Escape From Duggarville

[Trish]

IMO that just raises the question of why aren't they authorized to make their own medical choices.

 

Who or what is not authorizing them?

 

[Rebel Yell]

One thing that puzzles me in these cases is the breast feeding question. If your family is very "traditional" like QF, I would expect to see breast feeding. It is more natural, Godly, better for the baby, cheaper... whatever argument works. However, breast feeding also tends to delay ovulation. If you BF for the first year it is unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely to have spacing much below every 2 years. Certainly spacing under every 18 mos would be very unusual. How does that work?

 

 

(in addition to info given above)

 

breastfeeding as cotraception works better if the baby sleeps near mom- in her room close to the bed, and nurses throughout the night. Again, no guarantee...  but if the baby is not in the bedroom with Mom or not fed on cue through the night, then the contraceptive effect will be lessened.

[maize]

(in addition to info given above)

 

breastfeeding as cotraception works better if the baby sleeps near mom- in her room close to the bed, and nurses throughout the night. Again, no guarantee... but if the baby is not in the bedroom with Mom or not fed on cue through the night, then the contraceptive effect will be lessened.

Even exclusively breastfeeding, cosleeping moms can have fertility return very early; two of my sisters who engaged in these behaviors had regular periods starting less than two months post partum. Me, I've ranged from 10-15 months before return of fertility. It just really varies from woman to woman. I know I've read something where Michelle Duggar said breastfeeding did not result in delayed menses for her. I think exclusive breastfeeding does provide a delay for a majority of women, but by no means does it work that way for all.

[TranquilMind]

:iagree: what she is saying is akin to all parents are bad because some abuse their kids. 

Exactly.  It is anti-theism, wrapped up in a manipulative wrapper.  I read this story days ago. 

[Joanne]

Even exclusively breastfeeding, cosleeping moms can have fertility return very early; two of my sisters who engaged in these behaviors had regular periods starting less than two months post partum. Me, I've ranged from 10-15 months before return of fertility. It just really varies from woman to woman. I know I've read something where Michelle Duggar said breastfeeding did not result in delayed menses for her. I think exclusive breastfeeding does provide a delay for a majority of women, but by no means does it work that way for all.

Michelle used pacifiers and I don't think she co-slept for long.

 

I have also read on QF friendly boards an I acknowledged parenting style that hastens fertility. There exists in the culture a concept that goes beyond children are a blessing and intoore is better.

 

That said, the natural cessation of menses through ecological breastfeeding is impacted by many modern things such as artificial lighting, hormones in food, even subtle reluctance to allow complete access to suckling on demand.

[VeritasMama]

I don't understand being burned out on trying to be nice. Or any value in swinging the "other direction", not even sure what that would mean? Just not giving a rat's behind?

 

I can understand being embarrassed to find out a term you used offended someone. But I cannot understand continuing to use the term, once you know.

I don't think anyone on this board refused to stop using the term, there were some Irish people (like myself) who said that our families use it and never thought it was offensive, and then we were accused of being insensitive.

 

My point is that some people are constantly being told that terminology they have used heir whole lives is suddenly offensive, and so they are getting burned out. It's like the boy who cried wolf, when so many people are constantly offended, you start to tune it out. I didn't say this was always okay, I was trying to say that it is an unfortunate but understandable consequence of our "outrage culture." It is sad if this causes people to be less than kind to one another, but I don't think anyone on this thread was being intentionally malicious.

 

My point is that everyone, on both sides, just needs to relax a bit more.

[gardenmom5]

you know - I focus on what these "feminist" leaders have actually done and said.  if you choose to have children and stay home with them - you're bad.  if you choose to not abort a defective baby - you're bad.  I see feminists SUPPORT female teachers who abuse male students. I see feminists deny women sometimes abuse - even physically - men.  (double standard anyone?)  they always excuse the woman as "well, she must have been being abused by him."

 

I hear some radical feminists proclaim that s3x inside marriage is rape - but "more rational" feminists do not censure them.   men can also get breast cancer - but there is not breast cancer group that will help them - because they're men, not women.

 

and if you think feminist groups don't go after women who do speak up about those things, you're terribly naive. 

 

it's real nice to talk about how they want gender equality - but when I look at what they actually DO  . . I'm not seeing it.

 

I've seen a lot of subjected women that feminists ignore, even within the US.    the easist - and most blatant, is the way they treat absolute soundrel politicians who treat women like dirt - but vote "the politically correct" way.

 

the treating everyone with respect mantra is not what the current crop of feminist leaders practice, even though they supposedly preach that. 

 

No way on this green earth do I want those 'women' speaking for me.  they are NOT about equality, but tyranny and sticking it to men.  (and sticking it to any woman who doesn't support them.)

When we are talking about feminism, it is mostly referring to fighting for gender equality under the law. Are you suggesting that there are women who are better served by being less equal under the law? Certainly PLENTY of women fought against the suffragists who wanted women to have the vote. You don't think they were ultimately fighting against their own best interests?

 

[Mrs Mungo]

you know - I focus on what these "feminist" leaders have actually done and said.  if you choose to have children and stay home with them - you're bad.  if you choose to not abort a defective baby - you're bad.  I see feminists SUPPORT female teachers who abuse male students. I see feminists deny women sometimes abuse - even physically - men.  (double standard anyone?)  they always excuse the woman as "well, she must have been being abused by him."

I know lots and lots of people who identify as feminists. I know women who hold office, lobby and work for change. I don't personally know anyone who does any of the things you listed here. None. Zero. I've been a stay at home mom since my eldest was born. My childfree, atheist lobbyist friend has never, EVER said a negative word to me about it. *All* of the feminists that I know believe that the points are to 1) give people choices and 2) to recognize that what is "traditionally" thought of as women's work is valued and that men could also make the choice to stay home and have it be a valid choice, 3) to have women treated equally under the law as men (which does include regulating business, but not private behavior).

 

 

and if you think feminist groups don't go after women who do speak up about those things, you're terribly naive.

 

it's real nice to talk about how they want gender equality - but when I look at what they actually DO  . . I'm not seeing it.

I'm not saying that they don't exist. I'm saying that they don't make up a single tiny iota of my personal experience and are therefore irrelevant to me and whether I label myself a feminist. It is the same way that Fred Phelps and his trash talk and protesting and disgusting behavior were completely irrelevant to me and whether I label myself a (generic) Christian. It's the same. IMO, those in positions of power who are working *extremely* hard to convince women that they aren't feminists *are* doing it to protect a patriarchal society and limit the power of women. That just seems obvious to me.

[SKL]

Well, just look at what happens to every conservative female politician who appears to have any chance at winning an important office.  The vocal feminists attack as viciously as they possibly can - more so than they attack male conservatives.  Needless to say, this discourages a lot of the potential for women having a voice in politics.  So no, I don't believe the feminist ideal is for women to have an equal voice - at least not until all women are liberal.

 

I live in a house with 3 women, and we periodically get political mail from feminist organizations.  It's always about abortion.  It's never about concerns we as women have if/when we decide to let our babies live.  You know, like encouraging employers to adopt mom-friendly policies.  I could go on, but the fact is you have to dig pretty deep to find elements in the feminist platform that reflect the real life concerns of the average American wife/mom.

[SKL]

Remember when "feminists" pushed for a boycott of the Komen foundation because they decided to stop funding PP?  And even though the Komen Foundation reversed its decision quickly, they suffered a huge drop for a long period, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, just look at what happens to every conservative female politician who appears to have any chance at winning an important office.  The vocal feminists attack as viciously as they possibly can - more so than they attack male conservatives.  Needless to say, this discourages a lot of the potential for women having a voice in politics.  So no, I don't believe the feminist ideal is for women to have an equal voice - at least not until all women are liberal.

I really don't think we can go any further with that without delving into the extremely political.

 

 

I live in a house with 3 women, and we periodically get political mail from feminist organizations.  It's always about abortion.  It's never about concerns we as women have if/when we decide to let our babies live.  You know, like encouraging employers to adopt mom-friendly policies.  I could go on, but the fact is you have to dig pretty deep to find elements in the feminist platform that reflect the real life concerns of the average American wife/mom.

I have been voting, writing to politicians and have been a member of political organizations for over 20 years and have never received anything like that. I also have 2 daughters, one of whom is actually old enough to vote. They've never received anything like that in the mail. The stuff I receive in the mail tends toward the opposite end of the spectrum. I know for a fact it is due to the some of the *other* types of organizations that I belong to selling their mailing lists (example: donating to Samaritan's Purse).

[Joanne]

That is a liberal idea.

 

Being kind, courteous, and not doing something you know makes another uncomfortable seems to fall under the umbrella of Christian ideas as well.

 

I don't understand how "liberal idea" relates to courtesy and respect.

[Mrs Mungo]

Remember when "feminists" pushed for a boycott of the Komen foundation because they decided to stop funding PP?  And even though the Komen Foundation reversed its decision quickly, they suffered a huge drop for a long period, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet.

Great, an specific *actual* (and real) example of something you disagree with feminists on. Feminists support Planned Parenthood because their MAIN function is to provide low cost health care (and birth control) on a sliding scale to low income women. The $680k that Komen cut was specifically earmarked for breast cancer screenings and education programs. Some people felt that it was an indicator that the organization was bowing to political pressure instead of REALLY working to help women, which is *supposedly* their whole goal. Breast cancer and breast cancer screenings are a pretty touchy subject among those of us who have lost a close loved one to breast cancer. My sister was only 34 years old when she died. She had a young daughter. Would earlier screening have helped her? Probably, her cancer had already spread through her body by the time it was found. It is possible that she could be alive today with earlier detection.

[SKL]

Great, an specific *actual* (and real) example of something you disagree with feminists on. Feminists support Planned Parenthood because their MAIN function is to provide low cost health care (and birth control) on a sliding scale to low income women. The $680k that Komen cut was specifically earmarked for breast cancer screenings and education programs. Some people felt that it was an indicator that the organization was bowing to political pressure instead of REALLY working to help women, which is *supposedly* their whole goal. Breast cancer and breast cancer screenings are a pretty touchy subject among those of us who have lost a close loved one to breast cancer. My sister was only 34 years old when she died. She had a young daughter. Would earlier screening have helped her? Probably, her cancer had already spread through her body by the time it was found. It is possible that she could be alive today with earlier detection.

 

Regarding the essential nature of the health screenings provided by PP, the one often touted is the pap smears (which they require young women to get before they can get subsidized BC products).  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all the main gynocologist organizations advise against doing many if not most of those pap smears.

 

They have also advised a significant reduction in mammograms, based on the concern that they might cause cancer themselves.

 

Cancer runs in my family; I'll probably die of it, as did many close relatives.  So I'm not insensitive to what cancer is.  But reasonable minds can differ over whether PP is more about promoting women's health than anything else.  Reasonable minds can differ, but differing with prominent feminists and their causes can be fatal (to your organization at least).  Of course Komen isn't about saving women from breast cancer ....

[Jean in Newcastle]

Being kind, courteous, and not doing something you know makes another uncomfortable seems to fall under the umbrella of Christian ideas as well.

 

I don't understand how "liberal idea" relates to courtesy and respect.

I thought she was making a joke?  If not, then the joke is on me.  But I thought. . . 

[SKL]

I thought she was making a joke?  If not, then the joke is on me.  But I thought. . . 

 

I thought so too, but I've been wrong before ....

[Mrs Mungo]

Regarding the essential nature of the health screenings provided by PP, the one often touted is the pap smears (which they require young women to get before they can get subsidized BC products).  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that all the main gynocologist organizations advise against doing many if not most of those pap smears.

I got a pap smear every year from my regular doctor for years. Now, the advice (according to ACOG's 2014 guidelines) is to get one at least every 3-5 years. But, nowhere do they advise *against* regular pap smears as the pap smears aren't harmful. In fact, there is a statement on their site right now saying that they do *not* discourage yearly pelvic exams even for low risk asymptomatic patients. More regular pap smears are advisable for women who have multiple partners since cervical cancer is usually caused by HPV. Widespread use of pap smears are single handedly responsible for a 50% reduction in cervical cancer over the last 30 years.

 

 

They have also advised a significant reduction in mammograms, based on the concern that they might cause cancer themselves.

The ONLY place I can find anything like that online is from the Mercola website, which I hope you realize is a hokum site. The advice against unnecessary screening in young, *low-risk* women has to do with unnecessary biopsies more than anything. Please do not pass on dangerous inaccurate information.

[SKL]

I got a pap smear every year from my regular doctor for years. Now, the advice (according to ACOG's 2014 guidelines) is to get one at least every 3-5 years. But, nowhere do they advise *against* regular pap smears as the pap smears aren't harmful. In fact, there is a statement on their site right now saying that they do *not* discourage yearly pelvic exams even for low risk asymptomatic patients. More regular pap smears are advisable for women who have multiple partners since cervical cancer is usually caused by HPV. Widespread use of pap smears are single handedly responsible for a 50% reduction in cervical cancer over the last 30 years.

 

 

The ONLY place I can find anything like that online is from the Mercola website, which I hope you realize is a hokum site. The advice against unnecessary screening in young, *low-risk* women has to do with unnecessary biopsies more than anything. Please do not pass on dangerous inaccurate information.

 

My HMO stopped doing them (mammograms) routinely.

 

I think your information on both of the above might be outdated.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

My HMO stopped doing them (mammograms) routinely.

 

I think your information on both of the above might be outdated.

I JUST TOLD YOU that the information I just shared is from the 2014 ACOG guidelines. I'm sorry you have crap insurance.

[SKL]

Well since you are yelling, you must be right.  Pardon me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well since you are yelling, you must be right.  Pardon me.

 

Well, she is right.

[Slartibartfast]

Remember when "feminists" pushed for a boycott of the Komen foundation because they decided to stop funding PP?  And even though the Komen Foundation reversed its decision quickly, they suffered a huge drop for a long period, and I'm not sure it's recovered yet.

 

I won't give them a cent. 

 

If people are going to play political shenanigans over breast exams and preventative care that has nothing to do with abortion then they don't need my money.

 

If people want to be pro-life, fine whatever that is their call, I won't boycott a charity or business for being pro-life but just playing games with preventative care just for appearances, even though it is actually bologna, is not something I think is something a respectable organization ought to do.

 

 

[Free]

you know - I focus on what these "feminist" leaders have actually done and said.  if you choose to have children and stay home with them - you're bad.  if you choose to not abort a defective baby - you're bad.  I see feminists SUPPORT female teachers who abuse male students. I see feminists deny women sometimes abuse - even physically - men.  (double standard anyone?)  they always excuse the woman as "well, she must have been being abused by him."

 

I hear some radical feminists proclaim that s3x inside marriage is rape - but "more rational" feminists do not censure them.   men can also get breast cancer - but there is not breast cancer group that will help them - because they're men, not women.

 

and if you think feminist groups don't go after women who do speak up about those things, you're terribly naive. 

 

it's real nice to talk about how they want gender equality - but when I look at what they actually DO  . . I'm not seeing it.

 

I've seen a lot of subjected women that feminists ignore, even within the US.    the easist - and most blatant, is the way they treat absolute soundrel politicians who treat women like dirt - but vote "the politically correct" way.

 

the treating everyone with respect mantra is not what the current crop of feminist leaders practice, even though they supposedly preach that. 

 

No way on this green earth do I want those 'women' speaking for me.  they are NOT about equality, but tyranny and sticking it to men.  (and sticking it to any woman who doesn't support them.)

 

I subscribe to a couple of mainstream feminist magazines, regularly read feminist articles and blog posts, watch TED talks by feminists. I suppose these would qualify as leading feminist voices, but I have NEVER come across what you speak of. In fact I have come across the exact opposite views from many feminists both male and female.

 

I must have missed the elusive straw-feminists in the closets that CaffeineDiary posted about!

 

Apparently quite relevant to this conversation since they seem to be haunting this thread:

 

Straw Feminists In The Closet (cartoon)

[Free]

I mean, why don't we all call ourselves "pro-child" to show we don't agree with child abuse or neglect? 

Actually if such a term (such as pro-child) became popular, I would happily adopt it. I do not see anything wrong with adopting a label I agree with in support of a cause I think is important.

 

This "concern" with the fact that women don't want to adopt the "feminist" badge stinks of conformity and borderline bullying.

 

You think we live in a post-feminist world and whatever discrimination women continue to face is irrelevant or unimportant or minor. You also think feminism is equivalent to man-hating. There are plenty here who disagree with both these views, and whenever somebody disagrees with you, you call it borderline bullying.

 

[SKL]

I won't give them a cent. 

 

If people are going to play political shenanigans over breast exams and preventative care that has nothing to do with abortion then they don't need my money.

 

If people want to be pro-life, fine whatever that is their call, I won't boycott a charity or business for being pro-life but just playing games with preventative care just for appearances, even though it is actually bologna, is not something I think is something a respectable organization ought to do.

 

If the issue was really that the organization was getting too political, then why wasn't Planned Parenthood gone years ago?  There aren't too many more political, partisan organizations out there who claim to be "for women's health."

 

It's not about the fact that they have allegedly allowed politics to affect their decision.  It's the fact that they didn't allow liberal politics to rule them.

 

The politics that say Komen is required to support PP regardless of anything is apparently not a problem at all.

 

So again, we are back to:  to be a feminist, you pretty much have to be liberal or you will be run out on a rail.

[SKL]

You think we live in a post-feminist world and whatever discrimination women continue to face is irrelevant or unimportant or minor. You also think feminism is equivalent to man-hating. There are plenty here who disagree with both these views, and whenever somebody disagrees with you, you call it borderline bullying.

 

 

I didn't say that.  I said the term is associated with things I don't want to be associated with.

 

If the feminists' name has been unfairly tarnished, maybe the feminists should fix that problem.  Meanwhile I see absolutely no benefit to me or society if I call myself a feminist.

 

And besides, it is a dumb word.  It should be "equalist" if it was really about equality.

[Slartibartfast]

If the issue was really that the organization was getting too political, then why wasn't Planned Parenthood gone years ago?  There aren't too many more political, partisan organizations out there who claim to be "for women's health."

 

It's not about the fact that they have allegedly allowed politics to affect their decision.  It's the fact that they didn't allow liberal politics to rule them.

 

The politics that say Komen is required to support PP regardless of anything is apparently not a problem at all.

 

So again, we are back to:  to be a feminist, you pretty much have to be liberal or you will be run out on a rail.

 

I said "shenanigans."  I also said, "games." PP actually helps low income women get preventative care, if they are not going to do that then who is? That is a needed service. I get that a lot of people want to see PP go away, but that is a necessary service. Who is going to take their place? If PP isn't "for women's health" when they are the ONLY organization that is offering the services that they are then nobody is.

 

FWIW PP also treats men's sexual health issues as well.

 

I don't care if an organization is pro-life, but I do care when they cut funding for breastscreenings and pap smears and then act like they did something about abortion. That is a lie. LYING is not ok to me. If people were fooled by that then I am sorry. I am not in favor of kicking low income women in the teeth to playact like they did something to reduce abortion. 

 

I didn't say one has to be a liberal to be a feminist, I clearly stated the opposite in a pp. 

 

I am NOT a LIBERAL. Do please stop with the labels already.

[Jerico]

I'm jumping in late but...

 

Thats NOT mainstream Christianity. We've known a few large families (I cannot call them qf without knowing their ideology- maybe they just wanted a big family). We do know a lot of qf (ish) families now at our church. They all homeschool and I think they go to the church because of that. Otherwise they are kinda alienated. Usually churches are unified through theology and you see more diversity in the people/families. Ours is the opposite.

 

We are not dispensational. We are many things in the first graph on the article- with the exception of no birth control and modest dress, if that was intended to mean dresses. I wear pants, I'm still modest.

 

Do I have a problem with qf? Only when its pushed upon others. Or If I am judged to be less faithful.

 

Children are a blessing. As my husband says, my job is a blessing, but that doesn't mean I need more! (Now that I think of it, many of the families I know who are qf have several different income streams). But its their business.

We don't want more. Sometimes it makes me a little sad but it would be selfish of me to have more. Our family falls apart during pregnancy and I can guarentee homeschool would not be happening.

 

But its not mainstream Christianity. Its a fringe.

[albeto.]

But its not mainstream Christianity. Its a fringe.

 

Your comment reflects the first ones made in this post, but something about this confuses me. The author writes, 

 

We had studied the Bible carefully, and knew so much about “Biblical Family Values,†that we felt qualified to teach others via our “Pro-life, Pro-family†Christian newspaper, The Nebraska Family Times. In 2003, we were named “Nebraska Family of the Year†by the Nebraska Family Council … and this was in recognition of our work to help get DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) passed in Nebraska. That’s not something that I’m at all proud of these days, but at the time, being named “Family of the Year†was enough to convince me that we were on the right track so far as marriage and family goes. 

 

How fringe could she have been if she and her husband published a newspaper (that is still in publication), and was named "Nebraska Family of the Year" by the Nebraska Family Council? It seems to me "fringe" would imply a small segment of the population, whereas the beliefs she advocated are not at all fringe beliefs. Perhaps it's because she held so many of these beliefs in high regard when most Christians hold one or two, giving the others a more liberal expression. That's my guess anyway. Besides, it's not the beliefs that make a theology fringe, it's the popularity. After all, Luther's followers were once very much outside the mainstream, but I don't think anyone would have much success calling Protestantism a fringe side of Christianity. 

[SKL]

I am NOT a LIBERAL. Do please stop with the labels already.

 

I didn't call you anything.

 

Stop with the labels?  I am totally on board with that.  Let's start with the label "feminist."  ;)

 

[Ravin]

The "concern" is the # of women who view equality as achieved or unimportant.

 

Are women viewed as full humans. In most places, yes. Women issue are legislated considerably more then men's. Women are not seen as capable of making there own medical choices. Women are payed less then men. Even when you take account for different career choices. Women are encourage to view appearance as important way way more then men. Women's actions are judged differently then men's. To paraphrase Emma Watson, when she directed plays she was being bossy. When her brother directed plays they were leaders.

The unequal pay statistics are misleading. MOTHERS have a substantial pay gap still. Women without children don't. The problem being that mothers tend to be seen as putting family first in a way men with children aren't.

 

Along with raising wages for female-dominated jobs and professions, sane and gender-equal family leave expectations and availability would help close that gap.

[Joanne]

The unequal pay statistics are misleading. MOTHERS have a substantial pay gap still. Women without children don't. The problem being that mothers tend to be seen as putting family first in a way men with children aren't.

 

Along with raising wages for female-dominated jobs and professions, sane and gender-equal family leave expectations and availability would help close that gap.

 

When I ran my daycares (in AZ and TX), mothers were the parents who handled all illness, doctors appointments, etc. This is anecdotal information from dual working parent families, and the mother handling these issues was absolutely the norm.

[ktgrok]

I didn't say that.  I said the term is associated with things I don't want to be associated with.

 

If the feminists' name has been unfairly tarnished, maybe the feminists should fix that problem.  Meanwhile I see absolutely no benefit to me or society if I call myself a feminist.

 

And besides, it is a dumb word.  It should be "equalist" if it was really about equality.

 

Refusing the name Feminist because some feminists do things you disagree with is like refusing the name christian because some christians do things you disagree with. If you agree with the definition, why let someone else take away the word?

[gardenmom5]

I subscribe to a couple of mainstream feminist magazines, regularly read feminist articles and blog posts, watch TED talks by feminists. I suppose these would qualify as leading feminist voices, but I have NEVER come across what you speak of. In fact I have come across the exact opposite views from many feminists both male and female.

 

I must have missed the elusive straw-feminists in the closets that CaffeineDiary posted about!

 

I have read first hand accounts from MEN - who were turned away because they were men, even though they had breast cancer.  there are/were need-based programs for women with breast cancer.  the men were not able to utilize those programs - because they were men.

 

I have read first hand accounts from physically abused men - who were repeatedly turned away from domestic violence shelters - because they were men.  I have read the 'comments' from feminists condemning them because 'they must have abused her first.')

 

so - do your 'mainstream' feminist magazine allow that men get breast cancer and ALSO may require need based aid to get the help they need?

do your "mainstream" feminist magazines allow that men are ALSO physically abused by women?  (you should read Roger Moore's accounts of his wife's battering of HIM.)

do your mainstream feminist magazines condemn female teachers who abuse male students?  do they demand the SAME type of prison sentences for those women that a man would receive for doing the same thing?

 

I do have particularly strong opinions on this - my grandmother was the abuser in my own family.  I watched her demean him on a regular basis.  she was a very nasty piece of work.  most feminists do not want to hear that women are the abuser.

 

and your straw- man accusations are particularly naïve. (and offensive to someone who. was. there.!)

[gardenmom5]

still using this argument?  this is an exact repeat of stuff that came up four pages ago.

 

not it is not the same.  the feminist movement leaders have pretty set ideas, goals, etc.  to call yourself a feminist makes the presumption you support their goals and positions etc.

 

 there are MANY versions of Christianity out there.   I can say I'm a Christian, and there is no automatic assumption I support a particular version.

Refusing the name Feminist because some feminists do things you disagree with is like refusing the name christian because some christians do things you disagree with. If you agree with the definition, why let someone else take away the word?

 

[SKL]

Refusing the name Feminist because some feminists do things you disagree with is like refusing the name christian because some christians do things you disagree with. If you agree with the definition, why let someone else take away the word?

 

1. I never owned the word in the first place.  I doesn't do anything for me.

2. I see no consensus on what the word means.

3. I don't call myself a Christian.  I don't understand the need to do that, either, unless it's a question of "are you Christian or Jewish or Hindu or ....?"  I also think Christian has negative connotations if it's used in certain ways, e.g., to "make a statement" the way "feminist" is used.

[Joanne]

.  most feminists do not want to hear that women are the abuser.

 

 

 

Can you provide support for this assertion?

[maize]

When I ran my daycares (in AZ and TX), mothers were the parents who handled all illness, doctors appointments, etc. This is anecdotal information from dual working parent families, and the mother handling these issues was absolutely the norm.

A friend of mine is married to a man who keeps pushing her to get a job--not because they need the money, it's a status thing. Whenever he brings it up, she asks him who will stay home with sick kids, take care of Dr. appointments, etc. and the answer is always her. She has no desire to get an outside job because she knows she would still be doing everything she does now on top of working outside the home.

 

I have seen numerous surveys indicating this is very much the norm.

[Free]

so - do your 'mainstream' feminist magazine allow that men get breast cancer and ALSO may require need based aid to get the help they need?

do your "mainstream" feminist magazines allow that men are ALSO physically abused by women? (you should read Roger Moore's accounts of his wife's battering of HIM.)

do your mainstream feminist magazines condemn female teachers who abuse male students?

Yes. Yes (coincidentally just today I read one such article on male abuse). Yes again.

 

If men have been discriminated against in cases of DV, abuse & healthcare it is because of gendered expectations which is exactly what feminists are fighting against. Did you watch Emma Watson's speech or any of the links previously posted?

[SKL]

I agree, women both married and single are usually the parents who put their kids first when it's a matter of reducing work hours.

 

I am as "professional woman" as they come, and yet when it's between my career and what my kid really needs right now, my career can wait.  Kids grow up too fast.  And my younger self might never have believed I'd say that.

 

It is not always the case, but there is nothing wrong with families planning things that way.

 

Employers need to be flexible in their thinking.  I have seen working couples where the dad is much more involved than average, and some where the mom is much less hands-on than average.  That said, I think the more usual scenario is a mom who recognizes that her career is going to slow down and is OK with that.  I had to quit my pre-kids job because it did not really accept the idea that I was going to have mom priorities, like staying in the same time zone as my kids most of the time.

 

Equal pay is a complex thing for sure.  We are not there yet.  Part of this is because male managers, especially older ones, sometimes underestimate the value of women employees.  But part of it is that women don't value themselves highly enough, for a variety of reasons.  And part of it is that women don't tend to come across as demanding as men, for still other reasons.

 

On the other hand, women have it better than men in the workplace in many ways.  It's really hard to make a blanket statement that one sex is clearly getting the short end of the stick.

[Cricket]

Yes. Yes (coincidentally just today I read one such article on male abuse). Yes again.

 

If men have been discriminated against in cases of DV, abuse & healthcare it is because of gendered expectations which is exactly what feminists are fighting against. Did you watch Emma Watson's speech or any of the links previously posted?

I think feminism has changed for the better over the last couple of decades. About 20-22 years ago, I had a conversation with my college advisor. She was a far left feminist. In our conversation, somehow the subject of rape came up. I told her how I had watched a SNL sketch that included jokes about male rape in prison and how I was surprised they would do that because no one would ever dream of doing a sketch mocking the rape of women. She honestly had never considered that point of view--that if rape of women was horrible, it was equally horrible when it happened to men. We discussed it for a while. It made an impression on me because I was shocked that she had never even thought of that.

[Ravin]

I'm sure stuff like this feeds the "don't call me a feminist" mentality:
http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/mom-attempts-to-serve-vagina-cookies-to-2nd-grade-class-1638887619?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[MSNative]

I'm sure stiff like this feeds the "don't call me a feminist" mentality:

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/mom-attempts-to-serve-vagina-cookies-to-2nd-grade-class-1638887619?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

SMWOMN!! (Snarfed my wine out my nose!) I ran into some moms like this in the DC area. They were a little...intense. I so needed that laugh tonight!

[Slartibartfast]

I'm sure stiff like this feeds the "don't call me a feminist" mentality:

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/mom-attempts-to-serve-vagina-cookies-to-2nd-grade-class-1638887619?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

That sounds too insane to be true, but I have seen some people on bb crazy enough to do that.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I'm sure stiff like this feeds the "don't call me a feminist" mentality:

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/mom-attempts-to-serve-vagina-cookies-to-2nd-grade-class-1638887619?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Wow. And now I really have seen it all.

[maize]

That's not feminist, that's just plain inappropriate. Yuck.

Agreed. I sincerely hope the whole incident was fabricated, but either way I would never read that and attribute it to the feminist movement. It could only be attributed to an unfortunately deranged mind.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm sure stiff like this feeds the "don't call me a feminist" mentality:

http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/mom-attempts-to-serve-vagina-cookies-to-2nd-grade-class-1638887619?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

It is crazy, but I am not sure it really has anything to do with feminism. Again, to ME, it is the same as a Christian refusing the moniker because of all the nutbag Christians (and there are loads of them).

[Catwoman]

It is crazy, but I am not sure it really has anything to do with feminism. Again, to ME, it is the same as a Christian refusing the moniker because of all the nutbag Christians (and there are loads of them).

:iagree:

 

The mom in that story wasn't a feminist. She was a stark raving lunatic. And no one will ever convince me that she wasn't looking for trouble when she walked into that classroom with her idiotic cookies.

 

I'm an adult and I have no interest in vagina cookies, and if someone tried to give one to my second grader, I would be far less polite about it than that teacher was.

 

What a moron.

[Jasperstone]

The term Irish twins is an american term so it may not really be well documented in a British reference book. I can turn up about a million sites which say it originated in the US during Irish immigration waves of the 19th-20th c.

Ah, that explains why I haven't heard it before this thread.

[Catwoman]

Ah, that explains why I haven't heard it before this thread.

It's not exactly a phrase we hear every day in the US, either. I'm sure there are many Americans who have no clue what it means. :)