>Roxxxy and the Sexbotapocalypse

>@Pam:"Don't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the 'women's uniqueness in their nurturing role' while out the other side comes the 'women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized'."If women try to justify the use of force and coercion by citing their nurturing capabilities, saying that men should have a minimal role in their childrens' lives following a divorce and that this somehow necessitates sole custody for mothers, maximized child support obligations for fathers, and a total loss (or near-total) of legal and physical parenting rights for fathers, then I call foul. I've known of men who were legally prohibited from even waving to their children from across the street, lest they be imprisoned for using "intimidation;" all along the child voiced his inquiry to the mother about why daddy somehow didn't care.Women may have a unique role to play, but that doesn't mean that fatherhood should be subsumed to the wishes of the mother in the event of a divorce — especially when State-sanctioned violence is her tool of power and control over the father. For fit and non-violent fathers, THAT kind of State control — at the mother's behest — is completely unjustified.

>First of all, contrary to MRA claims, the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm. While post-war American prosperity made it possible for a short while, for most of history, this would be an impermissible luxury for the overwhelming majority of couples, with the exception of the aristocracy, royalty, and the richest mercantile families. For most of history and throughout most of society, women worked and earned an income for the family. Peasant women planted and harvested, took care of cattle and spun wool, generating income for the family, whereas wives of artisans and tradesmen almost invariably worked in their husbands' businesses as assistants, secretaries, laborers, etc.And thus, as terrible as the Industrial Revolution was for the poor in many respects, this "commodification" of women's labor was actually an improvement, because it finally put monetary value, however small, on women's labor. What early feminists objected to wasn't this "commodification" (let's be frank: remuneration) of women's labor, but on the contrary, social prejudices that denied credit to women's work. They objected to the system of social prejudices that required a woman to work her ass off in her husband's business, while everyone pretended that he is the "sole breadwinner".They objected to laws which gave men unfettered access to their wives' earnings and assets, so that if a woman had any, the effect of marriage was to essentially bankrupt her.They objected to laws which denied married women any control or or benefit from things created by their labor, while vesting such control in their husbands — such as female writers having no publishing rights to their own works.They objected to laws and social mores which held women to an extremely stringent standard of virtue, while allowing boys to be boys. Anti-feminists always mischaracterize this complaint as a desire by feminists to empower women to engage in promiscuity. In fact, all feminists with whose views I am familiar object also to the prejudices that lead people of both genders to compulsively pursue joyless, meaningless, punitive sex. What those early feminists objected to, however, was a society in which a woman could be utterly disgraced and financially ruined because of a mere suspicion of a single indiscretion — but a woman would have no legal or social recourse whatsoever against a husband who cheated on her, gave her venereal diseases, spent money on prostitutes, and forced her to care for his children fathered with other women.They objected to a society in which abortion was illegal, but wives were expected to have sex with their husbands at any time and in any way the husbands wanted — and to "take care" of unwanted pregnancies by breaking the law. It's really shocking to study social trends before the legalization of abortion — how vociferous men were in wanting to keep it illegal, and how naturally they expected their wives to have multiple abortions to serve their convenience. Until quite recently, to be a married woman was to be criminal — that was a far greater concern to early feminists than the supposed inhumanity of being paid for work.They objected to a society in which men's privileges over women had the force of law, but their obligations towards women did not.They objected to a society that gave women no opportunity to pursue education, professions and financial independence, instead forcing all women into the same mold regardless of intelligence or aptitude.I don't want to kick feminism to the curb. I enjoy having access to employment, education and a variety of other things men take for granted. Now women who have nothing to lose, on the other hand — they might have a different idea, but then, they don't speak for me.

>Again John, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton book has her actual words and what they say is "I was mad at my male relatives and friends for not considering I was their equal." It was the anti-feminists of the 19th century that actually reflect what the 20th century feminist was talking about more than the feminists like Stanton.

>lolThey still are.I guess they're still not getting their sexual needs sated.

>@amused, "the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm" Er, not, it isn't an anomaly, it is a fiction. Poor women, in particular women of color, have always traditionally done labour outside of the home. My grandfather's sisters did farm labour and piece work (his youngest sister only did the latter as she was very ill and died young, likely of leukemia). I know plenty of women that age who would not see that as anything similar to their reality. The only women in my family that I can think of who lived at that time and did not do some sort of paid work were those for whom it was literally unavailable (my paternal grandmother is Cherokee and unemployment rates are extremely high for native american reservations) and they suffered hard for it. I grew up in a poor rural area and some of the most sexist old men used the term 'hard working woman' as a compliment. So, no, this fifties nostalgia is not one of reality for anyone but a tiny fraction of the white upperclass. In reality, fifties America was one of bitter segregation, starvation, and deaths due to no medical care. My home area did not even have electricty or running water until the sixties and Johnson's "War on Poverty". Even then, my mother was born in 64 and she remembers a time when a fair share of people she knew did not have one or the other. The fifties were only good for a tiny sliver of the population, that is upperclass white men with upperclass white women picking up a few crumbs (though they had no reproductive rights, could be legally raped by the spouses, did not have equal access to either primary or secondary education, etc.)