Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores

By Kathleen Parker

Orlando Sentinel

(ITALICS)"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? Do women get less desirable as they get more successful?"(END ITALICS)


Columnist Maureen Dowd posed those questions in Sunday's New York Times Magazine in an essay adapted from her forthcoming book: "Are Men Necessary: When Sexes Collide."

Entertaining as usual, Dowd explored her premise that many women end up unmarried and childless because they're successful by reviewing women's evolution since her college days, which happen to have coincided with my own. We both came of age as women's lib was being midwifed into the culture by a generation of women who felt enslaved by homemaking and childbearing.

Now, in the span of a generation, all that business about equality apparently isn't so appealing to a younger generation of women, who are ever inventive as they seek old ways to attract new men. Dowd writes:

"Today, women have gone back to hunting their quarry . with elaborate schemes designed to allow the deluded creatures (men) to think they are the hunters."

Snip......... Tribune Midia Services

Just a funny line I heard last night on "That 70's Show" from Kitty: "I'm all for women's rights but for God's sake, at least put on a little lipstick!" Just thought it was funny and wanted to share.

Perhaps not all that funny, but right on target.

To Quote George Carlin whom I share a lot of ideas with
"I do agree that chairman should be chairperson, spokeman should be spokesperson. But sometimes they take it a bit too far" He then spouts into many ways to tick off a feminist

Also in the article:

Men haven't turned away from smart, successful women (ITALICS) because (END ITALICS) they're smart and successful. More likely they've turned away because the feminist movement that encouraged women to be smart and successful also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.

Whatever was wrong, men did it. During the past 30 years, they've been variously characterized as male chauvinist pigs, deadbeat dads or knuckle-dragging abusers who beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday. At the same time women wanted men to be wage earners, they also wanted them to act like girlfriends: to time their contractions, feed and diaper the baby, and go antiquing.

And then, when whatshisname inevitably lapsed into guy-ness, women wanted him to disappear. If children were involved, women got custody and men got an invoice. The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live.

Did we really think men wouldn't mind?

________________________________

Any other divorced dads out there who, like me, know exactly what this writer is talking about??

Kathleen Parker has never had any facts that ever supported her opinion. She usually makes things up just to make a point. Typical of her kind of commentary.

For example, " The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live. " Where is the proof that backs this statement up? I guess in Kathleen's world mothers and wives are solely responsible for the divorce rate in this country, "dead beat dads" is a term with which she is not familar, etc. etc.

kathleen has a problem with reality--she doesn't like to live in it.

The orignal anon questioned the statement:

" The eradication of men and fathers from children's lives has been feminism's most despicable accomplishment. Half of all children will sleep tonight in a home where their father does not live. "

You, in response say that 25% of all households are single parent households (some with men and some with women as head of household). First of all, 25% is not half and I am certain that these 25% of families have "half of all children".

Second though, you seem to assume that this is caused by feminism! Divorce, death and desertion are caused by feminism????

The next to the last sentence should read: "First of all, 25% is not half and I am certain that these 25% of families do not have "half of all children".

I said it didn't list child counts. But the report in 2002 did. 32% of all children live in a single parent household. That's over 22 million children! And given that only 18% of single familes are caused by separation or death, that means that over 18 million children (82%) do not live with both parents because of divorce or because they never bothered to get married in the first place.

But that doesn't mean that feminism is repsonsible for those divorces.

Feminism from the general concept of equal pay for equal work, equal rights in the work place, access to education, etc. is good and I would support that.

The problems with the feminist movement today are its leadership and direction, which has little or nothing to do with the above statement. “Feminism” is lead by a group of women who are either never married, divorced, or lesbians. Rare today is the happily married feminist leader. And more times then not, if you find a married feminist she’s married to a limp dishrag of man who’s evil [censored] is kept securely in a mason jar in the basement – lest he might get the crazy idea to use it.

I blame feminism today for the idea that men are no longer necessary, and thus the increasing divorce rate and increasing ranks of women having children out of wedlock.

The problem with all social causes is that they’re never finished. They are always shifting or expanding their focus to continue their existence. We could start a social cause today that wanted to outlaw Velcro shoes. We could have parades, write flowery essays and songs about how evil Velcro shoes are, get movement in Congress to outlaw Velcro shoes, and then FINALLY we win. We have outlawed Velcro shoes. Yeah, we won! No more Velcro shoes. Would we all pack-up and go home? NO! Outlawing Velcro shoes is no longer enough. Now we want to outlaw Zipper shoes. And we start the process all over again.

Raymond, I think the answer or the reason is that those people who needed the first variation of feminism have had their goal accomplished. I'm not sure it's a problem as much as it's a reality that people always want what they don't have. It is a foundation of economics because it's true. You have to take the good with the bad (as you view it in a particular instance) in our free society.

This is the saddest thing I've ever read. Generalizations are never a good idea, Raymond. Attempting to blame one section of society for a whole host of problems is just ridiculous. Women cannot have children alone; women can't get a divorce by themselves; women can't have children out of wedlock all by themselves. We're many things but not many of us have divine intervention when it comes to procreation. And how can you seriously post any kind of response that attempts to analyze a societal problem in which women are called whores in the title? This is okay, apparently. Men don't want to be seen as "knuckle-draggers" but it's okay to call women whores.

As for having their man's [censored] in a mason jar - what have you been reading, man?!

Signed,
Another Anon

Oh well, then I completely changed my mind. You're right; it's all the fault of women. Poor men!

Signed,
Another Anon

Careful people. Statistics can be very misleading. Especially ones that are completely generalized.

It all started with the eating of the apple.

That's great, Idunit. Let's place the full burden of selecting appropriate mates fully on the shoulders of the women. Men, as they are so desperate, should not have to be selective. They should just be able to merrily go from woman to woman.

Women, of course, should also be completely in charge of the birth control decisions (except for the big one, naturally). Those desperate men don't have time to think about such picayune details. They've got slutty women to service, dammit!

She may not have to sleep with every desparate man, but he doesn't have to go riding bareback either. Responsibility is a two-way street. And yes, grmasterb, sometimes women get divorces because they just don't love their partners anymore. It's very sad - for everyone involved.

Signed,
Another Anon

Those aren't the vows I said when I got married

Agreed, straw, the ones my husband must have said under his breath were:

"My family being in our house nearly all of the time is what I expect of you, woman; they are my family and I gave them all keys.
Oh, and if you don't like working full time, and cleaning and cooking and taking care of the baby, while I spend our money, too bad..."

Hmmm... no wonder divorce looked good.