Why Feminism is Bad

[Guest Godless]

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Along with that, it's unconvincing that having a self-centered, self-fulfillment, me-me-me, role model gives children a better chance at success than a selfless, sacrificing, humble role-model.

Why does it have to be one or the other? 

[Vort]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

In fairness to men, those who think that women "belong in the home" are a rapidly shrinking minority. I don't know many men who feel that way. 

I do. And yes, we are a shrinking minority. But we are still right. And if we die out completely, it will not be because we are wrong. It will be because the world rejected truth.

By the way, men also belong in the home. As President McKay taught, no success -- NO success, however glorious -- can compensate for failure in the home. It is the one area where we can make an eternal difference, that ten million million centuries from now, when our sun is a cool, dead cinder, will still have enormous and lasting impact.

Those people, male or female, who choose their work career (or anything else) in preference to nurturing their family -- meaning spouse and children, siblings and parents -- are trading their eternal birthright for a mess of cold pottage. Please do not allow anyone using sophistic arguments about female emancipation or career building to deceive you. What they are telling you is a lie, even if they honestly believe it to be true. It is not true. It is deception, even if everyone believes it.

Choose what is right; let the consequence follow. Peter stayed true to his faith even as the Romans crucified him upside down. Peter instructed the Saints who were in imminent danger of the same fate to take courage and do what is right, regardless of the consequences. Let us, who are threatened not with death, but merely with the scorn and derision of a wicked world, show the same courage.

[Backroads]

To create a small tangent, but to speak as the dreaded working mom, this issue of family first is a real thing even to those working. Teaching is one of those jobs many expect and demand to be a martyr job. On one of my teacher boards, this is a perennial discussion with 99.9% of us totally declaring that heck yes, our families come before our students. Some of them share horror stories of an administrator who told them the students were more important. I personally stick very closely to my contract hours. Sure, exceptions pop up now and then, but it is a rule to stick only to my contract hours whenever I can. Which,when you're smart and create to-the-point lessons and delegate to your perilously cutesy TA to make all the fluff, isn't too difficult at all. 

Once the point was brought up into a response of suchnsuch troubled kids needing teachers who them first, that it was the best thing in the world to model putting family first. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

What has that to do with the topic?

The claim being discussed is that people who do what makes them happy instead of sacrificing for their families is somehow better for their families.

[The Folk Prophet]

54 minutes ago, Godless said:

Why does it have to be one or the other? 

The claim is one or the other. You'll have to take it up with the study making the claim if you see otherwise. The claim is that women (or men) who choose to pursue that which makes them happy makes for better parents. I tend toward the idea that women (or men) who choose sacrifice and a willingness to give up their own interests in the favor of their children's interests makes for better parents.

[mordorbund]

15 hours ago, Backroads said:

There is a wonderful woman in my ward, a mother of one of my childhood friends, who was forced to leave her abusive husband way back when and raise her boys as a single and ultimately very successful mom. Hooray for feminism for giving us these opportunities, but wow, they're kind of addicting. I work to help provide for my family, this lady worked to solely provide for her family, and gosh darn it if we don't like it. But when does this become a problem? When does the desire to provide for the family go beyond practical necessity to just-because-we-can at the neglect of the family?

 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I do. And yes, we are a shrinking minority. But we are still right. And if we die out completely, it will not be because we are wrong. It will be because the world rejected truth.

By the way, men also belong in the home. As President McKay taught, no success -- NO success, however glorious -- can compensate for failure in the home. It is the one area where we can make an eternal difference, that ten million million centuries from now, when our sun is a cool, dead cinder, will still have enormous and lasting impact.

Those people, male or female, who choose their work career (or anything else) in preference to nurturing their family -- meaning spouse and children, siblings and parents -- are trading their eternal birthright for a mess of cold pottage. Please do not allow anyone using sophistic arguments about female emancipation or career building to deceive you. What they are telling you is a lie, even if they honestly believe it to be true. It is not true. It is deception, even if everyone believes it.

Choose what is right; let the consequence follow. Peter stayed true to his faith even as the Romans crucified him upside down. Peter instructed the Saints who were in imminent danger of the same fate to take courage and do what is right, regardless of the consequences. Let us, who are threatened not with death, but merely with the scorn and derision of a wicked world, show the same courage.

 

How long before the women's session of General Conference echoes the priesthood sessions of yesteryear?

 

[Suzie]

On 6/23/2017 at 8:04 AM, Backroads said:

 Hooray for feminism for giving us these opportunities, but wow, they're kind of addicting. I work to help provide for my family, this lady worked to solely provide for her family, and gosh darn it if we don't like it. But when does this become a problem? When does the desire to provide for the family go beyond practical necessity to just-because-we-can at the neglect of the family?

Men generally work and they are the main providers, yet no one seems to question (generally speaking, at least not firsthand) the possibility of them neglecting their families in other areas (because well, providing it is just one of many aspects). But when women work outside the home, one of the first things they hear often is that they will be neglecting their families.

 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Men generally work and they are the main providers, yet no one seems to question (generally speaking, at least not firsthand) the possibility of them neglecting their families in other areas

Spoken like someone who has spent no appreciable time in Priesthood meetings.

[CV75]

I once got in touch with my feminine side... and she slapped me.

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Men generally work and they are the main providers, yet no one seems to question (generally speaking, at least not firsthand) the possibility of them neglecting their families in other areas (because well, providing it is just one of many aspects). But when women work outside the home, one of the first things they hear often is that they will be neglecting their families.

 

I agree with that being an issue.

But what happens when you have both parents working, giving all their time to work? Are families not being neglected? I have students who very rarely see their parents.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Men generally work and they are the main providers, yet no one seems to question (generally speaking, at least not firsthand) the possibility of them neglecting their families in other areas (because well, providing it is just one of many aspects). But when women work outside the home, one of the first things they hear often is that they will be neglecting their families.

 

This issue is raised in the video directly above your post.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I agree with that being an issue.

But what happens when you have both parents working, giving all their time to work? Are families not being neglected? I have students who very rarely see their parents.

That's sad, but I think there is an elephant in the room that we aren't talking about. When you have a great job and make enough money so that your spouse doesn't have to work, that puts you at an advantage in this discussion. It's easy to lecture us (and I know you aren't doing that at all @Backroads) about women staying home while you have a full pantry ,two cars paid off and all your bills paid. 

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, Backroads said:

I agree with that being an issue.

But what happens when you have both parents working, giving all their time to work? Are families not being neglected? I have students who very rarely see their parents.

I am of the belief that quality time is the real issue here because let's face it, you can stay at home all day and call yourself a stay-home mom or dad and yet spend your hours on social media and practically ignoring your children. Families are not cut in little boxes and processed in the same factory. But whether we work outside or stay home, I believe the issue that needs to be addressed is about the quality time we spend with our families rather than merely focus on our physical presence at home.

If both parents work, what activities they do (in their little free time) to encourage family togetherness and memorable family experiences? Same applies with those staying at home.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Suzie

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I am of the belief that quality time is the real issue here because let's face it, you can stay at home all day and call yourself a stay-home mom or dad and yet spend your hours on social media and practically ignoring your children. Families are not cut in little boxes and processed in the same factory. But whether we work outside or stay home, I believe the issue that needs to be addressed is about the quality time we spend with our families rather than merely focus on our mere physical presence at home.

If both parents work, what activities they do (in their little free time) to encourage family togetherness and memorable family experiences? Same applies with those staying at home.

Exactly right. We hear about the negatives but in reality many, many  children had both parents work and they turned out fine. @Suzie is right-it's the quality of the time, not the amount. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's easy to lecture us (and I know you aren't doing that at all @Backroads) about women staying home while you have a full pantry ,two cars paid off and all your bills paid.

Who's lecturing?

And if some family sacrifices to live on a single income by taking fairly serious economies -- for example, owning two fifteen-to-twenty year old vehicles, and keeping two rather than one only out of necessity; not paying for cable TV (obviously) or anything beyond basic internet and a cheap phone plan, both necessary for work; eating out perhaps once every couple of months and limiting date spending on such occasions to under $20 total; making semiannual family vacations consist primarily of camping trips or visits to other nearby family members, with e.g. Disneyland-type destinations happening less than once a decade; performing all house upkeep, including needed construction and repairs, without ever hiring professionals except in extreme circumstances (e.g. installing a new furnace when the old one dies); and otherwise living without common luxuries that many today consider necessities; and all so that the mother can stay home full-time with the children -- is such a family justified in "lecturing us"?

[Backroads]

17 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I am of the belief that quality time is the real issue here because let's face it, you can stay at home all day and call yourself a stay-home mom or dad and yet spend your hours on social media and practically ignoring your children. Families are not cut in little boxes and processed in the same factory. But whether we work outside or stay home, I believe the issue that needs to be addressed is about the quality time we spend with our families rather than merely focus on our physical presence at home.

If both parents work, what activities they do (in their little free time) to encourage family togetherness and memorable family experiences? Same applies with those staying at home.

But doesn't quantity beget quality?

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who's lecturing?

It's one of those "shoe fits" comments. Like I always mention, I use the term "you" generically. 

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

 is such a family justified in "lecturing us"?

Any family/person can lecture someone else until they are blue in the face. The person being lectured just doesn't have to listen. 

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I am of the belief that quality time is the real issue here

I am of the belief that, in most cases, so-called "quality time" is an excuse to spend less time with one's children. Taking the child to Chuck-E-Cheese's for two hours is not equally valuable with spending four hours working and playing with him or her.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

 Taking the child to Chuck-E-Cheese's for two hours is not equally valuable with spending four hours working and playing with him or her.

In your opinion. Quality time is subjective. My happiest memories with my Dad wouldn't be equal to yours. It's the height of arrogance to think that what your family enjoys is what all families should do.

IE-My Dad taught me how to play video games. From a young age that was our thing together. You (again, generic) might think that wasn't "quality time" but you (again, generic) would be wrong.  The older I get, the more I appreciate that. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by MormonGator

[Backroads]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's sad, but I think there is an elephant in the room that we aren't talking about. When you have a great job and make enough money so that your spouse doesn't have to work, that puts you at an advantage in this discussion. It's easy to lecture us (and I know you aren't doing that at all @Backroads) about women staying home while you have a full pantry ,two cars paid off and all your bills paid. 

Sure, but that elephant in the room also speaks of an economy that, to tie us back to the original discussion, took full advantage of feminism and now jobs that even a decade or two ago could reasonably support a family require a second income. Hey, why charge less when they can just send a second spouse to work?

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

In your opinion. Quality time is subjective. My happiest memories with my Dad wouldn't be equal to yours. It's the height of arrogance to think that what your family enjoys is what all families should do.

IE-My Dad taught me how to play video games. From a young age that was our thing together. You (again, generic) might think that wasn't "quality time" but you (again, generic) would be wrong.  The older I get, the more I appreciate that. 

Not sure how this responds to my point, MG, which is that spending relatively little time with one's children cannot easily be dismissed by a hand wave and a claim of "quality time". If a child benefits from a family sacrificing lifestyle and luxuries to spend more time with him -- and children do indeed benefit from such -- then that should be openly acknowledged, and those families who make that sacrifice ought not be dismissed as making just another choice, one among many, all of which are valid.

But in the end, virtue is its own reward, whether or not the world acknowledges it. Those who act in a manner they believe to be virtuous must depend on this, because if they're waiting for external validation and pats on the butt to tell them they're doing it right, they will keep waiting until hell freezes over.

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly right. We hear about the negatives but in reality many, many  children had both parents work and they turned out fine. @Suzie is right-it's the quality of the time, not the amount. 

Well . . . it's both.  My parents were both schoolteachers, and they were able to do OK by us kids--all four of us served missions, married in the temple and are active.  That said--they put a lot of effort into planning LOTS of family vacations during the summer break (which they could do, being on vacation themselves for the same period); and even then in hindsight I'd trade several of those vacations for not having had to spend three hours after school each day waiting for my parents to get home.

52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's sad, but I think there is an elephant in the room that we aren't talking about. When you have a great job and make enough money so that your spouse doesn't have to work, that puts you at an advantage in this discussion. It's easy to lecture us (and I know you aren't doing that at all @Backroads) about women staying home while you have a full pantry ,two cars paid off and all your bills paid. 

Economic issues are a real concern; but I think dwelling too much on that issue also feeds into a sense of economic helplessness that is (generally speaking) inappropriate to the economy in which we live.  

Good jobs, stable income, and a sound assets/liabilities ratio don't just happen; they are the result of careful long-term planning and (often) short-term sacrifice.  Nor are they unobtainable to the masses.  To the extent that Mormon men seem to gravitate towards high-paying, white-collar jobs; I think a lot of that arises from a conscious goal to support a single-income household.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am of the belief that, in most cases, so-called "quality time" is an excuse to spend less time with one's children. Taking the child to Chuck-E-Cheese's for two hours is not equally valuable with spending four hours working and playing with him or her.

 I agree with Vort. I don't believe in ignoring your family until you're using them as an excuse to do something fun.

Studies show that on the average parents, both mother and father, spend a lot more time with their kids these days than they did in decades past. This seems to mean doing these ultra-together, super-fun-time activities. But in decades past, parents were actually "around" more. They were a seamless part of the home and family.

 

 

[Blueskye2]

14 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Sure, but that elephant in the room also speaks of an economy that, to tie us back to the original discussion, took full advantage of feminism and now jobs that even a decade or two ago could reasonably support a family require a second income. Hey, why charge less when they can just send a second spouse to work?

I don't think this was the case.  My mom, who is firmly in the mom should be at home camp, remembers when men worked two jobs in order to support their families. She has said offhand, "Why don't they get another job. That's what men used to do."

[Backroads]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I don't think this was the case.  My mom, who is firmly in the mom should be at home camp, remembers when men worked two jobs in order to support their families. She has said offhand, "Why don't they get another job. That's what men used to do."

Yes, but what caused the increase in prices?