Is feminism inherently negative?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Well, as a liberal married to, and raising a child with, a socialist feminist, I'd obviously disagree with your first statement. I am pro-family. So is feminism. Like aneeshm, you clearly don't get that because, like aneeshm, you've clearly confused a ridiculous caricature of feminism (no doubt lazily gleaned from Rush in your case) for the thing itself.

And I'd agree with Clark: the real forces endangering families in the US have been consistently championed by the GOP, not the Dems. It's not surprising that the Dems are both the pro-family and pro-feminist party; they go together naturally.

Rufus, why don't you give us a list of all the pro-family laws the Dems have passed and/or support and explain why they are pro-family.

Start with divorce, for example.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Is feminism inherently negative?

Originally posted by Ned
It was assumed that raising children without a normal family structure was "OK" and not harmful in any way.

Why isn't it OK? A lot of people come from divorced families. What are you saying about these people?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, there is an assumption in your question that is anti-family. The assumption is that independent thought is not tolerated in families. That may be true in some families, but it is not true in most.

The point is that you should not have to be dependent on your family. You should not have to depend on a man. If you think most men are respectfull of women and that most families are fuctional fine, but if someone else does not they should not have to enter into a family, or not the type of family that you are talking about.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Start with divorce, for example.

You think that making divorce legal is anti-family?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


Rufus, why don't you give us a list of all the pro-family laws the Dems have passed and/or support and explain why they are pro-family.

Start with divorce, for example.

Okay, I'll even play with your strawman: divorce is fundamentally pro-family because it allows families to form based on common affection, but does not continue to bind them together when parents hate each other -- which is far more psychologically damaging for everyone involved than splitting up the family.

Beyond that, divorce is vastly superior than what preceded it, which was men (and, far more rarely, women) abandoning their families. With divorce, a spouse can be held accountable for such abandonment, and the abandoned spouse can move on.

Other pro-family legislation: social security; medicare; medicaid; head-start; school lunches; the clean air act; mandatory innoculations for schoolchildren; federally-funded student aid. And the GOP has gutted or attempted to gut every single one of those, except innoculations (AFAIK).

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others here can add to the list.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others here can add to the list.

I'm afraid that Ned has his own idea of what pro-family means, and can't recognize that others will disagree with that idea, but that doesn't mean that they are anti-family.

[Ned]

Kid, you are simply amazing in your thinking. Families are not about woman's unfair dependence on men. Families are about children. They encourage children to be born and raised by their parents. Women need support and protection in order to stay at home, have and raise her children properly. But to do this without the father or to the exclusion of the father is harmful to the kids who need and want both parents.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, you are simply amazing in your thinking. Families are not about woman's unfair dependence on men. Families are about children. They encourage children to be born and raised by their parents. Women need support and protection in order to stay at home, have and raise her children properly. But to do this without the father or to the exclusion of the father is harmful to the kids who need and want both parents.

I never said that they don't need their fathers. And why is this not about independency for women? Is it just because you think that that is harmfull for children? If so please explain. What is wrong with people who have independent mothers?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You think that making divorce legal is anti-family?

Making divorce freely available is when there are children. Divorce for good cause has always been in the law and should remain.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Making divorce freely available is. Divorce for good cause has always been in the law and should remain.

I don't think this has anything to do with feminism. I happen to like divorce and I got one. My family is much better off. I don't know what you think good cause is, but I would think that everyone would agree that the families themselves should decide what good cause is without the state doing that.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Okay, I'll even play with your strawman: divorce is fundamentally pro-family because it allows families to form based on common affection, but does not continue to bind them together when parents hate each other -- which is far more psychologically damaging for everyone involved than splitting up the family.

Beyond that, divorce is vastly superior than what preceded it, which was men (and, far more rarely, women) abandoning their families. With divorce, a spouse can be held accountable for such abandonment, and the abandoned spouse can move on.

Divorce too freely granted is anti-family because it allows families to break up over relatively minor issues. When children are involved, a man should not be able to divorce his wife unless she is unfaithful and she should not unless he fails to provide support and/or is abusive to her or the kids.

Two people cannot live together in 100% harmony 100% of the time. Love has nothing to do with it.

And permitting divorce has nothing to do with encouraging marriages based on love. Making divorce very hard to get encourages marriages based on love. The exact converse of your thinking, which is irrational on this point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Other pro-family legislation: social security; medicare; medicaid; head-start; school lunches; the clean air act; mandatory innoculations for schoolchildren; federally-funded student aid. And the GOP has gutted or attempted to gut every single one of those, except innoculations (AFAIK).

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure others here can add to the list.

All these programs undermine the need for families for support, not that they are not justifiable for other reasons.

[Ned]

Kid,

Children learn things from their parents. They learn values, behavior and basic know how -- the fundamentals of civilization. Men and women are different and each brings something to the table for children of both sexes.

Children who do not have their fathers are somewhat crippled. Studies have shown this, but common sense is all one needs to know that it is true. Boys grow up wilder. Girls without a lot of self esteem. (The relationship with a father seems actually seems more important for girls.) Guys like Cosby, for example, have pinpointed the lack of families among many blacks as the primary reason for dysfunctional adults in the black community.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned


All these programs undermine the need for families for support, not that they are not justifiable for other reasons.

No, they all help families support themselves, by making sure the family itself isn't a source of financial hardship. Go read a bit about the fate of the elderly in pre-social-security America, Ned, or the health of poor children in pre-medicaid America, and then explain to us how their dire conditions were the product of strong families, subsequently weakened by teh big bad liberals.

[Ned]

Rufus, these programs help the poor and the people who have no families or other means of support. Social programs are quite justifiable for these reasons. But to extend them to all somewhat undermines the family structure.