The Feminist Agenda

[Jack]

It doesn't matter.

It does to a lot of people.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Isherwood It does to a lot of people.

Yeah it does or else we wouldn't be having this discussion. I compare it to this Isher. Suppose to people are going into a partnership and it's a 50/50 split. One person puts in a whole bunch of capital (money) and does nothing. The other person is the individual who does all of the legwork to keep the company afloat. Does the former own any less of the company just because he didn't put in any work? No, so why does the man own any less of the baby just because he doesn't put in as much work? It doesn't make sense.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Protostar WHat do you mean by family friendly? If by that you mean companies aren't concerned about you wanting to start families, then no they are not. Nor should they be. Family raising is something you do on your own time, not company time.

During the 40s and 50s, and most of the 60s, corporations were pretty "family friendly."
I can't speak for the poster you quoted but to me "family friendly" means paying and employees enough, offering enough benefits and job stability that a wife (back then) or husband can stay home and raise the kids. It seems the closest many companies today come to "family friendly" is offering child care. Of course they might not have to offer that if the other things I mentioned were as available as they were then.

To be fair it's a little tough for many corporations to do that now because they have to try to compete with workers who earn little to nothing. That's why, to a certain extent, I believe in tariffs. If something is imported here and they have an unfair advantage, especially through slave labor (!!!!), then tariffs would even the playing field. Otherwise we're just heading towards the bottom of the barrel with countries who tolerate the most disgusting of labor practices.

But should they encourage us to start families? No. If a worker wishes to have no children then they should get equal pay. But it would do the companies bottom dollar a lot of good if they create an environment where both childless and those with children can work side by side without having to leave work all the time or feel slighted pay wise if they have no children.

[Protostar]

Quote by: Ken Carman During the 40s and 50s, and most of the 60s, corporations were pretty "family friendly." I can't speak for the poster you quoted but to me "family friendly" means paying and employees enough, offering enough benefits and job stability that a wife (back then) or husband can stay home and raise the kids. It seems the closest many companies today come to "family friendly" is offering child care. Of course they might not have to offer that if the other things I mentioned were as available as they were then.

I believe companies pay you what you are worth, and if the job is a low skill position where you can easily be replaced then of course you are not going to get paid alot of money. I also feel benefits are unneccessary because if I am paying you then you should use the money provided to purchase your own insurance and child care.

Quote by: Ken Carman To be fair it's a little tough for many corporations to do that now because they have to try to compete with workers who earn little to nothing. That's why, to a certain extent, I believe in tariffs. If something is imported here and they have an unfair advantage, especially through slave labor (!!!!), then tariffs would even the playing field. Otherwise we're just heading towards the bottom of the barrel with countries who tolerate the most disgusting of labor practices.

If you have tariffs, then countries will institute tariffs of their own and so goes the global marketplace. Nobody will trade anything because the tariffs are so high. To pressure companies for more reasonable working conditions in other countries we could boycott until they changed their ways. Government intervention is not the way to go.

Quote by: Ken Carman But should they encourage us to start families? No. If a worker wishes to have no children then they should get equal pay. But it would do the companies bottom dollar a lot of good if they create an environment where both childless and those with children can work side by side without having to leave work all the time or feel slighted pay wise if they have no children.

Agreed.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Protostar I believe companies pay you what you are worth, and if the job is a low skill position where you can easily be replaced then of course you are not going to get paid alot of money. I also feel benefits are unneccessary because if I am paying you then you should use the money provided to purchase your own insurance and child care. If you have tariffs, then countries will institute tariffs of their own and so goes the global marketplace. Nobody will trade anything because the tariffs are so high. To pressure companies for more reasonable working conditions in other countries we could boycott until they changed their ways. Government intervention is not the way to go. Agreed.

I believe companies pay you what you are worth

No, I disagree. Companies often pay you what they think they can get away with, unless your a CEO, or perhaps upper level management. There's not a lot of forward thinking any more. They seem to use you and spit you out. There was a time when you could start in the mail room and work your way up. Rarely, now. Rarely.

If you have tariffs, then countries will institute tariffs of their own and so goes the global marketplace.

Then you institute even more tariffs. Of course discussing and negotiating all this with other nations, the "whys" and the rationale, is crucial. But as far as I'm concerned if a country isn't into fair trade, especially when it comes to wage differences and slave labor, then they are not worth trading with. There are crucial items we can only get in bulk from certain countries but those items are not covered under this because then we're talking gas vs apples rather than apples vs. apples. If two countries produce the same, less crucial, product and one country isn't interested in fair trade then one one who is not interested doesn't get the trade in that product.BTW, we had tariffs, and other countries had tariffs, for many years and there was plenty of trade.

I have no interest in pressuring other governments as far as wages and employment with the government. I also have no interest in rewarding them and screwing ourselves in the process either. They can choose to trade with us fairly... or not. Their choice.

if I am paying you then you should use the money provided to purchase your own insurance and child care.

If you are paying me enough to cover all that and live a half way decent life, no problem. The system you seem to suggest we follow would have us competing with ten cents a day labor from China and slave labor. To compete, logically, we'd have to pay people ten cents an hour and use slave labor.

No thanks.

BTW, the system I suggested worked well for many years in this country.It can work again, with some adjustments.

[asterix404]

I noticed though that your quotes were all not even from the 90's.. they are 15 years old... and a lot has changed in 15 years. For one thing women can now sue for equal money to men.... women can sue for sexual herrasment as well as a varity of other things that just 20 years ago would have been common in the work place. Women are not yet CEO's well neither am I... and if you notice the CEO's are all really kinda old people, once they die off who knows what kinda shoes will follow. I have a hard time on the abortion thing.... for one thing I think that the pregancy should be aborted if only one person wants the kid. Raising a child in a one person household is damn near impossable and raising the kid in a house where he/she is not wanted by one parent can lead to well... how shall I put this... burtal unyielding and pure evilish hell at it's most abundant and vile form. Ignoring or beeting a child is worse then not having one, so really you want both rents, even poor uneduacated stupid people... you want 2 of em... doesn't matter also man woman- woman woman- man man... who cares... hell I want like major extended family to help me with my kids... grand parents, uncles, sisters... everyone takes care of this kid. With that being said though... there are a lot of women who will have a kid for the child support or just to be a totally bitch to the guy. She may hate him... or just not like him or have gotton pregnant and the relationship went sour... either way... having a kid out of spite is the most horrable thing you can do as a human, but it happens.... a lot. That is why I think that if the father doesn't want the kid the woman should be forced to abort it... that would only be equal. The thing is feminists want equality... but they also want more then that so if they don't get everything they want they at lesat made out better then before. Go them! But seriously the late 70's - 80's was not the nicest time for a woman to be in the work place and there was a lot of hatread and a lot of writints... but please try to find something a bit more up-to-date. Thanks ~Ben

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

asterix......all I can say is maybe you should use some, and perhaps a paragraph or two, a little punctuation maybe. Would make your points easier to find.

You think that ability to sue is a sign of equality?

I agree with your unwanted child thoughts.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses.

[asterix404]

Except that women are not killing men, and the killing of people who are born doesn't happen often, but most of the feminist adgenda is very fair. I mean... yea, the ability to sue is most deff a form of equality. Think about how slow legislation is in getting through congress to stop gay HS professors from being fired... think about how fast it is to get something to the supream court and say that gay HS prof's can't be fired just becasue they are gay, or have undue stress put on them because they are gay, and looked at more closely, and not only that, lets make this everyone, not just HS profs.

You have any idea how long it would take congress to pass pro gay legislation even if they were being beeten in the streets? Look at how long it took that seperate but equal thing to be overturned... and people sued. I love people who say that the courts shouldn't make laws... but they do, and they always will and it's silly to think otherwise. In the 50's the sterotype was to have a young male exec sleeping with his secratary... even better the women were secrataries and no one thought they could be more or would ever want to be. People sued companies asses off and were taken seriously which was a heuge step forward, and actuilly broke through a lot of sterotypes. Being equal is having the ability to fight back, esp about injusties done to you. Courts give you that power, legislation is mearly backing it up.

Mind you this doesn't really apply to frivous law suits... however things like doctors... I am sure now some doctors are acting differently knowing that right around the bend they could be seued. But it's not the ones over money that I see make an impact on my life... more like people sueing someone for the right to do X, and for a while women were not taken seriosuly in this regard... and now they are. YAY. Also not all of your quotes have come to light... and in fact, i don't know of any one of them that has actuilly been fullfilled.... like this:

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).

not all women are lesbiens... and I know a lot of feminists who are not

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (radial feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

Marriage has always been on the rocks and there have always been aullments as well as divorces. The fact that though that it still exists....

3. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."(Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.

Ummm duh... but that idea kinda died with the mandatory 2 person working household

4. The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.

Agree whole heartedly... too many people in this world... oh wait damn that was the misenthrope talking... or how about get an abortion... a rather nice 2nd to cold blooded murder... or use the pill, or a condom, or the patch or the....

5. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

I was raised in a family, but people have been raised communally for a very long time... I think chruch, or extended family, or a butnch of people living in the same house or next door... I mean this is not a new idea, and hasn't been a new idea for a very long time (going on about 1900 years)

6. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November 1971).

Again, marrage hasn't died yet, I am all for whitchcraft, and I don't really thing that men have dominated women through marrage. If anything it's the other way around... All those jokes aobut like... "I'll do anything, ANYTHING, my wife tells me to...."


7. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarch!" (Gloria Steinhem, radical feminist leader, editor of 'MS' magazine).

Women don't want to deal with the messes guys have created, I would welcome an overthrow of whatever it is they want to overthrow but honestly that will never happen... and it hasn't yet...

8. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world."(Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989).

And if everyone did as china did the species would die out since everyone wants boys. Chinese girls are still killed and sent to homesless shelters and given up for adoption alot more then guys... again this doesn't seem to be a problem in the US...my sister would think so too


9. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement,solace and inspiration from real women... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," "The Humanist", July/August 1988, p.37.

There isn't a point to this, there is nothing to "come true" in this quote...

10. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinhem, editor of 'MS' magazine.) Source: Center for Children's Justice in Denver, CO (Robert Muchnick - www.childrensjustice.org )

Here here... but people still argue that we didn't come from apes... or that god created us, and that everything is gods will... this hasn't changed yet... though I honestly hope it does soon.... it's a very senceable and good goal.

I honestly don't see much in the way of hatread... the black riots in hte 60's 70's and 80's, now there was some seriious hatread. Writing about how to make socity better... sure! Everyone wirtes about that sorta thing and honestly most of it is a deacent idea, and this stuff I don't get the everyone must become femail and all men should be castrated and all women must only spawn women... I think it's more like, wow things have roally sucked for us, lets try to fix it through changing peoples ideas slowly...

[Ken Carman]

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).

Didn't happen. Not even close.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Has the institution of marriage been attacked by feminists in the past? Yes. It has been attacked even more by Congressmen who divorce their wives on their possible death bed because wifey was not "good for the image," talk show hosts going on number four, people who sleep around on all sides of the aisle and partisans who insist a politician's wife should divorce her sexually active husband rather than working it out. There's a lot of blame to be spread on this issue.

I've been married almost 30 years. I believe in marriage, that it can be a good thing for those willing to work with, and learn from, each other through the personal faults and failures. But if I had to choose between the rhetoric of those who openly attack it and those who say they believe in it, lecture others, but destroy it from within by divorce after divorce: treating the contract and the promises as meaningless when it suits their needs? At least those who attack it are being honest.

#3? Might be argued successfully, but more so that wages and benefits have not kept pace enough to allow stay at home mothers.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 4. "The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it."

If in regard to "infant" you would be thinking of fetus, to argue that most or even many abortions are in large families? No, not really.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 5. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them."

When parents beat and abuse their children the state might take their children. Sometimes the state goes over board, but then so do parents sometimes. Is there any mass movement to do this? No, not really.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 6. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." (

This was covered by previous comments. (#2)

Witchcraft? Well, Wicca has become slightly more popular, although it's not really "witchcraft." Even if you consider it such the actual numbers of practicing members would prove any success in achieving this goal has been pretty much nil. The end of the institution of marriage? Nope. Or do you have some evidence that chapels in Vegas are going brokes and churches are no longer are used for weddings?

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 7. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarch!"

Mixed messages, so therefore not possible. A matriachy could be capitalistic just as easily as patriachy. But women do have more power. Yes, and it'd a good thing. Being a slight majority of the populace they deserve more power than they had.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 8. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world."(Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989).

I included the attribution here because you're quoting Gary Bauer quoting Molly Yard? Hmmm, I would trust this as much as I would expect you to trust Jesse Jackson quoting Rush Limbaugh.

Intelligent? Maybe. Intelligent=good? Not necessarily.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 9. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement,solace and inspiration from real women... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world."

I hardly think Jesus quotes and references in our culture have been over run, like some dog crossing an interstate, by some rush hour made up "real women." Admittedly Jesus is being used by all to justify what they believe and say, but this has changed... when? Forgotten? Hardly.In fact the very fact that you had to list all these quotes kind of shows that history what has been forgotten. Ask anyone on the street to quote one of these or something Jesus said? They may get the quote wrong but I'd bet you the majority would remember something they think Jesus said, something Jesus actually said, or some mangled quote before they'd remember one of these.

The point of the thread header was to show that so many things mentioned in the past have now come to fruition. It was deliberate that the comments made were decades old as it illustrates the point that the feminist agenda has been quietly succeeding under our own apathetic noses. 10. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God."

Yup, no churches anywhere. No Christians sending their childrens to christian schools. Nope. All disappeared. Besides, the message was mixed. Who says you can't do both?

The "point" of the thread header missed its mark.