You summed up Game perfectly by describing it as “”a series of psychological ploys that manipulate a woman’s desire for high status or dominant men””.

OMG…

I am not a feminist. I’m an equalist.
I am well aware of the necessity of feminism some 100 years ago, and greatly thankful for the fact that because we have had feminists, I now have human and civil rights that a lot of women still today lack.
Nevertheless, TODAY a lot of women calling themselves feminists are still harping about something that happened to Gloria Steinem some 50 years ago… or their mothers or grandmothers.
A lot of feminists are also trying to push matriarchy and punishing men for not being women. It has gone so long that women calling themselves feminist seriously suggest laws that require extra gender taxes from men, so that women could get some gender benefits like free menstrual aids etc.

I am not Christian, I am not Conservative and I am not a SAHM, and I have also met with women who call themselves feminists who look down on women who ARE Christian, Conservative SAHMs, simply because they are that, for no other reason. Isn’t the idea of Feminism to embrace the different faces of womanhood, and being a non-career woman who cannot think anything better than to find a husband and start breeding at the age of 15 one of them? What gives you the right to judge them as lesser beings than you are?

BTW, I hate Sex and the City. Carrie is extremely egocentric, shallow, stupid and, frankly, not even pretty. Having passed 30, she had also passed her “”best before”” date. Let’s face it, the world is full of brainless and beautiful women around 20, who are more than happy to just sleep with Mr. Bigs of this world, so why would they even look at these girls’ older and uglier big sisters? Also, Carrie is notoriously promiscuous. She is upset with her boyfriend whom she claims to love, so she jumps in bed with a guy she just meets in a party? Heck, she jumps in bed with a guy who just wants her, even without being upset with her boyfriend. Then she thinks an apology makes everything right? WTF?!

Also, after years of hopping from bed to bed, what is the answer to all their questions, the epithome of happiness to each and every one of the SATC women? MARRIAGE!!!

So, yes, I actually agree with Hilary Mantel. Let’s all have kids when we are under 20, so that we can do what we want with our lives after that :-D
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/7332066/Novelist-says-girls-are-ready-to-have-babies-at-14.html

KarenS, could you please identify the “”shortsighted”” posters who have based their objections to feminism on information from their ministers and Fox News? It should be easy to do, as all the posts are date- and time-stamped.

I’ve gone back and skimmed them all — 72 responses at the time I reviewed them — and there have been very few references to religion and none to Fox News (until yours). I’m a self-identified anti-feminist, and I’ve explained in an earlier post that I’m not a churchgoer. I also basically haven’t watched television since 1998, when Fox News had been on the air for merely two years.

Conservatives have a much right to assess blame as anyone else; and in the case of liberalism and its subsets, as a conservative, I can tell you that a lot of “”movements that want to improve the lives of people”” use that as a smokescreen for an underlying agenda that’s far less positive — for example, I’ve run into countless “”anti-racists”” who are far more concerned with payback for whitey than they are with improving the lives of minorities.

As for feminism, it’s not about “”improving equality between the sexes”” or else feminists would be clamoring for women to comprise half the workforce in dangerous jobs held almost exclusively by men, so that the workplace deaths would be 50% male and 50% female instead of the 93% male that it is now. You just don’t find feminists lobbying for more women crew members on the boats of The Deadliest Catch.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve stated here that I support women’s rights, but not feminism. I don’t think feminism has much to do with women’s rights or equality. That’s all window dressing for the underlying but true double-motive of (1) hostility toward western religion (Christianity) and undermining its resulting traditions; and (2) getting back at men for millenia of patriarchy wherein they enjoyed power and ease while keeping their foot on women’s necks.

So. Obviously, when you say “”feminism”” and when I say “”feminism”” we’re not talking about the same thing.

Jenn, the cultural mindset I was speaking of doesn’t just “”allow”” women to have sex outside of marriage (sometimes resulting in pregnancy) but encourages it, and frequently for the reason you hinted at — because men get to do it.

I can’t for the life of me see what’s good and valid about that reason. First, I don’t think male promiscuity is admirable at all and the boys I grew up with were not taught that it was. They may have indulged, but if they bragged about it, they did so only to each other; it wasn’t something they could proudly announce, like making the Honor Roll or winning an MVP award or becoming an Eagle Scout.

Second, deploring sexual “”segregation”” for women when men are not so segregated is an indicates a breathtaking disregard for the reality of a fundamental difference between men and women. At the risk of sounding patronizing, men do not have wombs; men cannot get pregnant. Perhaps it seems unfair, but it is incumbent upon the one who possesses a womb to prevent pregnancy, if pregnancy is not wanted, and if that means curtailing, or even denying sexual indulgence when that would be best, so what? It’s not the end of the world, or the ruin of a woman’s life.

But men get to do it? Men also get to die in 90+ percent of work related accidents. Life isn’t perfect for anyone, male or female, old or young, rich or poor….

When you get down to it, two of the strongest motivations underlying feminism are quite indifferent to how women are and what’s best for them. The first is hostility to religion, particularly Christianity in the West. A lot of the efforts (particularly in academia and popular culture) of progressivism, of which feminism is a subset, is geared toward separating children from the religion-based standards of their parents, creating in them hostility or indifference toward it.

The second is hostility to men (“”patriarchy”” being a code word for “”men””) seen in divorce and child custody laws that favor the woman virtually automatically; rape being redefined to include consensual sex a woman “feels bad” about the next morning; and violence-against-women laws that classify a man raising his voice as “violence.” I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture.

MarySk, I don’t have any theories about feminism. I’ve drawn conclusions and developed opinions based on my observations and ‘ve been quite specific about what they are.

I don’t know how many single mothers don’ t get married because their aid would be cut. If you do, perhaps posting the figure would add more to the discussion than simply asking a rhetorical question. I do know that census data indicates that less than 1/3 of single mothers receive public assistance. Again, as reported by About.com (link in earlier post) —
Among custodial single mothers:

— 22% receive Medicaid
— 23.5% receive food stamps
— 12% receive some form of public housing or rent subsidy
— 5% receive receive

Most single mothers and their children do not live in poverty

— 27% of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty

Most single mothers are employed

— 79.5% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed — 49.8% work full time, year round; 29.7% work part-time or part-year

If the study you’re talking about is the one featured on Frontline, it indicates that the brain undergoes a burst of development between ages 11 and 13, and continues developing at a much slower pace thereafter.

To imagine that teens are capable of learning in school, of driving, of holding a job and successfully practicing responsibility in many areas but suddenly become incapable of it where sex is concerned just doesn’t cut the mustard. They engage in risky sexual behavior because we live in a permissive society that encourages them to, and they get almost no encouragement not to.

Your question about why women get pregnant when birth control is readily available is a good one. It isn’t because “”groups”” are maliciously keeping the information from them, and it isn’t because they’re teenagers with insufficient myelin. It’s a choice. Most single mothers aren’t teenagers, anyway.

Per census data, the average age that women give birth for the first time is 25. Of the women who gave birth in 2006 in Arkansas, only 13.3% of them were teens, and Arkansas’s percentage is among the highest in the country. (These figures are for all mothers, so they include single and married ones.)

That girls who sleep with their boyfriends aren’t thinking about gender identity doesn’t really address my position; the fact is, you don’t have to think about feminism to be affected by its influence, which is pervasive in the West.

You ask, “”How you can just dismiss the impact of economics on the effects of poverty and single parenthood is just beyond me.”” If you will look back at what I actually said, I didn’t “”dismiss the impact”” of economics; I simply did not address it because, as I explained, I don’t believe it’s the primary, or determining, issue.

The economy is cyclical. There have been bad economic times before but they didn’t cause the huge percentage of single parent families we see today.

I believe what has annoyed most of us favoring feminism over this discussion is the short-sightedness of posters who believe what either their minister or Fox News tells them. It is a concerted effort on the conservative side to undo progress. Some folks just relish the 1950s a little too much. It was a great time to be a WASP-white anglo-saxon protestant male but an unequal time for anyone else–even WASP females didn’t have it so good either.

1st – I don’t watch TV, so no FOX News in my house. 2nd – I keep waiting to hear a really great “”Abortion is murder”” homily from my priest, but a lot of what comes from the pulpit is watered-down exhortations like “”Love your neighbor.”” and “”Help the poor.”” It’s been that way for a good long time now, and I don’t think it’s helping church attendance any either.

I definitively reject modern feminism (second wave feminism and beyond) and refuse your attempt to shame me with the “”Bernadette Arnold”” label, KarenS. I graduated high school in 1989, over 20 years ago, and even then I had no problems getting into a good college, getting scholarships for good grades, finding employment, finding housing, or getting health care. I’ve never seen myself as a victim of The Patriarchy and have never bumped my head up against the glass ceiling. Let me reiterate: I have never experienced real sexism. Ever. I’m not saying it wasn’t ever there, but by 1989 when I turned 18, it wasn’t a barrier for me AT ALL in accomplishing my goals. 20 years later feminists are still droning on about inequality and raising consciousness and male advantage, when in fact boys and men haven’t had the advantage for decades. More girls go to college now than boys. Employment opportunities are skewed towards women, child support laws drain men out of a lot more money than it takes to support their children and judges de facto place kids with mothers over fathers even when both are quality parents and both want custody.

Modern feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about female supremacy. It’s about constantly demanding more opportunities for women, and ignoring the fact that most of the dangerous and physically challenging jobs are still done by men. Why aren’t feminists demanding more women get killed in combat or get hurt in industrial accidents? Because feminists would just as soon men keep those opportunities. Why don’t they care about male reproductive rights – the rights they have to their unborn children? Because that’s not on the equality agenda.

But that is not my main beef. My main problem with feminism is that it is destroying the primary building block of civilization – the family. Look back at 1965. How many moms and dads lived together with their biological children? How many do today? And I’m not talking about how many intact families you know. This site has an educated, literate, middle class audience, and for the large part marriage is still intact for the middle class. But it isn’t for the working class. Marriage is going the way of the dodo bird for them, and children will pay for the fact that their parents don’t live together and care for each other anymore. They will pay economically, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And then we will all pay when they grow old enough to start voting, legislating, and making policy.

There is a male backlash coming for the unfairness feminism has wrought. Whether it’s men refusing to marry, men demanding that accusations of domestic violence and rape be proven before an automatic jail sentence is given, or men just dropping out of employment and off the tax roles and letting women pay for all the expensive entitlement programs they demand themselves. It’s coming. Because the way it is now is not equal – for men. And they are bigger than women, physically stronger than women, and, unlike the unborn, can do something about the injustice.

If women want things to be better for their daughters, they should get married and stay married. A girl is both safer and more likely to thrive if her father is in the house with her and a presence in her life. It’s that simple.

Came across a book that I feel may be pertinent to our discussion. It was recently released. The main points of the book is that economic inequality, not overall wealth or cultural differences fosters social breakdown by boosting insecurity and anxiety that leads to divisive prejudice between the classes, rampant consumerism and mental and physical suffering. It says inequality causes shorter, unhealthier and unhappier lives, increases the rate of teenage pregnancy, violence, obesity, imprisonment and addiction. It destroys relationships between individuals born in the same society but into different classes.

The conservative movement needs to stop blaming feminism, liberalism, socialism and atheism for the problems in our society as they are not the cause. It’s always easy to point the finger at movements that want to improve the lives of people.

I believe what has annoyed most of us favoring feminism over this discussion is the short-sightedness of posters who believe what either their minister or Fox News tells them. It is a concerted effort on the conservative side to undo progress. Some folks just relish the 1950s a little too much. It was a great time to be a WASP-white anglo-saxon protestant male but an unequal time for anyone else–even WASP females didn’t have it so good either.

The funny thing about the distortion of the truth is that if you say something enough times it becomes the truth. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter. What’s important is whether people believe it to be true.

One of the goals of feminism is to improve equality between the sexes which ultimately improves economic equality. Trying to create a level playing field is a good thing for women and ultimately their families. However, this isn’t in the best interests of some institutions so with all their capital they can throw a lot of money at discrediting progressive movements that are trying to improve people’s lives.

Women who defame feminism are Bernadette Arnolds in my book. You think nothing of betraying your fellow sisters because you have so little regard for yourself. Most of you think the ideal society is one where women have no rights and are beholden to the men who control them. Bernadette is seriously out of touch.

Mary, I have not derided (i.e., mocked, scorned, ridiculed) single mothers or women. To deplore the negative effects of widespread single parenthood on mothers and their children, and on the culture at large, is not deriding or dehumanizing them. To say that a strong and stable culture depends on strong, stable families is not condemnation of anyone — only that which undermines the strength and stability of both.

One might as well claim that anyone who deplores the negative aspects of cancer is deriding, mocking and ridiculing cancer patients.

I have frequently encountered among the champions of feminism the attempt to deflect criticism of it by equating it with women, and then claiming criticism of feminism is criticism of women. It isn’t. Similarly, I’ve encountered many progressives who habitually interpret conservative criticism of a situation or circumstance as condemnation of people in or affected by the circumstance. Thus, for example, if a conservative points out the failure of the Great Society, progressives are apt to interpret that as condemnation of those victimized by the Great Society.

That seems to be what you’re attempting with your post; however, I reject the notion that disapproval of policy, philosophy, circumstance, or even behavior, is the same as condemnation of people.

You say, “”My sources say that the number of single parent homes is now 9 million…”” What is your source? I do not see where you have cited one.

My source is the U.S. Census Bureau, as reported on About.com:

http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm#

———

According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2007, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in November, 2009, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents in the United States today…

Approximately 84% of custodial parents are mothers…

———-

By my calculation, 13.7 million x 84% = 11.5 million.

I did not address the effects of the economy on single parenthood because I don’t believe that’s the primary, or determining, issue. I have nowhere claimed that feminism is on the minds of single mothers. You certainly don’t have to be a champion of feminism to be victimized by it — that is, to be victimized by the negative aspects of a culture under feminist and/or progressive influence.

I also did not claim WorldNetDaily as an unbiased source. However, a source does not have to be unbiased in order to be correct. If you can find some error in Vox Day’s conclusions about the Barda study, I’ll be happy to look at it.

The WND article is quite specific about what it addresses — a comparison of the divorce rates of Christians and atheists, not simply that of people in conservative states. I don’t know of any study or survey that categorizes divorced individuals in conservative states by their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). If you know of such, I’ll be glad to look at it, too.

I certainly have no objection to helping single parents and children; I don’t think you can find anything in any of my posts here that indicates I do. However, I’m not going to applaud a cultural mindset that encourages circumstances which result in more women ending up as single moms whose children are greatly more at risk from social pathologies, and then claims it’s okay — or which claims criticism of the mindset is condemnation of single moms.

Nor do I blame feminism for all of society’s woes — only those it is responsible for or contributes to.

Hmm.. My post disappeared? So here’s another try.

You live and learn (I hope this isn’t veering to far off topic):
I did some more reading about the birt rate vs. socio-economic level of countries and came accross a couple of interesting wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate:

“”Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Mortality rates are low, birth control is understood and easily accessible, and costs are often deemed very high because of education, clothing, feeding, and social amenities. Further, longer periods of time spent getting higher education often mean women have children later in life. The result is the demographic-economic paradox. Female labor participation rate also has substantial negative impact on fertility. However, this effect is neutralized among Nordic or liberalist countries.
—
The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman. However, the fertility of the population of the United States is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the U.S. from countries with higher fertility than that of the U.S.[citation needed] However, the fertility rates of immigrants to the U.S. has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income.””

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox

The demographic-economic paradox is the inverse correlation found between wealth and fertility within and between nations. The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any industrialized country.
—
The term “”paradox”” comes from the notion that greater means would necessitate the production of more offspring as suggested by the influential Thomas Malthus.[2] Roughly speaking, nations or subpopulations with higher GDP per capita are observed to have fewer children, even though a richer population can support more children. Malthus held that in order to prevent widespread suffering, from famine for example, what he called “”moral restraint”” (which included abstinence) was required. The demographic-economic paradox suggests that reproductive restraint arises naturally as a consequence of economic progress.

It is hypothesized that the observed trend has come about as a response to increased life expectancy, reduced childhood mortality, improved female literacy and independence, and urbanization that all result from increased GDP per capita,[3] consistent with the demographic transition model.

Current information suggests that the demographic-economic paradox only holds up to a point though. Recent data suggests that once a country reaches a certain level of human development and economic prosperity the fertility rate stabilizes and then recovers slightly to replacement rates””

(Granted, these are wikipedia articles and as such not very scientific in their approach, but they seemed to cover the basics pretty well.)

So in the end I guess you could argue that feminism has had a hand in lower birth rates? But so have a lot of other -isms that have made our quality of life better.

It is interesting though that in addition to developed countries many former Soviet Union countries have a remarcably low birth rate as well. I wonder why this is?

Duh, sorry about the bad layout in my previous post. I guess stuff like spacing etc. don’t translate well here from a word document copy-paste. ;)

This has turned into an interesting discussion. Many posters have already said (and done it much better than I could) what I’d like to say about this, so I’ll try to keep this simple and to the point. I’m a Finn, and therefore the references to Socialist Europeans hit home for me. As a native of such a “”Socialist European Country”” I’d like to point out a few things. First, Socialism itself hasn’t been around very long, only about a century, depending on what you consider the term to be comprised of. And like Christianity (or feminism for that matter) what is meant by the terms has clearly changed through times and geographical regions. (I’m quite certain that we have pretty different meanings or at least implications to the term socialism, for example. It isn’t considered the same as communism at all here. We know it isn’t perfect. But it’s what works for us. There’re about 5 million of us and we’re a culturally very homogenic group of people, so what works for us might not work for you. At least not without some serious tweaking. ;) ) Semantics? Maybe, but it seems like too often we’re getting pulled into arguments simply because the words we use have such different meanings for different people. In Finland’s case both socialism and feminism have played important roles in our country’s history. Both were influential in the political processes that lead to our independence from Russia in 1917. (Which was followed by a civil war between the red (communists/socialists) and the white (nationalists) with women fighting on both sides but especially on the worker’s (red) side. The white won and it took a world war (WW II) to unite the country again against a common enemy – the Soviet Union.) But back to the discussion. In the world scale both terms (socialism and feminism) went through a change after the WW II. Both became highly charged. Socialism by being often so closely linked to communism in the cold war, and feminism by declaring [everything that’s] “personal is political”. I guess this is the timeframe, after the global “baby boom”, Connie is referring to specifically when she wrote: “”The high standard of living for Socialist European countries is only part of the picture. They have only been socialist for a very short period of their history, which comprises centuries of Christian tradition; and in just that short period — since WWII, basically — socialism and feminism have had the effect of reducing the birthrate of native Europeans below the replacement level. “” I must say I don’t agree with this chain of thought. In fact to me the process seems to be the exact opposite: It is because of the high standard of living, the high level of education and the following low child mortality rate that our birthrate is dropping. Thanks to family planning and contraceptives people are often waiting for the “right moment” to have children. People are having fewer children, because most of them survive their childhood. Children are no longer seen as the necessary addition to the workforce they were back in the days when most of the people were farmers and such and therefore having lots of children isn’t as high a priority it used to be. In essence, people in well developed countries feel they can afford to have fewer children. Is that a good thing? I guess the answer would depend on which you value more, the individual’s right to the way of life they deem as “good” or the society’s need to remain at a certain level of reproduction. Unless of course Connie meant that it’s socialism and feminism specifically that have resulted in the high level of living we have here. That I might have to agree with. ;) But even then I’d like to point out to you that this process of lower birthrates seems to be connected to the country’s overall standard of living rather than to the religion or specific political factions. Look at the situation in Italy for example. “They are slowly non-reproducing themselves out of existence. If that isn’t destructiveness, I don’t know what is. Some governments in Europe are so concerned they’ve begun to offer incentives for having kids.”” This is a very real concern – hence the incentives to have children. But no society in all of history has ever been able to remain in a static state in this sense. If it’s not a low birthrate, it’s… Read more »

Wow,

I have to say, reading the initial post on this thread made me feel as if I had entered a major time warp.

“”Men don’t marry sluts.”” (please define, how many men can I sleep with if I don’t want to be classified a slut and thus not marriageable? 1, 2, 5, 7, 77?)
Of course, I’ve got a girlfriend who’s number is over 100, happily married to a younger man whose number is likely under 10…obviously a statistical anomaly.

“”Women — get married young or be single FOREVER.”” Most of my girlfriends have married in their 30s…and had kids in their 30s…I live in San Francisco where this is a bit more common. My only girlfriends who have married as virgins also married men who were virgins.

“”Successful men only want young, beautiful women.”” What a sad pronouncement against men. Not to say that men don’t want hot, young women…I’m a woman and I’d love a hot, young, man, but I’m not gorgeous yet I’ve managed to date a number of attractive, eligible men well into my 30s…

As far as young girls giving boys blow jobs to lots of different guys in high school this does make me a bit uncomfortable. Not because I’m opposed to blow jobs or sexy texts, I just question what these girls are getting out of it. I’d rather give these girls vibrators so they can learn about their own bodies and what turns them on. Then they can try to find a guy who can beat the vibrator. :)

I wish women didn’t feel so threatened by personal decisions made by other women. My cousin home schools her three kids, one friend works part-time and has a nanny part-time for her two kids, two other girlfriends work full-time and use after-school care until 5pm, another one has decided not to have kids. I’m not married and do not have kids. All of us have made different choices in our lives. All of our choices are equally valuable.

What bugs me is that some women want to remove any of these choices from other women, or make some of these women feel bad for the choices they’ve made. Many of my liberal feminist friends role their eyes at my conservative christian cousin for home schooling her children, while my christian conservative relatives can’t comprehend that I wouldn’t want to change my last name the second I married and be known not just as Mrs. Williams, but as Mrs. Brian Williams. (Which makes me shudder and sounds like a fate worse than death for me.)

The point of feminism is that women are given a choice. My girlfriend and I just returned from a one-week vacation to Prague. On a whim, we rented a car and drove to Venice. Not too long ago, there’s just no way we would have been allowed to do this. I lived alone in Korea for a year and taught English while in my mid-twenties. I am so very thankful that I have not had my choices curtailed because of some supposed ideal of what women and men should do.

KarenS, I’m not a churchgoer, although I respect the Christian religious tradition of the West. My views of feminism have been shaped by the writings of feminists and my observation of feminism and its effects on culture and society, not on what you rather prejudicially describe as the ranting of pastors. In fact, neither of my previous posts made any reference to religion whatever, so your attack on religion in a post to me is mystifying and smacks of bigotry.

You said I haven’t identified the destructive changes feminism has made on our culture, but I made a post addressed to MarySk that identifies quite a few of them, with links to substantiating data, all of them secular.

To judge anything — feminism, religion, anything — solely by its negatives is a mistake (which is why I’ve stated –for the third time, now — that it is feminism that I’m opposed to, not women’s rights, which I support and believe are beneficial). I think it is deceptive to look only at the negatives of religion and proclaim it “”not a force for good in the world.”” An honest assessment will also consider the good religion does, and judge the whole.

If you’re going to talk about priests burning witches, you’re going to have to recognize religious, particularly Christian, charities that build and run hospitals and provide medical care, and feed millions around the world. I can’t imagine how that could be considered not a force for good.

The high standard of living for Socialist European countries is only part of the picture. They have only been socialist for a very short period of their history, which comprises centuries of Christian tradition; and in just that short period — since WWII, basically — socialism and feminism have had the effect of reducing the birthrate of native Europeans below the replacement level. They are slowly non-reproducing themselves out of existence. If that isn’t destructiveness, I don’t know what is. Some governments in Europe are so concerned they’ve begun to offer incentives for having kids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-10/news/17121159_1_birth-rates-low-birth-ibm-france

The population of those countries may appear stable because Muslim immigration is high, and Muslims have a high birthrate, but the articles above indicate immigration ultimately won’t solve the problem.

The percentage of religious identification reflected in US prison populations roughly parallels that of the general population. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0075.pdf

Many people in the USA who identify their religion as Christian are referring to a cultural or societal circumstance more than personal religious belief. A survey by Christianity Today a few years ago found that there are significant differences in the way Christian identification is expressed in the individual’s life.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/fall/1.19.html?start=4

MarySk, according to census figures, the population in 1970 was 203+ million, and today is 308+ million. That’s an increase of 105 million, not even a doubling of the population, more like a 65% increase, while the number of single mother households from 3 million in 1970 to 11 million today is almost a quadrupling, so the population increase represents a rather small chunk of the increase in single-mother households.

Surveys that concluded conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate, including Barda’s 1999 study, are flawed.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56685

I think it is always unwise to attribute correlation with causation without looking at all factors. The number of single parent households has increased since 1970, but so has the population: from 200 million to 315 million (2010 estimate). A big chunk of the increase can be attributed to population growth. Over two million of those single parent homes are headed up by fathers. We have also not examined the correlation between poverty and single parenthood. Southern states have much higher levels of poverty, single motherhood and divorce than in other areas of the country. Our welfare laws tend to favor single parent households (this could be overcome with an increase of the minimum wage to a living wage and universal health care). Southern states also tend to be much more conservative, religious and less likely to hold feminist notions. If feminism were the causal factor for single parenthood and divorce, then why do more liberal states have much lower rates of divorce, single parenthood and poverty? The fact is that divorce rates are significantly higher among conservative Christians (those least likely to be feminists) than other faith groups, agnostics and atheists. I would contend that economic factors are more closely related to family dynamics than feminist ideals.

In Canada, where I am sure there are a few feminists lurking about, single parenthood has remained fairly constant over the years. But then, they have national healthcare and a much larger social safety net in terms of services. How much of that stability can be attributed to keeping poverty rates down?
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Single:parent.htm

To all of the conservatives out there that want more stability in families, they need to get on board and advocate for national health care and for increasing minimum wage to a living level.

Connie said: “”And before the kneejerk “deadbeat dad” reaction sets in….almost 3/4ths of all divorces in the USA are initiated by women, many for no substantial reason but because she’s “unhappy” or “unfulfilled” or because she just doesn’t like him anymore or she found someone she likes better.””

I live in Alabama and in my neck of the woods we have a saying: “”If Mama ain’t happy, NOBODY’S happy!”” When one of the parents in a household (especially the one who spends the most time with the children) is unhappy, stress levels in the children increase dramatically. When children are under stress, their brains produce higher levels of cortisol whose production inhibits higher order thinking skills and makes learning in school much more difficult. So staying in an unhappy situation is not always best for the children.

This liberal, feminist from the south has been happily married for 26 years and raised 3 children, all who are happy, successful and productive. My husband and I have shared power and parenting (he started his own business from home so he could be more involved in their day to day lives). I thank God everyday that I married such a strong person who is not intimidated by his strong willed wife.

AAR Sandy~ I am truly happy you haven’t known any women who look down their noses at SAH moms. Unfortunately, I haven’t been so blessed. I think the best put-down I received was a woman at a party whose response to finding out I stayed at home with my kids was, “”Oh I’m sure that’s fine for *you* but I would hate not doing anything productive with my life.”” I had to laugh. I’m a college grad and worked for the EPA in Genetic Toxicology until I had my first child at 30, yet more than once I’ve had people assume I don’t work because I can’t get a decent job. ;-)

And talk about “”sweeping judgments”” about how I live my life, the most offensive remarks I’ve received from total strangers have been about having more than two children. When my kids were younger (I have five) I was stopped at the mall more than once and read the riot act about how irresponsible I was, in front of my children. This sort of thing happened frequently enough to me and my friends that we came up with a list of witty rejoinders.

Peace.

I have never (and I do mean NEVER) known any woman to look down on a woman who chooses to stay at home and have children. I have, however, met women who choose to stay at home who are incredibly defensive about their choice — a preemptive strike, perhaps, but I don’t judge and nobody I know judges either.

I also think that there have been many personal attacks in this thread — on both sides. What I have read about feminism here are fighting words to me, but, hey, it’s clear that positions aren’t going to be altered by anything I say, so what the hell. But as a feminist, I am offended.

What bothers me is when sweeping judgments are made about the way anybody chooses to live their life. My life, my choice. And it has nothing to do with anybody but me and my family.

KarenS~ Before you start blaming religion for the ills of the world please take a minute to remember atheist Stalin who murdered 20 MILLION of his own people. And let’s not forget the atheist Chinese “”Culture Revolution.”” Neither religious adherents nor atheist have a firm hold on the higher moral ground here.

And I suggest everyone read “”How To Lie With Statistics”” by Darrel Huff. I could find stats to uphold any position I chose to take. The plain fact is everyone whose commented on this thread is at least a little right. There are feminists who hate men, divorce laws sometimes seem to target men unfairly, and at other times are unfair to the woman. Some men haven’t been able to see women as equals. Some women think staying home with children is “”selling out”” and look down on other women who chose that path. Some men are jerks, and some women are, too. Every statistic has some truth behind it, but no statistic tells the whole story.

I’m sad to see the tone of the conversation dissolve into personal attacks.

Oh, Connie, you spend way too much time at church listening to your pastor ranting on and on about the evils of feminism. Nothing like insecure men criticizing women for everything wrong in their lives. Eve was made the scape goat so these misogynistic men could blame someone else for their problems. Can’t seem to man up. Then again the Abrahamic religions have railed against women unmercifully. Many thinking woman fortunately see through the bulls**it it is and realize the mean spiritedness of an institution that should be caring and protective.

Many centuries ago women practicing as healers were burned at the stake as witches. The priests didn’t appreciate the competition from them so they accused them of witchcraft. It was a way to gain power in the community so that the priest would be the person everyone looked up to. It was cold and ruthless but it was justified in order to gain the control of the hearts and minds of the people. I guess feminists are the new witches of today.

Religion is not a force for good in this world. Countries that are extremely religious have shorter life spans, higher infant mortality, more crime, more teen-age pregnancies and STDs and inequality than secular countries. The “”socialist”” northern European countries have higher standards of living and they just happen to be secular. Imagine that.

And on top of that there are very few atheists(.02%) in jail. Almost all inmates serving time in American prisons are religious. 81% are Christian, 1.7% are Jewish and 7% are Muslim. What happened to their moral code when they committed their crimes? Shouldn’t religion make you a better person and therefore you wouldn’t commit crime?

Connie what are those destructive changes that you mention? You haven’t said what they are so I am very curious.

I happen to love men as well so don’t consider me anti-male. What I do dislike are bigoted, emotionally immature, insecure males that won’t take responsibility for their lives. I think most responsible women have a decent gauge of steering clear of these losers just as decent men are able to avoid troubled women.

Somehow those folks always find each other. This group tends to create many of the issues you describe. They do create havoc in their lives and for the people who live with them. Sad to say many of them tend to be religious (isn’t it surprising they tend church regularly) who might be religious only due to Pascal’s wager.

MarySk, I haven’t derided any women. I said I’m not opposed to women’s rights; I’m not sure how to make it any plainer than that. I also said I think the feminist movement is concerned with *more* than equality between the sexes, and giving women control of their own lives. It’s also about making fundamental (and I believe destructive) changes to our culture. That and the man-hating behind it are what I oppose. Unfortunately, it isn’t the radical fringe of feminism that promotes man-hating, but some of the most influential leaders and shapers of the movement. It takes many forms, some blatant and some quite subtle, and it institutionalizes man-hating in academia, the news and entertainment media, business and industry and, worst of all, government and the courts. In the west, marriage and the family have been the foundation of a stable society and culture for generations; when the foundation grows unstable, the culture grows unstable, and cultures/societies undergoing instability are usually not very good places for women. Addressing some of the things you brought up…. The fact that sex outside marriage has been going on since time immemorial does not make it desirable; murder, robbery, rape and slavery have been going on since time immemorial, too. For most of human history when the “”basic human right to vote”” was denied to women, it was also denied to the vast majority of men, as well. Women’s suffrage in the USA, like so many issues, was caught up in the argument about who would be the ultimate authority, the feds or the states. Things are seldom as simple as they may seem. In our culture, before the 20th century, life expectancy for both sexes was shorter than it is today. However, as for men dying in work-related accidents in the past, stats from 2006 show that 92% of workplace-related fatalities are men. (Where’s the “”equity”” in that?) http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0005.pdf In earlier times, when men had to depart an area to find work, they frequently took their families with them or sent for them once they were established in a new place. Sometimes, everyone in the family traveled and looked for work together, even the children. This was particularly commonplace during hard times, such as the Great Depression, or in economically depressed locations or industries (Appalachian coal mining, for example, where “”breaker boys”” as young as eleven were put to work separating slag from coal. http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geusguNYtLDE8AaBpXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=breaker%20boys&fr2=tab-web&fr=slv8-hptb5 ). I’d be interested in seeing some stats on your claims about teen pregnancy in the 1920s. My grandmother was a pregnant teen in that era, but she was also married at the time. She started working in a Georgia cotton mill in 1913, when she was thirteen. She and my grandfather worked in the mill their entire working lives–and raised five daughters. They weren’t the 50s utopian nuclear family — they were nevertheless a natural, stable family. In the USA, both world wars combined totaled ten years. (And I shudder to think what would have happened to the world if American men had refused to go fight in WWII.) The number of children orphaned by American GIs killed in WWII numbered less than 200,000 (http://www.awon.org/aboutus.html ). The vast number of children born to American GIs were born *after* WWII — millions of them. They were known as the post-war Baby Boom. War orphans may be a pertinent issue in Europe and other countries, but not for families in the USA. In my experience, when a feminist and traditionalist discuss the damage done to the family by radical feminism, it is the feminist who brings up the strawman of the “”50s utopian nuclear family”” and then attributes belief in it to the traditionalist, along with subtle disparagement of the traditionalist’s “”naïveté”” about the subject. When, in fact, anyone with a passing knowledge of history (or the ability to Google) knows that marriage has been defined quite differently in different eras and cultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage It really has no bearing on a discussion of feminism’s detrimental effect on marriage and family in our current culture. The notion that the purpose of marriage is to make men and women (but mostly women) happy is more a feminist notion than a traditionalist notion, which sounds like “”utopian marriage”” is more a feminist hallucination than reality. Despite what feminism claims, there’s more to marriage — indeed, more to life itself — that some individual’s personal happiness and “”fulfillment.”” There are things that trump both. There’s a reason why nature requires two parents… Read more »

Rachel, interesting article, interesting comments. I’m a staunch anti-feminist. That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to women’s rights; however, I think the feminist movement is concerned with more than equality between the sexes, and giving women control of their own lives. It’s also about making fundamental (and I believe destructive) changes to our culture. Divorce rates are falling, but that’s only because fewer people are marrying in the first place. The number of children raised in single-parent homes is dismaying; most of the single-parent homes in the USA are headed by mothers; and the effects of fatherlessness on children is devastating.

Regardless of the denial by some who call themselves feminists, there is an element of manhating to feminism that I cannot countenance. I was raised around good, decent, responsible men and I know men are not the patriarchal oppressors women are taught they are. I believe there are certain fundamental differences between the sexes that may exhibit to greater or lesser degrees in individuals, but that exists nonetheless.

As a reader of romances, I see a lot of unrealism in the portrayals of male-female relationships; a certain contradiction of trying to write about genuine male-female relationships and accomodate the feminist view of the liberated female. I write romances, as well; my heroes are like the men I’ve known all my life, not oppressors; and my heroines are hypergamous and happy in their feminine (as opposed to feminist) roles.

“”Ack, what other group of people has no respect for those who allow them civil rights.””

Bravo! I never thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely right.

Rachel, you took what you consider a subculture and extrapolated their lack of decency to the population at large. That is beyond insulting. Frankly, if you have a list of all the things that are dealbreakers, you can’t be surprised when you end up alone. As I said though, this is such a small subset of the human experience. Sex and the City was fiction you know.

I actually agree with you that women need to understand that fertility doesn’t last forever. However, having your own babies isn’t the only choice, there is adoption. I also know women who had tremendous trouble having children and they were relatively young when they started- early to mid twenties. I also know women who are having kids (unexpectedly) in their 40s. But wtf with the promiscuity. What exactly does that mean? And other than on TV, how many women do you know that wouldn’t know who the father is if they get pregnant.

Maria, I have a husband of almost 20 years, and our premarriage experience has never been an issue between us. My soul is fine thank you. And I don’t know one woman, no matter how “”promiscuous”” they were, that teaches their daughter it is OK to have sex with anyone they want whenever. No one I know teaches their sons this either. Because we don’t tell them they are evil for having premarital sex, that means we tell them to act like animals? Some people wait until marriage, and that is a great choice – for them. But 99% of Americans, including the very religious, have premarital sex. So in your eyes, who is doing a good job?

And what the heck is “”natural law””.

Since I’m freaking cranky this week, every single woman who doesn’t believe in feminism or “”those feminists”” needs to stay home and cook and clean. Don’t let your daughters get an education beyond what? Sixth grade. Don’t vote, etc. etc. etc. My great grandmother supported her family (probably 1920s to 50s) and lost EVERYTHING when she divorced her alcholic abusive husband. That was the law, she made all the money, but he got it because she was his property. Freaking feminism allowed my mother to walk away from the same situation. Ack, what other group of people has no respect for those who allow them civil rights.

And hard to believe as it may seem, in my culture (German) no intrinsic value is placed on virginity whatsoever, unless you are not just religious, but part of a fundamentalist group.

Throughout the vast (and I do mean *vast*) majority of U.S. culture, no intrinisic value is placed on virginity either unless you are part of a fundamentalist group. I chose to remain a virgin until I married (NOT because I am religious–I’m an athiest–but for a variety of personal reasons) and you can be damn sure I kept it to myself. If my friends had found out, they would have looked at me as if I were some kind of freak.

I was also very fortunate in my choice of husband. I told him when we first started dating, that I would not have sex with him until and unless we married. I told him I understood that this was not the prevailing attitude these days and that if he was not willing to accept it and he chose to dump me, I would understand. I was fortunate in that he loved me enough to stay with me despite that until we married (ten years later after far too much time wasted in school on my part, and I may have more to say about that in a followup post). We have absolutely zero regrets about waiting. It was the right choice for us. I just wish it were more acceptable to admit you are waiting till marriage to have sex in modern society.

Oh, and btw, my husband isn’t religious either–he’s an agnostic.

Well Cora, it ultimately is about murder, not just of babies but of the soul. Humans becoming objects of pleasure instead of persons with dignity. People leading risky behaviors and when they get in trouble expecting others to rescue them. Young people being sold lies. They are taught they have the strength to say no to drugs and alcohol but God forbid they be taught to control any sexual urges. They just do not have the will, right? We are not animals, we are capable of reasoning. If you read carefully, I was referring to Catholics when I made my comment about chastity. The funny thing is everyone is always pushing their values on others, the important thing is to work for the common good and values based on natural law. Where do we draw the line? I’ll just leave it there since I doubt we’d ever convince each other. Peace and blessings!