Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

To be Happy, We Must Admit Women and Men Aren't "Equal"

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Norman Vincent Peale, author of "The Power of Positive Thinking," once wrote these words: “Change your thoughts, and you change your world.”

His statement is highlighted at the beginning of my new book, "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage." Its premise is that if women want to be successful in love, they should reject the cultural script they’ve been sold and adopt a whole new view of men and marriage.

As products of divorce, the modern generation has few role models for lasting love. That alone is a problem. But young women have an added burden: they’ve been raised in a society that eschews marriage. They’ve been taught instead to honor sex, singlehood and female empowerment.

Consider this statement by Rebecca Traister in Marie Claire: “The world as we’ve known it for a very long time—one in which a woman’s value was tied to her role as a wife—is ending, right in front of us. It is now standard for a woman to spend years on her own, learning, working, earning, socializing, having sex, and yes, having babies in the manner she—and she alone—sees fit. We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood.”

This message is not an anomaly; the idea that women don’t need men or marriage is palpable. It began in earnest more than forty years ago, with the modern feminist movement. Feminists assured women their efforts would result in more satisfying marriages, but the result is something else altogether. It looks something like this:

1. Women postpone marriage indefinitely and move in and out of intense romantic relationships, or even live with their boyfriends for years at a time. Eventually, their biological clocks start ticking and many decide they better hurry up and get married to provide a stable home for their yet-to-be-born children. Trouble is, their boyfriend’s not willing to commit.

2. Marriage becomes a competitive sport. The complementary nature of marriage—in which two people work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the qualities each gender brings to the table—has been obliterated. Today, husbands and wives are locked in a battle about whom does more on the home front and how they’re going to get everything done. That’s not a marriage. That’s war.

It’s time to say what no one else will: Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what.

Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as as equally valuable. Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

Compare that with last year’s wrecked cruise line, the Costa Concordia. It resulted in fewer deaths, but there was another significant difference. “There was no ‘women and children first’ policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting,” said passenger Sandra Rogers, 62.

The captain of the ship agrees. In USA Today, Francesco Schettino was asked about his New Year’s resolution. He responded, “Bone up on the parts about ‘women and children first’ and ‘the captain goes down with his ship.’”

You see, the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe, and anyone who contradicts this dogma is branded sexist.

But the truth must be heard. Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.

Unless, of course, you’re beholden to feminism. In that case, you’ll believe the above is evidence of discrimination. You’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct.

Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball. This doesn’t mean men can’t take care of babies or women can’t play sports. It just means each gender has its own energy that flows in a specific direction. For God’s sake, let it flow.

The battle of the sexes is over. And guess what? No one won. Why not try something else on for size? Like this: men and women are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities that they bring to the table. Isn’t it time we stopped fussing about who brought what and simply enjoy the feast?

Suzanne Venker has written extensively about politics, parenting, and the influence of feminism on American society. Her latest book, "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage," is now available at Amazon. Also available is her new Kindle Single, "The War on Men" For more on Suzanne, visit www.suzannevenker.com and www.howtochooseahusband.com.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/05/to-be-happy-must-admit-women-and-men-arent-equal/#ixzz2K4lahlZA

grandma B

by on Feb. 5, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Replies (71-79):
Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 5:55 PM
Quoting grandmab125:

Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as as equally valuable. Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

The Titanic was something of an exception.  Some Swedish scientists did an actual study of multiple cases of ships sinking:

Forget Titanic: Women and children rarely first off sinking ships


However, even if it were true that women had a higher survival chance in ship wrecks, that isn't a very common occurrence.  It doesn't outweigh the inequalities of pay, marital rape, voting, glass ceilings, etc that characterise everyday life.

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Quoting grandmab125:

You’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct.

Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball.

There are statistical differences between people with XX genes and people with XY genes.  The XY's tend to be taller, for example.

But that's not what "gender is a social construct" is about.


Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Quoting grandmab125:

Today, husbands and wives are locked in a battle about whom does more on the home front and how they’re going to get everything done.

Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what.

the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe

One would hope, if the husband and the wife are both mature adults who love each other, that it isn't a battle - it is a question that they work amicably together on to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Why does there need to be one single authority that tells everyone what all men are supposed to do, and all women are supposed to do?  Why can't each couple work out between themselves the way of arranging things that suits best their individual desires and talents?

The article attacks a straw-women version of feminism.  Interchangeability?  Can you cite a feminist source advocating that, please.

grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 6:15 PM

 No.  I posted an article that I pretty much agree with, that's all.  I'm not at all interested in researching a feminist source advocating on the subject.  I guess if you want to know that, you'll have to do it yourself.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting grandmab125:

Today, husbands and wives are locked in a battle about whom does more on the home front and how they’re going to get everything done.

Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what.

the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe

One would hope, if the husband and the wife are both mature adults who love each other, that it isn't a battle - it is a question that they work amicably together on to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Why does there need to be one single authority that tells everyone what all men are supposed to do, and all women are supposed to do?  Why can't each couple work out between themselves the way of arranging things that suits best their individual desires and talents?

The article attacks a straw-women version of feminism.  Interchangeability?  Can you cite a feminist source advocating that, please.

 

grandma B

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Quoting grandmab125:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting grandmab125:

the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe

The article attacks a straw-women version of feminism.  Interchangeability?  Can you cite a feminist source advocating that, please.

No.  I posted an article that I pretty much agree with, that's all.  I'm not at all interested in researching a feminist source advocating on the subject.  I guess if you want to know that, you'll have to do it yourself.

If you are not prepared to defend the claims made by the article, why post it to a debate group?

grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 6:58 PM

 I've already given my opinion on the feminist movement.  Apparently, you missed it.  I even thanked ramona for her post, because she gave a better description of the down side of the feminist movement when she was a child...how it affected her mom.

Honestly,  how often do you see someone give both sides of an argument?  In fact, people don't.  We all give our opinions on the article, where we stand on a particular subject, etc.  If someone tells me my response is incorrect, I will find and post a source supporting it.

 

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting grandmab125:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting grandmab125:

the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe

The article attacks a straw-women version of feminism.  Interchangeability?  Can you cite a feminist source advocating that, please.

No.  I posted an article that I pretty much agree with, that's all.  I'm not at all interested in researching a feminist source advocating on the subject.  I guess if you want to know that, you'll have to do it yourself.

If you are not prepared to defend the claims made by the article, why post it to a debate group?

 

grandma B

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Quoting grandmab125:

My daughters rights have been just fine.  Both are college graduates.  The oldest has a masters and is a librarian.  She is divorced and has no children.  The youngest graduated with a triple major.  They didn't need the "feminism" movement to achieve anything.

How are you defining "feminism" ?

Because it wasn't so long ago that women were not admitted to universities.  I would consider the women who worked to change that to have been feminists.


Clairwil
by Gold Member on Feb. 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Quoting grandmab125:

 The women's movement has done more harm than good to the women in this country.

First-wave feminism was a period of activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In the UK and US, it focused on the promotion of equal contract, marriage, parenting, and property rights for women. By the end of the nineteenth century, activism focused primarily on gaining political power, particularly the right of women's suffrage, though some feminists were active in campaigning for women's sexual, reproductive, and economic rights as well.


Second-wave feminism is a feminist movement beginning in the early 1960s[86] and continuing to the present; as such, it coexists with third-wave feminism. Second wave feminism is largely concerned with issues of equality other than suffrage, such as ending discrimination.[67] Second-wave feminists see women's cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked and encourage women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures. The feminist activist and author Carol Hanisch coined the slogan "The Personal is Political", which became synonymous with the second wave.


third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave and to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second wave. Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's essentialist definitions of femininity, which, they argue, over-emphasize the experiences of upper middle-class white women. Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for women, and tend to use a post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality.

Third-wave feminism also contains internal debates between difference feminists, who believe that there are important differences between the sexes, and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning

joey125
by Silver Member on Feb. 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I don't think its a matter of being equal, both are equal in different ways that is the way I look at it.  As far as who gets in the life boat first, that's a matter of chivalry it has nothing to do with being equal

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)