I am referencing the ones that saw it as an opportunity to make more money and have more power.
Feminism
- Thread starter ahill1
- Start date
Dude... I am a woman and an advocate that women will always have more value because they will and do - even if they choose not to have children. Feminism does not promote the right to choose, they demonize women that want to be stay at home mothers and wives. They tell women that if they choose that they are mentally ill or brainwashed. I have been around enough of them to know. I am sure not all of them are this way but the most vocal ones are. This is specifically in America. If you are not in America, why do you focus so much on feminism in America without fully understanding it?
Again, I said women working should be a choice but it isn't a choice anymore in America. Most women are forced to work even if they have children. This is why a lot of women aren't having children now. Not because they don't want them, but because they feel they can't afford them or they don't have the time for them because they have to work.
Yet again, attributing inherent value to women alone or demonizing any specific life choice does not reflect the complexity of individual circumstances, societal pressures, and economic realities. Feminism, at its core, aims to offer choices and opportunities for women, advocating for equality and the right to make informed decisions without societal constraints. Your experience doesn't embody what feminist defends, even modern ones, at its core. You're once again comflating personal experiences with feminists with the central goal of the movement. I've US friends, I'm from America and I've read about all waves of feminism and am telling you this isn't what feminism preaches. Recognizing diverse experiences and perspectives is essential in understanding and addressing challenges faced by women in different contexts, too.
What is feminism looking to do then in America?
What rights don't women have here that men do?
You say that is good for the power owners women not to have kids and work... While incentive to kids actually is encouraged to increase the work force in the future. So that you said earlier doesn't make sense.
As for rights, there's a discrepancy in payment... There're stereotypes that are still battled against, for instance, stereotypes that associate women with caregiving roles and men with career-focused roles can limit opportunities and perpetuate inequality in various spheres such as education, employment, and leadership positions. These stereotypes can also have adverse effects on mental health by creating pressure to conform to societal norms. For example, expectations of stoicism in men or the idea that women should prioritize appearance over intellect can lead to stress, anxiety, and self-esteem issues.
Healthcare access would be another thing... Ensuring access to reproductive healthcare, including safe and legal abortion services, is essential for public health and well-being. Restrictions on reproductive rights disproportionately affect marginalized communities, limiting their access to essential healthcare services.
The wage gap does not exist. That is based on a general pull of all income from both sides ignoring that men often take more uncomfortable, higher paying roles that require relocation and risk while women do not and I can't blame them.
More women than ever before are in leadership roles. More woman graduate college than men and more women enroll too.
The prioritizing appearance thing is a woman vs woman problem. Most women enjoy make-up, hair stuff, fashion, etc. - I for one don't care about any of that and focus more on health. This is not an issue that men have with women, it is an issue of women taking issue with other women. Most men would prefer if women wore less make-up if any at all, stop using filters, and focused more on health which creates natural beauty... Women are the ones that do not want that. And that is their choice to make.
Abortions are not healthcare. Abortions are the legalization of ending human life based on inconvenience and should not come at the expense of other people. I am 100% against it but I am not on the side if outlawing it because I know what issues that can cause and I know there are better approaches to reducing the need for it such as free healthcare for pregnant women and free healthcare for infants, toddlers, and young children. Women should not have to go into debt to have a baby. And there should be tax cuts for women who do have children in order to better support them. Most abortions happen because women feel helpless. Women should not be made to feel helpless when they become pregnant. That is a problem and I can agree with that.
A lot of companies offer to pay for abortions such as Amazon because they want their women to keep working. The powers at the top also want population reduction. The want capable workers, not "feeders" as they call them. Those are people that can't or won't work. Because they want population reduction they realize that they need to keep women working their entire lives like most men do. But this will not counteract the crushing blow the economy will take in the future when we don't have enough younger people to maintain this system. They are aware of that and the life we know now in America is on the chopping block. If you want to look more into that, just read what the WEF is wanting and planning for.
As I said, women have the option to have kids or not, that is a choice they are able to have in America. By choosing not to, you are right our work force is lowered and would end in the same result if a sudden influx of women decided to stop working - but one would be immediate and be solved in a matter of years, the other would require decades to fix. We have less people able to work and when women have more babies, we have more workers. Work is needed for the modern world to continue. Every job has importance and often relies on another job. Say 50% of women are no longer able to or want to have children and the other ones that do opt to only have one child. When these children grow up, they will have to cover the costs of elderly which can't work... So more of their income will be taken away or they will need to start letting people with health problems at older ages die. It is an economic balancing act that most people don't understand. If we want to keep this modern life, it is essential that we have people willing to work for it.
And it may suck to hear this for some people, but having nice things like affordable technology and easy access to food requires someone else's labor. The less labor we have, the less options and the higher the prices will go. It is basic economics.
---------------------------
( I had this typed up before replying to your stuff )
My biggest issue with modern feminism is that it allowed women to be complete degenerates that lack any sense of accepting responsibility.
This is not something "feminism" advocates for but is a result of. You can ask men (and women) from any other country and they will tell you, it is almost impossible to date or even marry an American woman today because the majority have taken on the role of wanting to be in control of everything, they have become too masculine and not in a good way. This is not just feminists, this is women as a whole. Women that don't even call themselves feminists. A lot of them would consider themselves "conservative" too.
Women have come so full circle here in that they are now monetizing their bodies for money and feel it is empowering and love it but they are giving toxic men what they want... easy access. If women want this lifestyle and it makes them happy, I am not going to stop them but I think it is a great disservice to women to not be honest about the repercussions of these choices like with anything else. Telling all women motherhood is amazing and great without being honest about how hard it really is, that is another disservice on the other spectrum.
Women have never suffered from more depression and anxiety before than right now in America. It is a massive problem.
I am all for women choosing what they want to do with their lives, same for men. I honestly don't care so long as they are not hurting anyone or breaking laws but the subcultures that took root because of feminism have been nothing but destructive. This happens for most activist groups. They start out good and do good but become destructive. Just look at PETA as another example.
America as a whole is going through cultural and moral decay. I am not going to point at feminism for the blame of that but like many other things, it was a sub-cursor that led to bigger problems.
I don't know what can fix any of this anymore. Just hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
I will never be a feminist though nor agree with this group on most things and that is fine. I have my own life to live and worry about. More power to them for fighting for whatever.
I am tapping out on the topic for now.
@Beerus
No, the wage gap isn't a myth, is a well documented issue in many countries including the US. It's documented by many sources, including governmental organizations and independent research institutions as well as data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics... Interruption in career due to caregiving is one of the reasons for the lower paying wage, and as you defend children for future economics well being, it should come without a saying that paying less due to time off in care giving will only take their will away of having children, so the structure and way women are faced is a problem, far from feminism which actually battles against that.
Also, you need to consider the wage gap isn't uniform among all demographics of women. Transgenders, women with disabilities and women of color -- the issue is more prevalent, which just means further discrimination for being women and in demographics devalued by society.
"The American Association of University Women (AAUW) regularly publishes research reports on the gender pay gap, considering intersectionality as a factor. Their report titled "The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap" (2020) analyzes wage disparities for women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States. The report highlights how the pay gap varies significantly among women from different racial and ethnic groups, showing wider disparities for women of color compared to white women."
AAUW - Research -- you can see it in their website.
As for abortions being not healthcare, this isn't true. Abortions from a medical standpoint is considered part of healthcare procedures, implementing procedures that can avoid risk for pregnant women in certain conditions. In cases in which pregnancies bring a danger to their well being, abortion in the safest way possible is seen a way to avoid further complications.
Whether it's ethical or moral, many countries already recognize their rights to take decision over their own bodies when it comes up to their well being.
There's also the underlying issue of abortion with their financial burden and lack of support that permeates lots of women in poverty. Creating supportive environments through policies that offer free healthcare for pregnant women, infants, toddlers, and young children, as well as providing financial support through tax cuts, can indeed contribute to reducing the perceived need for abortions yeah. This would be addressing the root causes. Also, ensuring access to comprehensive sex education, contraception, and healthcare services enables individuals to make decisions aligned with their circumstances and beliefs.
While the moral debate exists, it's essential to consider the healthcare part and individual-autonomy in decision making. There was a case of a teen who was abused and had a child fruit from abuse, which was a risk to her based on her age... Abortion was the way to put her in safety, yet religious conservstive groups made a huge noise trying to contest that, a so glarring and terrifying issue that due to ideology, blocked people's eyes to what was the most sane thing to do in a situation as horrible as that one.
And that's not a reason at all to blame a culture of not wanting children. If anything, the last part of your paragraph highlights an issue with companies that pay women less taking away their incentive to have kids. And feminists have nothing to do with that as they aren't telling women not to have children, at least it's not the core of modern feminism, what they contest is precisely the thought that a women's role is bear a children and live in support of the family as house wives. It's totally possible for them to work and have children if they want to if they receive the right and fair support during their pregnancy period.
No, the wage gap isn't a myth, is a well documented issue in many countries including the US. It's documented by many sources, including governmental organizations and independent research institutions as well as data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics... Interruption in career due to caregiving is one of the reasons for the lower paying wage, and as you defend children for future economics well being, it should come without a saying that paying less due to time off in care giving will only take their will away of having children, so the structure and way women are faced is a problem, far from feminism which actually battles against that.
Also, you need to consider the wage gap isn't uniform among all demographics of women. Transgenders, women with disabilities and women of color -- the issue is more prevalent, which just means further discrimination for being women and in demographics devalued by society.
"The American Association of University Women (AAUW) regularly publishes research reports on the gender pay gap, considering intersectionality as a factor. Their report titled "The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap" (2020) analyzes wage disparities for women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States. The report highlights how the pay gap varies significantly among women from different racial and ethnic groups, showing wider disparities for women of color compared to white women."
AAUW - Research -- you can see it in their website.
As for abortions being not healthcare, this isn't true. Abortions from a medical standpoint is considered part of healthcare procedures, implementing procedures that can avoid risk for pregnant women in certain conditions. In cases in which pregnancies bring a danger to their well being, abortion in the safest way possible is seen a way to avoid further complications.
Whether it's ethical or moral, many countries already recognize their rights to take decision over their own bodies when it comes up to their well being.
There's also the underlying issue of abortion with their financial burden and lack of support that permeates lots of women in poverty. Creating supportive environments through policies that offer free healthcare for pregnant women, infants, toddlers, and young children, as well as providing financial support through tax cuts, can indeed contribute to reducing the perceived need for abortions yeah. This would be addressing the root causes. Also, ensuring access to comprehensive sex education, contraception, and healthcare services enables individuals to make decisions aligned with their circumstances and beliefs.
While the moral debate exists, it's essential to consider the healthcare part and individual-autonomy in decision making. There was a case of a teen who was abused and had a child fruit from abuse, which was a risk to her based on her age... Abortion was the way to put her in safety, yet religious conservstive groups made a huge noise trying to contest that, a so glarring and terrifying issue that due to ideology, blocked people's eyes to what was the most sane thing to do in a situation as horrible as that one.
And that's not a reason at all to blame a culture of not wanting children. If anything, the last part of your paragraph highlights an issue with companies that pay women less taking away their incentive to have kids. And feminists have nothing to do with that as they aren't telling women not to have children, at least it's not the core of modern feminism, what they contest is precisely the thought that a women's role is bear a children and live in support of the family as house wives. It's totally possible for them to work and have children if they want to if they receive the right and fair support during their pregnancy period.
Like I said I am tapping out of the discussion for now. I read what you said and respectfully disagree with most of it.
My worldview and yours will never allow either of our minds to be changed. For the record I have a conservative moral foundation rooted in Christianity.
So you can see why certain things I am just not going to budge on. Just wanted to respond so you don't think I ignored what you said.
My worldview and yours will never allow either of our minds to be changed. For the record I have a conservative moral foundation rooted in Christianity.
So you can see why certain things I am just not going to budge on. Just wanted to respond so you don't think I ignored what you said.
Only someone that has popped up quite a bit recently and was brought here too and that I would like to contest since it isn't true, which was the idea that more women in the work face added to economical crisis... The hypothesis that reducing female employment would lead to the firing of women, consequent lower wage bills for businesses, and subsequently stimulate the creation of more companies might seem plausible on the surface. However, this overlooks the broader repercussions in terms of reduced consumer spending power, talent drain from the workforce, and a potential decline in overall productivity.
It'd give more power to companies with power to do so to open up, with lower waging costs, which would in ling term require demands and work force with the tax income raising, which is a contradiction within the own libertarian argument which is why no serious economic libertarian defensor would ever use this argument.
Curtailing female employment would likely result in a scarcity of skilled labor, ultimately leading to an increase in wages due to heightened competition for the remaining workforce. This would not only counter the initial reduction in labor costs but could also lead to inflationary pressures and reduced profitability for businesses.
History and global examples substantiate this argument. For instance, during periods when female workforce participation increased significantly, such as in the United States and Brazil, these nations did not experience economic downturns due to women joining the labor force. Conversely, Nordic countries, known for their high female workforce participation rates, illustrate robust economies that thrive due to a diverse and inclusive workforce. Heck, when Brazil grew amlot economically between decades, there were a huge increase of women in the work force... The economical crisis in the US is another thing based on a history of events that has absolutely nothing to do with increased work force. It'd be like when slavery became illegal, the argument that black people working paid jobs would lead to an economic downturn with more work force... So it's a nonsense point, sorry. The US couldn't just hold the power it had once and which it acquired with specifics accomplishments and advantages post war. Brazil grew a lot for example with the boom of commodities, the raising of China and a more stable world trade and relationships, which are way bigger facts in economic growth.
Besides a smaller workforce might hamper innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, thus impacting tax revenues derived from corporate taxes and stifling economic growth.
Contrary to the argument that increased workforce is a driving factor of economic downturns, historical and empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Economic downturns are multi-dimensional, involving complex factors like financial mismanagement, market speculation, and external shocks rather than simply an increase in the workforce.
Looking at the aftermath of economic crises, policymakers often aim to stimulate employment and bolster consumer spending to aid recovery. Limiting female workforce participation during such periods would not align with these recovery strategies, as it would curtail the very consumer spending necessary for economic revival.
Sorry for the the revival, but with economics arguments, I feel the need to point out flaws when I see them because it's something of extreme importance.
It'd give more power to companies with power to do so to open up, with lower waging costs, which would in ling term require demands and work force with the tax income raising, which is a contradiction within the own libertarian argument which is why no serious economic libertarian defensor would ever use this argument.
Curtailing female employment would likely result in a scarcity of skilled labor, ultimately leading to an increase in wages due to heightened competition for the remaining workforce. This would not only counter the initial reduction in labor costs but could also lead to inflationary pressures and reduced profitability for businesses.
History and global examples substantiate this argument. For instance, during periods when female workforce participation increased significantly, such as in the United States and Brazil, these nations did not experience economic downturns due to women joining the labor force. Conversely, Nordic countries, known for their high female workforce participation rates, illustrate robust economies that thrive due to a diverse and inclusive workforce. Heck, when Brazil grew amlot economically between decades, there were a huge increase of women in the work force... The economical crisis in the US is another thing based on a history of events that has absolutely nothing to do with increased work force. It'd be like when slavery became illegal, the argument that black people working paid jobs would lead to an economic downturn with more work force... So it's a nonsense point, sorry. The US couldn't just hold the power it had once and which it acquired with specifics accomplishments and advantages post war. Brazil grew a lot for example with the boom of commodities, the raising of China and a more stable world trade and relationships, which are way bigger facts in economic growth.
Besides a smaller workforce might hamper innovation, productivity, and competitiveness, thus impacting tax revenues derived from corporate taxes and stifling economic growth.
Contrary to the argument that increased workforce is a driving factor of economic downturns, historical and empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Economic downturns are multi-dimensional, involving complex factors like financial mismanagement, market speculation, and external shocks rather than simply an increase in the workforce.
Looking at the aftermath of economic crises, policymakers often aim to stimulate employment and bolster consumer spending to aid recovery. Limiting female workforce participation during such periods would not align with these recovery strategies, as it would curtail the very consumer spending necessary for economic revival.
Sorry for the the revival, but with economics arguments, I feel the need to point out flaws when I see them because it's something of extreme importance.
Like I thought, you've nothing of substance to post. So in the lack of any arguing capacity, you resort to childish behaviour that comes up as a fake invalidation from people incapable of arguing. Learn how to debate first and then you'll have a chance to be even worth addressing.
This is more of an attack than you think it is. I'm telling YOU ...NOBODY... CARES. I tapped out in this conversation. You didn't listen. @Beerus tapped out. You didn't listen. Now, I made it clear.
Nobody cares, this thread is exhausting because YOU.. WON'T... Budge. You.. won't understand.
You are ideologically stuck thinking ONE way, ain't nothing WE can do to change YOUR MIND.
SO... We dropped it.
This is the last time I comment in this thread, and then I will already have ignored you.
My response is.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA...
I'm sure if I asked you; "Does an abortion kill a baby?" Your leftist ideology is "NO." But THE FACT ...IS... "Yes." It does kill the baby. That's the argument of our time right now. Its two groups arguing semantics, with one side being SO IGNORANT to the....
FACTS.
That's what we have here... leftist.