based on Husserl's phenomenology. It was a pretty objective male look at women, or so it seemed to me. Unfortunately the website has gone 404. I do not think the problem is bearing children, I do not think we are talking about something biological The problem is culture, the extro-biological womb we enter when we leave the biological womb. Enculturation, is there any way to over come it? Cultural change could happen over night, in a generation.UM.
This is a rant that seems to go all over the map. Let me see if I can try to break it down into parts and give some of my own reactions.
Quote:
So much brutality and crime could have been avoided if mankind could or would have addressed the issue of the over-empowerment of men.
How did this even happen? It happened because women have babies and men don't, right?
I don’t have time now but I will try to post some more links. The first Cro-Magnons lived in matrilineal societies headed by Queen /Mothers.
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfwomen.htmlSome have argued that these female figures denote the existence during this period of a prominent female deity identified usually as the Earth Mother or the Mother Goddess. On the basis of this assumption, it has been suggested that, unlike today, women played a considerably more important, if not dominant, role in Paleolithic society; that possibly a matriarchy existed and women ruled.
The "Venus" of Willendorf may be a representation at once of the Mother Goddess and a special living woman; one represented in the form or guise of the other, although which came first is impossible to know. Lacking written documentation, such claims are difficult to support or refute.
You know fools rush in but I disagree with you here too.Quote:
Women have the ability to become spiritually advanced creatures, above and beyond the ability of most men to do so. Women have a higher link, for lack of a better term, to spiritual sensation.
I don't like this so much. Sounds chauvinistic to me.
I have a gut feeling you are wrong about that.
Haragei
http://members.aol.com/sokogakuen/haragei.html
Since women have so much more to think with in their bellies why would they not be better at it then womb less males.
"Yet you don’t need scientific proof to experience the fact that by simply putting your attention in the hara your body becomes settled and your mind quiets down".[/i]
http://www.mro.org/zmm/dharmateachings/ ... isho20.htm
WD You know I am just a frustrated want to be scientist, if you consider anthropology to be a science. Not sure how patriarchy got started. The evidence seems to suggest that Old Stone Age people were matriarchal. Where did we go wrong, was it agriculture, (they say women are to blame for civilization) without the surplus there would have been no Priests. Joseph Campbell pins the death of the goddess on Cro-Magnon killers like the Hebrew children. Hunter-gatherers replaced by herdsman. I think the story of Adam and Eve was the beginning of this mess we are in. If you ask me, which you did not.
I think the wheel is turning, I hope the wheel is turning, the wheel better be turning. The earth is dieing from testosterone poisoning. If women don't save themselves we are all doomed.
I could not agree more. That is why I reject the argument that it all happened because women are burdened with the gift of bringing life into the world. Again I don't know how it got to be so wrong. But things have gotten better too. That avatar of mine is my name sake, my great grand father. He had five wives and thirteen children. His wives kept dieing in childbirth and he kept on keeping on. I have no idea why the women in my family loved that patriarchal God of their mothers so much.Feminism, at it's core is equality. Period. Nothing more – but nothing less, either.
I have deleted and re edited this post so many times because
because
I probably don't have a clue what you all are talking about. I am just going with my gut reaction, which tells me that I have probably said too much.
She argues that feminism has become the domain of extremist radicals and, like Denfeld, asserts that it has little or no connection to the lives of contemporary women. Women Who Run from the Wolves: Feminist Critique as Post-Feminism
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/cras ... nahan.html
dam I just can't shut up. Margaret Fell in 17th century England was one of those. I think a lot about Red Emma these days. I think I know how she must have felt. She fought with all her might to stop the coming slaughter. Got dam, every time I hear some one say Bush gave a "Wlsonian" speech I want to puke.What a mess. I just hope for the real brains of womanhood to return - the ones that got us through a dark and oppressive history
I think about the diversity of human societies. There is one in Africa or South America that I call the "don't give a dam about women tribe." When A woman is pregnant nobody wants to know her. Not the men, not the other women. When it is her time she goes off into the bushes and has her baby by herself and then comes back to the tribe. So much for the noble savage.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests