Will feminism really bring women happiness?

[Monfang]

Sorry, court-watcher here (sometimes I really miss cable.)

Actually, the Supreme Court has spoken on this back in 1895, with Coffin et al. v. US:

http://openjurist.org/156/us/432

The relevant bit starts at section 76 with

Dont' misunderstand. I don't mean guilty until proven innocent.

I mean that while you are innocent until proven guilty, you aren't free from from being a suspect. Like the examples I presented, if you fall into them then you are suspected. If you are covered in gang tattoos, then you are going to be suspected of being in a gang, if you are wearing the majority of one color in a place where a gang wears that color then you are going to be suspected of being in that gang. If you fit the description of someone who committed a crime, then you are going to be suspected.

That's all I mean, I don't mean jail them if they look like the accused. I mean focus on them if they do and then prove if they are and let them attempt to prove they are not.

[Silverfyre]

Gang symbols and signs change.  There is no definitive handbook on what gang uses what signs; again, you are using a subjective basis for defining what would constitute a legal search or police scrutiny.  Just because a person happens to be wearing all blue in an area that has established gang boundaries does not make them an immediate suspect for gang activity.  Just because a person is covered in tattoos does not mean they are a gang member or up to no good.  Such subjective scrutiny and definitions are profiling, plain and simple.  They run in the same vein of "brown people are terrorists". 

[Trieste]

I'm surprised you agree with this, to be honest.  It seems to be step one to profiling.  Sure we can phrase it as the positive and say women make, on average, less insurance claims than men and so pay lower premiums.  But we can flip that to the negative - to men make on avergae more claims and pay higher premiums.

Which seems to be analogous to a whole load of other policies.  Asian youths steal more cars so police should be more free with stopping and checking.  Muslims are more likely to be Al-Queda terrorists so airport security should give them special attention. 

I've literally never thought about that topic before just now so there may well be something glaring I'm missing.

I do understand what you're getting at. Insurance agencies are not government entities however; you're not forced to buy insurance. You're not at risk for being thrown in jail by an insurance company. It's essentially this: by buying insurance, you are (if you're educated about insurance, which is a whole other ball of wax) agreeing to their policies. But you're not being involuntarily and inescapably profiled, your liberty is not at risk, your rights are not being inescapably violated. So that's, in my mind, the difference between statistical profiling done by insurance companies and profiling done by law enforcement or government. You only really are affected by it if you agree (by buying insurance) to it.

[Silverfyre]

Well if you want to drive a car in a state like Florida, you are required by law to buy insurance.  That takes it to a whole new level, yes?

[Trieste]

If you want to drive a car in most states, you must buy insurance. And driving a car makes peoples' lives easier. It is not a requirement that you must submit to under penalty of being arrested, prosecuted, or jailed.

The difference is the inescapable part, and the threat to one's basic human rights. Being charged more for insurance is inconvenient, but it's not a human rights violation.

[Silverfyre]

Mm, very good point.  I agree wholeheartedly.  I merely wanted to point out the fact that some states do require you to buy insurance by law rather than just by choice. 

[Brittany]

You were a part of the discussion and Monfang produced the point about whether profiling was good or bad.  If you don't like the discussion or being used as a part of the point, then don't post your ideas.  I'm allowed to discuss them, plain and simple.  You can ignore them if you like but if you continue to make points I disagree with, then why should I not be able to reference them when they are a part of the larger discussion? That's all I'll say about that.

Well then I won't.  I will withdraw from the discussion, as you have effectively bullied me out of it, the entire time picking apart my well reasoned posts with snide remarks or pictures of cats.  You may to want to be a feminist, an idealist and a liberal, but part of all of that is tolerance.  If you cannot tolerate opinions that differ from your own, how can you expect tolerance of your own ideals?  You aren't always going to agree with someone, bullying them and making agreements to avoid them just to attack them the next chance you get isn't the answer.  An effective debater would try to reason why their arguments are right, not resort to lolcats or try to make others look small.  Goodbye.

[Star Safyre]

Driving a car is also a privilege and a choice.  It's granted, not inalienable.  I can lose my license by violating any number of laws.  Also, I can choose other means of transportation.  One cannot choose their gender, race, religion, etc. as arbitrarily as choosing to drive a car.

Also, free enterprise allows for insurance carriers to change as the market will buy.  If a large chunk of car insurance buyers said, "I don't want discounts or increases based on various reasons; I want a flat rate no matter what," and acted on that belief, the market would begin supplying. 

[Mithlomwen]

Going to lock the thread for a while since the discussion is dissolving into personal attacks

[Kythia]

Moving back on to topic for a moment.

Earlier in this thread, Silverfyre defined feminism as:

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

it's a definition I've seen thrown around a lot, and the one I agree with and personally use.  OED is a little looser:

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

which is broadly the same. 

Tangent

My favourite, though not much use as a definition, is the one by Cheris Kramarae:

feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings

and although I dislike some of her work (I find Muted Group Theory stupid) I think that serves as a good example if not a proper definition.

So, this isn't just me playing at finding definitions.  I'm sure there are loads more.  It's just an attempt to say that at its absolute core, Feminism is about equality between the sexes.  And so "Will Feminism really bring women happiness?" on that level is almost a stupid question.  Well, yes, of course it will.  What's not to be happy about?

But if that's all there was to it then this thread would have just consisted of one resonse saying "well, duh" and that'd be the end of it.

I think the problem (such as it is) is that there's no card, no qualification, no governing body for feminism.  Noone with the authority to do so saying "OK, ladies.  We want equality and this is how we'll do it.  Listen up..."  And because there's no real barrier to entry a lot of different attitudes and feelings have emerged under the single banner of feminism.

And that's where I think the problem with the question is.  "Will feminism really bring women happiness" isn't defined well enough.  Leaving aside definitions of "happiness" or of "women" (neither of which are trivial) I think there are too many different nuances of understanding in the word "feminism" for the conversation to really come to a conclusion. 

Very soon the conversation became about whether "X" could be/is a "real" feminist.  Both the radical commentator mentioned early on and other examples I don't wanna dredge up.  And I think thats to do with the fact that the definitions above are dictionary ones and don't reflect a "lived" feminism.  From reading that line, its impossible to deduce what would be a feminist viewpoint on any but the most trivial of cases.  And those viewpoints vary widely on a massive number of topics.  To take an example, some who would self identify as feminist would say it is wrong for me to go out with my tits round my ears and legs on show because its encouraging objectification, others would say its right if I want to because its my body to do with as I please.  I don't wanna get in to that argument overly, simply to say that people on both sides would view themselves as feminists despite having totally opposed viewpoints.

So basically Monfang, I think the question is ill-formed.  That's not an attack, so please don't read it as such.  It's just that the one definition of feminism that most if not all can agree on gives a "well duh" but as soon as the question is looked at in enough depth to require expansion of that very basic definition then it ceases to mean the same thing to a sufficient number of people to come to any realistic answer.

Or, you know, thats what I think anyway.  YMMV.

[Monfang]

You have a very valid point, I made the mistake of writing this when my mind wasn't at it's peek and I suffered the consequences for it.

What I wanted to bring up with the original question was the damage of feminism going too far seems to do. Now, I might be blind/deaf to this because I'm only hearing this second hand, but there are a few things I hear:

1) Overt Feminism is very anti-housewife. They look at those kind of women as repressed and states all women should seek roles of leadership whether they like to or not. Not all men are set for leadership roles and nether are all women, but this veiment push towards it might push women into things they don't want to do all for equality.

2) Overt Feminism pushes for hard to achieve male/female ratios even when there are no qualified women to fill in the male positions. They call for punishments and protests against companies that don't have x number of women in y positions even when there are no women who can fill in those positions.

3) Overt Feminism uses a lot of doubletalk, possibly due to the leadership problem you mentioned. One day, it will say a woman using her sex appeal is pandering to patriarchy, the next says that if you aren't sexy, you are repressed. Women can take care of themselves. Women are Victimized. Women should pay their own way. A man who doesn't pay for it all is a leech! I would think that feminism would simply say: 'You can do pretty much the same thing men can do.'

4) Overt Feminism uses double standards. Women can flirt in the work place all they want, but the moment a man does it it's sexual harassment. The general male consensus of a perfect mate is a young, reasonably attractive, weight-proportionate-to-height woman and we are pigs. The general female consensus of a perfect mate is tall, rich, handsome, successful man with a full head of hair and six-pack abs and they aren't? Here's one we are all trained to follow. Man slaps a woman, open hand. Man is an abuser. Woman slaps a man, open hand. What did the man do to deserve it?

Feminism as you defined would have done things like this:

1)A woman should have all the options set forward for her and for her to chose whether to be a housewife or a CEO.

2)Gender should not judge a potential candidate for an occupation (setting aside situations where a male is a must) and instead both sides must be judged based on their qualifications.

3)A woman is always unique person to person. Let a woman who displays her sexuality be allowed to and let a woman who covers it up be allowed to. Let a woman pay if she wants to and let a man allow her to. (I for one prefer to be the one to pay, just the chilverious romantic in me.)

4)Both men and women can flirt within the company policy, for that is how romances are kindled. Both men and women have fantasies of our perfect mates, but we both accept each other's flaws. Let both man and woman be judged equally, regardless of who is the aggressor and who is the accosted.

But.. I am just a guy.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I will make another attempt to enter this conversation as the thread seems to be drawing back toward the topic.

1.   I think Feminists take a stance of wasted potential.  While this is not a fair judgment, there was a time when many women with many talents were wasted in the house.  Just as many men view a house husband as being wasted or lazy in being one, so do feminists take the dim view of women.  Still no feminists has ever stopped a woman from leaving the workforce to be a housewife though many people have stood in the way of a woman being CEO.

2.   If half the human population cannot put forward a candidate that qualifies for a position, then something is wrong with the position and not the candidate pool.  This is why the attempt to force people to consider women for these positions is so vital.  Many physical and often considered masculine jobs have requirements that are ancient and non-essential to the task at hand.  A recent interview on NPR highlighted this as a General discussed how requirements for special forces and combat positions hadn’t been reviewed and revised in decades.  Social jobs often have a boy’s club mentality where women are blocked from joining and advancing.  A third party needs to step into play in order to ensure a fair market for a woman.  Once women prove themselves and show themselves worthy, then the hand can be removed and market forces allowed to work.

3.   Much of the double talk you hear is from the drastic change in the place of women within culture.  The evolving and changing role of women in day-to-day culture has many people confused and so mixed messages are put forward.  Women are embracing the new image of a woman while also tethered to the old image.  Embrace being sexy and free, while also being pure and motherly.  Women are supposed to be fierce and strong, while also vulnerable and needing of a man.  These are conflicting images that a modern woman has to juggle. 

4.   Double standards are not simply the domain of feminism.  As a man you feel threatened by double standards placed on you but also need to see them on others.  A man who goes out with many women and enjoys them physically is seen as “enjoying the bachelor life” or “a stud.”  Whereas a woman who does the same is a “slut” or “whore.”  Women that advance in the workplace are also saddled with being “cold” or a “bitch.”  Men that advance are ambitious and talented.  Once more there is a drastic shift in culture that has backlashes and consequences.


1.   Women have more options open to them now.  Where once they did not have the CEO option, they do now have both.  As I said, a feminist may say something but nobody is stopping her.

2.   The point and purpose here is in agreement with what you are saying.  Yet we can “shoulda, woulda, coulda” all day.  Sometimes the doors have to be forced open.

3.   Well this is not so much the singular realm of feminism.  Women dressing sexy are often physically threatened and harassed so encouraging them to dress sexy while at the same time not curbing male response is a dangerous route.  For example I would bring up the age old phrase, “well she dressed like a slut so I treated her like one.” 

4.   Men and women can flirt in company policy.  Culture is once more at work here with a view of men being aggressive and women being submissive.  Typically men are in positions of power over women so that the dynamic is not the same.  Companies discourage abuse of power where one employee pressures another into sexual relations.  Most places of employment, at least that I have worked, openly discourage any workplace romance as unhealthy and distracting. 

[Kythia]

1) Overt Feminism is very anti-housewife. They look at those kind of women as repressed and states all women should seek roles of leadership whether they like to or not. Not all men are set for leadership roles and nether are all women, but this veiment push towards it might push women into things they don't want to do all for equality.

2) Overt Feminism pushes for hard to achieve male/female ratios even when there are no qualified women to fill in the male positions. They call for punishments and protests against companies that don't have x number of women in y positions even when there are no women who can fill in those positions.

3) Overt Feminism uses a lot of doubletalk, possibly due to the leadership problem you mentioned. One day, it will say a woman using her sex appeal is pandering to patriarchy, the next says that if you aren't sexy, you are repressed. Women can take care of themselves. Women are Victimized. Women should pay their own way. A man who doesn't pay for it all is a leech! I would think that feminism would simply say: 'You can do pretty much the same thing men can do.'

4) Overt Feminism uses double standards. Women can flirt in the work place all they want, but the moment a man does it it's sexual harassment. The general male consensus of a perfect mate is a young, reasonably attractive, weight-proportionate-to-height woman and we are pigs. The general female consensus of a perfect mate is tall, rich, handsome, successful man with a full head of hair and six-pack abs and they aren't? Here's one we are all trained to follow. Man slaps a woman, open hand. Man is an abuser. Woman slaps a man, open hand. What did the man do to deserve it?

Feminism as you defined would have done things like this:

1)A woman should have all the options set forward for her and for her to chose whether to be a housewife or a CEO.

2)Gender should not judge a potential candidate for an occupation (setting aside situations where a male is a must) and instead both sides must be judged based on their qualifications.

3)A woman is always unique person to person. Let a woman who displays her sexuality be allowed to and let a woman who covers it up be allowed to. Let a woman pay if she wants to and let a man allow her to. (I for one prefer to be the one to pay, just the chilverious romantic in me.)

4)Both men and women can flirt within the company policy, for that is how romances are kindled. Both men and women have fantasies of our perfect mates, but we both accept each other's flaws. Let both man and woman be judged equally, regardless of who is the aggressor and who is the accosted.

But.. I am just a guy.

OK.  Two points. 

You use the term "overt feminism".  it's not one I've heard before and I'm not clear if its just one you've invented or simply not one I've not heard.  The point is that you are, correctly I think, narrowing it to "this particular incarnation of feminism".  Which is kinda the point.  What you seem to be doing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is taking a particular incarnation of feminism and criticising it.  Not unjustly, don't get me wrong. 

My point is there are many different strands of which you are mentioning but one.  It's obviously fine to focus on just one strand - in fact the conversation would likely be way too large if we talked about every single one - but I do just want, at the risk of being redundant, to drum home that this is ONE WAY in which feminism is expressed.  Whether I personally, or you, or Bob reading this thread agree with it isn't quite the point.  The point is that holding everyone to that definition is reductionist and doing a disservice.  I, for the record, don't agree.

Secondly, this:

"Overt Feminism pushes for hard to achieve male/female ratios even when there are no qualified women to fill in the male positions"

As I've mentioned int he spin off thread, I actually agree by and large with quotas.  Many don't, and thats groovy.  There's no one true way (see above).  But this point about "qualified".  You've returned to it a few times.

What exactly do you imagine the qualifications for being a CEO, a politican, a <generic prestigious job> are?  There's no training course or points system.  The qualifications needed for having that job are "being able to get that job".  If, I dunno, Glaxo-Smithcline ring me up tomorrow and say "Kythia, be our CEO" then BAM, I have the qualifications.

I'd like you to expand on that point a little if you would, because I think you're viewing, subconsciously, "male" as a qualification.

I haven't addressed the bulk of your points.  I suspect you know what I'd say to them but, for the record and in brief, I agree with your criticisms.

[Monfang]

I'm gonna answer Kythia first.

I used 'Overt Feminism' to describe the kind of feminism that seems to be going beyond the bounds that it originally set out to achieve and did achieve. I originally wanted to use 'radical' but that would sound something closer to planning bombings than what I had intended to portray.

What I meant by qualifications is that a man with five years of experience in the field he is applying for would be passed up for a woman with one year just to fill a quota. Or a man with a 4.0 GPA would be passed up for a woman with a 3.0. (I will admit there is a problem for people trying to get into a field with no experience but that's another thread.) If a both a man and woman are applying for a management position and the man is the only one with the degree in management, why should he lose to the woman who took a diploma that wasn't for management? What does the system say about women when it sets the system up for them to win over more experienced candidates? Does it say women are strong and independent or does it say they are weak and need help?

And again, I only heard about these second hand. I haven't seen or heard them myself, they might be completely overblown.

@Pumpkin Seeds:.. You make good points about the change in culture and you brought up several points that show that perhaps indeed these are overblown. I for one haven't heard any news stories related to this exactly. There was another point about men and women talking about sex with their friends. The image of men doing it in the locker room compared to women a la Sex in the City. This is indeed a result of the culture. But which way do we go? Do we say women can't do it because men can't or do we say men can do it because women can?

[Kythia]

What I meant by qualifications is that a man with five years of experience in the field he is applying for would be passed up for a woman with one year just to fill a quota. Or a man with a 4.0 GPA would be passed up for a woman with a 3.0. (I will admit there is a problem for people trying to get into a field with no experience but that's another thread.) If a both a man and woman are applying for a management position and the man is the only one with the degree in management, why should he lose to the woman who took a diploma that wasn't for management? What does the system say about women when it sets the system up for them to win over more experienced candidates? Does it say women are strong and independent or does it say they are weak and need help?

Yes, but is five year's experience necessary, is the diploma in management necessary.  I kinda get the impression you're in the US?  Things may be different over there, but over here (UK) the job specification for a job is...actually 'm getting ahead of myself, sorry.  When applying for a job you get two documents, by law.  A job description which outlines what the job is does, who its responsible to and for, etc.  Then a job specification which outlines what is needed from a succesful applicant.  OK?

So this job specification has two parts - essential and desired.  Lets say that E was recruiting for a new staff member.  "Access to the internet" is essential, its impossible to do the job without it.  "Previous experience of moderating a large forum" though is just desirable.  I have no idea on the backgrounds of E's staff and whether most none or all of them have that, but its certainly possible to do the job without it. 

I would say that both your five years and your diploma are "desirable" not "essential".  That they are added extras to the business of doing the job or not.  And, as I say, in some cases I feel a women who meets all the essentials should be given the job over a man meeting the essentials and desirables.  She is perfectly qualified, she meets every requirement for the job.  Just doesn't go over.

Its like Pumpkin Seeds says, IMO, its a third party lending a helping hand until market forces can address historic imbalances.

[Monfang]

..Huh.. Never thought of it like that.

I dismiss that part of my argument then.

[RubySlippers]

Yes, but is five year's experience necessary, is the diploma in management necessary.  I kinda get the impression you're in the US?  Things may be different over there, but over here (UK) the job specification for a job is...actually 'm getting ahead of myself, sorry.  When applying for a job you get two documents, by law.  A job description which outlines what the job is does, who its responsible to and for, etc.  Then a job specification which outlines what is needed from a succesful applicant.  OK?

So this job specification has two parts - essential and desired.  Lets say that E was recruiting for a new staff member.  "Access to the internet" is essential, its impossible to do the job without it.  "Previous experience of moderating a large forum" though is just desirable.  I have no idea on the backgrounds of E's staff and whether most none or all of them have that, but its certainly possible to do the job without it. 

I would say that both your five years and your diploma are "desirable" not "essential".  That they are added extras to the business of doing the job or not.  And, as I say, in some cases I feel a women who meets all the essentials should be given the job over a man meeting the essentials and desirables.  She is perfectly qualified, she meets every requirement for the job.  Just doesn't go over.

Its like Pumpkin Seeds says, IMO, its a third party lending a helping hand until market forces can address historic imbalances.

In the US Employers decide this and its easy to limit applications most won't want anyone who hasn't worked in the last six months to apply, or you must hold a degree of some sort or must have certain years of experience its a way to not blatantly disciminate on other grounds in some cases. Its not odd in China to get a job in a higher end retail store as a sales clerk you often need a degree from one of the better universities in anything to be considered to be hired. Admiting those are often desireable jobs with wages and commissions but still far over what one would need for the work.

Its not illegal to do so in any event in most cases.

[Kythia]

Purely because it always makes me laugh and is somewhat relevant to what I was talking about before.

Caitlin Moran:

“We need to reclaim the word ‘feminism’. We need the word ‘feminism’ back real bad. When statistics come in saying that only 29% of American women would describe themselves as feminist – and only 42% of British women – I used to think, What do you think feminism IS, ladies? What part of ‘liberation for women’ is not for you? Is it freedom to vote? The right not to be owned by the man you marry? The campaign for equal pay? ‘Vogue’ by Madonna? Jeans? Did all that good shit GET ON YOUR NERVES? Or were you just DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY?”

[Beorning]

We need to reclaim the word ‘feminism’. We need the word ‘feminism’ back real bad. When statistics come in saying that only 29% of American women would describe themselves as feminist – and only 42% of British women – I used to think, What do you think feminism IS, ladies? What part of ‘liberation for women’ is not for you? Is it freedom to vote? The right not to be owned by the man you marry? The campaign for equal pay? ‘Vogue’ by Madonna? Jeans? Did all that good shit GET ON YOUR NERVES? Or were you just DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY?

I'd totally agree with the above...

... with the caveat that the word needs to be reclaimed from modern feminists themselves  ;)

[Chris Brady]

I'd totally agree with the above...

... with the caveat that the word needs to be reclaimed from modern feminists themselves  ;)

Yeah, as 'funny' as that quote, women in general need to take the word back from the extremists who use it as a weapon.  I'll bet that those 29%/42% women who claimed to be 'Feminists', a small percentage were using it correctly, as in having the same freedoms and rights as any other human being should have.  All the rest that didn't say they were, probably assume the word 'feminist' is what the extremists claim it is, which is mostly anti-male, anti-housewife and generally very obstructive and combatant.

[MHaji]

I'm from San Francisco, I run in liberal circles, in places where anarcho-communists run openly, I know a lot of feminists, and...

Yeah, as 'funny' as that quote, women in general need to take the word back from the extremists who use it as a weapon.  I'll bet that those 29%/42% women who claimed to be 'Feminists', a small percentage were using it correctly, as in having the same freedoms and rights as any other human being should have.  All the rest that didn't say they were, probably assume the word 'feminist' is what the extremists claim it is, which is mostly anti-male, anti-housewife and generally very obstructive and combatant.

This doesn't actually square with any of my experience at all. I keep hearing about this radical feminist nightmare, I keep seeing outliers thrown out as typical cases, and I pretty much never meet them. I hear about them from anti-feminist sources and people on message boards, but never from feminists themselves.

Maybe you're all from places that are much more liberal and feminist than San Francisco? I guess that's possible. Or maybe I've been feminized and can't see the extremists! What a terrible fate, to see feminism as a normal thing that a large number of sane people believe in...

[Shjade]

I'd totally agree with the above...

... with the caveat that the word needs to be reclaimed from modern feminists themselves  ;)

I may be mistaken, but I believe that was the point of the quote.

[Kythia]

I'm from San Francisco, I run in liberal circles, in places where anarcho-communists run openly, I know a lot of feminists, and...

This doesn't actually square with any of my experience at all. I keep hearing about this radical feminist nightmare, I keep seeing outliers thrown out as typical cases, and I pretty much never meet them. I hear about them from anti-feminist sources and people on message boards, but never from feminists themselves.

Maybe you're all from places that are much more liberal and feminist than San Francisco? I guess that's possible. Or maybe I've been feminized and can't see the extremists! What a terrible fate, to see feminism as a normal thing that a large number of sane people believe in...

Yeah, I'm pretty certain it was hyperbole, to be honest.  So 29% of US women are feminists of which "a small percentage" - shall we say 2%? - are reasonable.  2% of 29% is 0.58%.  So the makeup of US women is:

0.58% reasonable moderate feminists
28.42% man hating maniacs
71% scared of the man haters.

Clearly not true and I doubt it was meant to be taken seriously.  Or at least, god I hope it wasn't.

[Caehlim]

A man who goes out with many women and enjoys them physically is seen as “enjoying the bachelor life” or “a stud.”  Whereas a woman who does the same is a “slut” or “whore.”

This is one area where I wish we as a society would just grow up and admit that everyone likes sex and there's nothing wrong with that. If a woman has lots of sex because she wants to, that's awesome in my opinion.

Women that advance in the workplace are also saddled with being “cold” or a “bitch.”

I read an article in Time magazine (sorry I left it at work so I can't quote directly, I'll paraphrase), that was talking about a study. You write a story about an ambitious person in a company, split it between two groups to read. One group gets a version with a female name, the other group gets a version with a male name. They're otherwise identical.

They're asked to rate how likeable the person is. If it's a man, they rate them as highly likeable whereas if it's a woman it's the exact opposite.

I'll admit, there have been times when I've thought the discussions of how hard women had it in the workplace were exaggerated. That study really turned my head around on that one. It really shows how much gender influences people's reactions.

[Bandita]

Feminists like to paint the traditional family as one where the man held all the power and the woman slaved to serve him and see to all his needs above her own. They painted these images of women in utter misery and frustration that women lived in these restricted lives. But as I look at the effect it has on our culture, I wonder if perhaps that isn't true? If it was, then wouldn't we see divorce rates drop as women get such a sense of freedom that they seek out their partners and everyone becomes happy? Yet, I find that at the start of the second wave of feminism around the 1960's the divorce rate skyrockets and hasn't fallen sense then.

Forgive me if someone has addressed this issue in this fashion already, but I didn't get through all 8 pages of comments yet, and I really really feel the need to address this.

First off, the 'painted images' are literally painted.  Throughout the last several centuries, images of women wearing corsets that would break their ribs, or women in certain parts of Asia whose feet are a size 4 kids because they had to endure footbinding are incredible examples of that.  Feminism is not just the struggle for equal pay, or whatever else it might be equated with, it's the struggle against mysogynistic torture.  Yes, torture.  I realize that we have come a long way from that in many portions of the world, but then again there are examples like Malala Yousafzai, the 15 year old shot for trying to go to school.  These things alone are enough to prove that feminism is necessary.

Secondly, the idea that women can now seek out their partners and thus are happy finally?  That assumes that in the era before the 60's or so women could not?  (admittedly not if there were racial aspects, but other than that yes, they could.) Women in the 30's could seek out men, and in fact women after either world war had their pick in many locations due to the sheer losses of young men in the country.

Thirdly, you have picked an arbitrary date in a very very long path of feminism.  Feminism dates back to Susan B. Anthony, and further in other cases.  Look up Olympia de Gouges, for example.  Feminism has been a centuries long struggle that is still not won, see Malala above.

But the real ticker here for me is your false dichotomy of Divorce = bad, marraige = good. And this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart.  I know a few people who are poly.  (Polyphilic or Multiamory are my terms of choice, simply because I linguistically don't appreciate mixed latin and greek)  How do you define a relationship like that?  Is it fair to say that they shouldn't have a right to have their relationship simply because it is not seen as normal?  It is a loving kind relationship that makes all three members better, the one I've seen anyhow, and I can't reconcile it with normal (PC) definitions of marriage, ie, two people.  In this case I can't even state that marraige is a good institution because it ostracizes alternative families like this. 

On another level, marriage may be a concept of permanence for you, but that doesn't mean that all people think of it like that.  I can't imagine being with someone who has a violent nature that they've concealed from me, or has some sort of severe mental problem that reveals itself down the road. And on a less extreme note, people change.  I'm not the person I was 10 years ago, nor is my spouse.  Fortunately, we have changed together, in ways that complement each other, but what if we had not?  What if we had changed in ways that made us drift apart?  People shouldn't have to be forced to stay with each other if they are no longer suited for each other. 

I'm not saying that marriage should be a fluid thing like certain celebrities seem to think it ought, but I am saying that promising forever is an unreasonable thing.  And that that should not stop a person from trying, but it should not make them feel shamed if they cannot keep it. 

And just to round out my opinion on divorce, there was a common view that since divorce became legal that there should have been a high point of divorces, as women scrambled to get rid of men who were bad, and then the rates would just even out.  History shows us that this is never the case though.  Many women didn't act on this right away, being afraid of what friends and family would think.  Societal pressures are at least as strong as law.  And many men and women, though married, had already lived apart due to lack of ease in obtaining a divorce in the past, they simply had the option in the 60's. I'd like to propose that perhaps the divorce rate didn't 'skyrocket' so much as simply was legalized and recognized. The 'skyrocketing' may be reflective of what portion of society as a whole already had failed marriages.

I hope this doesn't come across as anything more than food for thought.  None of it is meant as an accusation against your beliefs on divorce, I was merely trying to articulate mine, which I'm afraid are not the same as most peoples.  But they work for me.