Feminism

[LizF]

If we're in the market for high-end (read: expensive) fashion, clearly, we're successful women. So, what is the general feeling on feminism?
I personally attribute much of my personal and professional successful to feminism, but some people see it as an ugly word. What do you think?

[kitsch_k]

it is a very sensitive term..i can't consider myself a feminist..i'm still pretty traditional in many ways in how i see a man and a woman are and what their place in society is..but i have to say..i learned to fight like a man..hahha...it's one way of gaining their respect when they know they can't push you over just coz ur a girl

[LizF]

I understand where you're coming from. I'm a feminist, but my feminist politics are in a very discreet way. Like, I still wear heels and shave my legs and expect guys to open the door for me... I just also expect to be treated like an equal.
But yeah, learning self-defense is very important for girl power!!!

[kitsch_k]

hahaa..yeah!! i can't stand being pushed over...especially by a man! i don't care about his ego...

I can't consider myself a feminist either. I hate it when men thinks they're better than men. I also hate it when women thinks they're better than men. I just like equality on both sides.

[LizF]

Isn't that feminism? I think it's just a stereotype about feminists that they think they're better than men. Most of the feminists I know want around the table equality.

[pinkbag]

Originally Posted by kitsch_k

it is a very sensitive term..i can't consider myself a feminist..i'm still pretty traditional in many ways in how i see a man and a woman are and what their place in society is..but i have to say..i learned to fight like a man..hahha...it's one way of gaining their respect when they know they can't push you over just coz ur a girl

i also think that man and woman have their respective positions in the society and it should be respected if you are living in the society...however it is wrong to be dominated by men unnecessarily and in the same breath i would like to say that it is wrong to misuse your being a female as well....

[r8rpwr]

I think there are a lot of ways to define the term, and this leads to its misunderstanding.

I'm all for feminism in the sense of equal opportunity. And by the way, this includes the opportunity to choose something that the hard core "feminists" might disapprove of. Like becoming a SAHM. Some would say that's an affront to feminism. I disagree, because isn't making your own choices for your own life an empowering thing?

I have a great job, in fact I earn about 2 times as much as my husband. Feminism made it possible for me to accomplish that (well, feminism and also a heck of a lot of hard work on my part!). However, I am not a burn the bra man hater. There's a difference.

[britjojo]

I am in no way a feminist. Rather, I am a throw back who thinks that the feminism movement has gone too far. Feminism was supposed to be about a women's right to choose, and yet I now find myself in a court/divorce situation where my right to choose may be taken away from me by a system that dictates what is best for women and their children.

[etali]

To me feminism has overtones of women being superior to men. I'm not saying that's the correct definition, just the impression the more vocal feminist groups in my area give.

I don't like that. I believe that women and men should be treated as equals. I see nothing wrong with people who choose to fulfil more traditional roles, and I see nothing wrong with people who break the mold.

I just figure that people should be allowed to make their own choices.

[britjojo]

Feminism really IS supposed to be about equality, but you are right that there are many who speak with undertones of superiority. Just look at the way we sometimes tear men to pieces.......even in day to day conversation we can attribute weaknesses to them just because they are men.

[elaine130]

Everyone has made really good points about this vague, confusing and complex concept called "feminism." I also took many women's writers courses throughout my h.s. and college academic years and have found the radical feminists to be obnoxious but there were some thinkers who were feminists but denied the label (Virginia Woolf, Camille Paglia). I do also believe that there are inherent difference/strengths/weaknesses built into each sex so we cannot be absolute equals, nor would that be ideal.

I am a strong proponent of human and civil rights for every individual, both here in the USA and abroad. I am against oppression of one group over another, based on sex, race, creed, age, disability, sexual orientation, nationality. In essence, I believe I am more of a HUMANIST than a feminist. Plus, as much as I like to be treated equally, I kinda like chivalry, too. But I return the favor and open doors for men all the time, too!

[elaine130]

The argument feminists make against SAHMs is that they are relying on their husbands to take care of them and their children, basically giving up their earning potential (i.e., power) and quite possibly placing themselves in jeopardy should the relationship not work out. If the husband decides to leave his wife, who was a SAHM for say 20 years, then she'd be stuck looking for a job without the benefit of years of office work experience; competing with younger people; and earning lower wages that other mothers who had stayed in the job market and accumulated earning potential each year. In other words, the feminists argue that if that SAHM had instead worked for 20 years and then got a divorce, she'd be in a better place financially.

But when one chooses to be a SAHM, it's really about placing family first. Perhaps the parents prefer not to have their children raised by strangers - like a nanny or day care. To me, the opinion above is rather divisive and somewhat anti-family. Way back when, individuals survived because they were part of a family that was INTERDEPENDENT: the father figure earned income/worked the farm, the mother gave birth to children and took care of the household plus also farmed, and the children were responsible for taking care of the household chores and also tending to farming duties or earning additional income to support the family unit. Men, women and children NEEDED one another in order to merely survive.

But in modern day, men can do their own housework, laundry, cooking, etc. Women can also earn income and do difficult manual labor. Teens these days aren't contributing much to the house, have jobs of their own, and they hang out with peer groups instead of with siblings and enjoying meals with their family unit. We don't need to be so interdependent any more to survive. The USA prides itself on Americans' "rugged individualism." Which is good and bad. Hence, high divorce rates and high numbers of unmarried men and women in their 30's and older! As for me, I put my faith in God and in the wonderful man I married that our marriage and family will survive.

Originally Posted by r8rpwr

I think there are a lot of ways to define the term, and this leads to its misunderstanding.

I'm all for feminism in the sense of equal opportunity. And by the way, this includes the opportunity to choose something that the hard core "feminists" might disapprove of. Like becoming a SAHM. Some would say that's an affront to feminism. I disagree, because isn't making your own choices for your own life an empowering thing?

I have a great job, in fact I earn about 2 times as much as my husband. Feminism made it possible for me to accomplish that (well, feminism and also a heck of a lot of hard work on my part!). However, I am not a burn the bra man hater. There's a difference.

[britjojo]

Being a SAHM to me was never about being a lay about who did nothing all day as some feminists seem to assume or suggest. I did what a daycare would be paid to do, as well as cooking, cleaning, laundry, things that my husband could NEVER do because he worked 18 hours six days a week or more most weeks. These are things that he would have to pay someone else to do for him-so why is it wrong that that person be his wife? Does a marriage certificate somehow mean that a person is entitled to be looked after by another, but never pay them?

Sorry but I don't buy that. If I had gone out to work, it would have been to pay for day care, to pay for a cleaner, and to pay for meals that we ate out every night. Our quality of life would not have been so good, nor would our health, or the happiness of our child.

Besides, I worked my butt off. My kid never slept. Till she was almost six months old she slept for 20 minutes at a time. Then she woke for two hours and slept again for 20 minutes. I haven't slept more than 3 hours straight in over two years. My job is hard, and I believe it would be a lot easier if I sent my child to day care and worked out of the home full time. But that would hurt her, and I won't do that for my own selfishness.

[elaine130]

I completely agree, Britjojo. Being a SAHM is a difficult and thankless job. In fact, several years ago I recall there was a movement (small) here in the US that attempted to classify stay-at-home-parenting as a bonafide profession worthy of an additional tax deduction on federal and state income tax. I don't think the bill made it very far because we sahms don't contribute actual dollars to the GNP. Which speaks volumes about what this society values. Productivity is measured by dollars earned, not in raising a nurtured, well-rounded and responsible citizen.

On another note, I can relate to the terrible sleep deprivation! I've been a sahm myself for the past four years, but I also started working part-time two years ago while remaining a full-time sahm. Lack of sleep is terrible (and definitely contributes towards depression!), I do hope you find some relief.

I got into the habit of sleeping with my second child (first our bed then in hers) and then she grew reliant on it. Truth was, I enjoyed sleeping with my daughter very much. So I was really the one to blame for the bad habit.

Finally, I bit the bullet and did some serious tough love (learned from books and "The Nanny" tv show, which i love! I put her in bed, read stories, kissed and said good night, closed the door and went to my bedroom. When she came out, I didn't talk to her or appease her (I want a drink, etc) or even look at her, but I just placed her back in her bed. I'd continue this routine, ignoring her cries (very difficult!) and remaining steadfast. It worked wonders!

The first night is most difficult and can last a few hours. But it get easier with each passing night, as long as you maintain the same routine and don't give in to her excuses. We celebrated with a special party (or a coveted toy) when she slept thru the night until sunrise. And I finally got more than 4 hours of sleep - what an amazing feeling!

The main thing is that I had to teach her how to self-soothe (my son sucked his thumb and liked tags, my daughter never was a thumb sucker nor did she use a pacifier). We all wake up every 4 or 6 hours (circadian rhythm) but we usually fall back asleep. Toddlers (especially) have difficulty nodding back off and can get used to having them rocked or held or getting attention from a parent in order to go back to sleep. Using tough love really helped me and restored quality time with my dh. Have you tried this method?

[britjojo]

No, and it is unfortunately against my parenting style. We cloth diaper, we co-sleep (and the co-sleeping cannot stop simply because there is no where else for her to sleep), we partake of natural family living and attachment parenting. I don't believe that it would do either of us any good for me to leave her crying till she threw up every night (and believe me that is what happens when she cries for more than a few minutes and has done since she was a newborn). It would just create more mess, insecurity, work for me, and resentment and ill feeling between the two of us.

[elaine130]

You are doing what's right for your child, which is the best love of all. There are definite pros and cons to each parenting style. Growing up in the Philippines and then here in the US, my parents also believed in attachment parenting and they used cloth diapers on my siblings and me. But as an American now, married to another American, my dh and I believe in children having their own spaces and us parents having time for ourselves. One of my filipina aunts always believed that co-sleeping makes for "good" kids. There's probably truth in that! In fact, some of my aunt's now-adult children (my cousins) still co-sleep with their kids - and they're in their teens!

Originally Posted by britjojo

No, and it is unfortunately against my parenting style. We cloth diaper, we co-sleep (and the co-sleeping cannot stop simply because there is no where else for her to sleep), we partake of natural family living and attachment parenting. I don't believe that it would do either of us any good for me to leave her crying till she threw up every night (and believe me that is what happens when she cries for more than a few minutes and has done since she was a newborn). It would just create more mess, insecurity, work for me, and resentment and ill feeling between the two of us.

[britjojo]

I personally think also that it is the most natural and traditional way of raising children. We were not meant to sleep alone-throughout history families have shared a sleeping space. This was for safety, and for warmth before good fireplaces and central heating had been designed, and because most people couldn't afford big dwellings with a room for every person.

Taking a tiny baby from a noisy, cramped uterus and making it sleep alone, in a big empty crib in a silent room just didn't jive with me.

The majority of us choose to share our sleeping quarters with our partner, kids are no different. They need company/comfort too.

Then there are the benefits to SIDS risks......I could go on all day. I'll stop now