Also MEN are wired for something meaningful, millions of MEN are being left alone desperately wanting a girlfriend or wife but the women won’t commit, this has happened over and over again to my guy friends. It’s not that male sexuality is all detached and disconnected, either. That is not normal, either. The Bible shows the way.
The sexual revolution promised liberation through severing bonds, but freedom without connection becomes its own prison. What if true liberation comes not from detaching from others, but from building relationships strong enough to hold both autonomy and commitment? I'm curious what specific family structures you've seen successfully navigate this tension between individual fulfillment and collective responsibility.
It seemed in the 80's that the thought was that women and men weren't different. Therefore they could do the same jobs. It seemed a way to get around the idea that women were inferior in the public sphere or just in general. What it came down to though was women taking on male behaviors to succeed. This seemed to twist people as masculinity came to be labeled toxic and a segment of men started wanting to be women again relying on the idea that men and women aren't different. We need our differences to flourish but without demeaning each other.
That wasn’t the object of feminism at all in the 1980s. Women simply wanted the same freedoms as men- the freedom to be more than only a wife and mother. Being a wife and mother wasn’t denigrated; we were simply prohibited from doing anything else or even speaking on any other subject. And, that wasn’t good, fair or balanced. But, somewhere along the movement, women started to try to be men instead of empowered women, and this was a grave mistake. Now, many people seem very confused about Gender and Sex instead of celebrating our differences and empowering each other in them. The principles that support empowerment are respect and gratitude.
Not true. The hypocrisy was so palpable that some Hollywood movies even pointed out the denigration of (non-working?) women who stayed home to raise children. The Doonesbury cartoon strip had a run making fun of couples trying to find daycare good enough to replace them while at work. One that looked great with stimulating activities and a high ratio of providers to children—cost $400 per day! Please don’t sugarcoat the idiocy of that era.
Howardo, dismissing the inequality addressed during this era with a Doonesbury cartoon and the cost of daycare is appropriately superficial for your pov, but does highlight the issue of inequality that still exists in women’s space with poor pay and working models. The economic model of keeping women at home (slave class completely dependent on the morals of their husband) doesn’t work and no one has figured it out since.
Cartoons’ powerful ridicule has always been a potent force for political & social change. Career feminists were ascendant back then, feeling their oats like racehorses, but decades later they’ve realized how asinine it was to trade family for career, as they comb their grey hair. And mentioning the rare dictatorial husband is a straw man argument.
Any trade off was worth having the choice. Freedom to choose was the cause. Any corruption came afterward by those who sought to thwart and those who sought to change. Much like today. It’s the corruption that is the real fight.
Any trade off? Listen to yourself. They traded away the best and now regret it—en masse. Millions of women across two or three generations are suffering.
“Listen to an older generation that loves you” is something we could all learn from.
Good points but this article reads like it was written by ChatGPT. I'm getting really tired of the "this isn't X, it's Y" rhetorical tic.
Love Louise Perry. We all need to just listen to a silly lil English woman from time to time
Also MEN are wired for something meaningful, millions of MEN are being left alone desperately wanting a girlfriend or wife but the women won’t commit, this has happened over and over again to my guy friends. It’s not that male sexuality is all detached and disconnected, either. That is not normal, either. The Bible shows the way.
The sexual revolution promised liberation through severing bonds, but freedom without connection becomes its own prison. What if true liberation comes not from detaching from others, but from building relationships strong enough to hold both autonomy and commitment? I'm curious what specific family structures you've seen successfully navigate this tension between individual fulfillment and collective responsibility.
It seemed in the 80's that the thought was that women and men weren't different. Therefore they could do the same jobs. It seemed a way to get around the idea that women were inferior in the public sphere or just in general. What it came down to though was women taking on male behaviors to succeed. This seemed to twist people as masculinity came to be labeled toxic and a segment of men started wanting to be women again relying on the idea that men and women aren't different. We need our differences to flourish but without demeaning each other.
That wasn’t the object of feminism at all in the 1980s. Women simply wanted the same freedoms as men- the freedom to be more than only a wife and mother. Being a wife and mother wasn’t denigrated; we were simply prohibited from doing anything else or even speaking on any other subject. And, that wasn’t good, fair or balanced. But, somewhere along the movement, women started to try to be men instead of empowered women, and this was a grave mistake. Now, many people seem very confused about Gender and Sex instead of celebrating our differences and empowering each other in them. The principles that support empowerment are respect and gratitude.
Not true. The hypocrisy was so palpable that some Hollywood movies even pointed out the denigration of (non-working?) women who stayed home to raise children. The Doonesbury cartoon strip had a run making fun of couples trying to find daycare good enough to replace them while at work. One that looked great with stimulating activities and a high ratio of providers to children—cost $400 per day! Please don’t sugarcoat the idiocy of that era.
Howardo, dismissing the inequality addressed during this era with a Doonesbury cartoon and the cost of daycare is appropriately superficial for your pov, but does highlight the issue of inequality that still exists in women’s space with poor pay and working models. The economic model of keeping women at home (slave class completely dependent on the morals of their husband) doesn’t work and no one has figured it out since.
Cartoons’ powerful ridicule has always been a potent force for political & social change. Career feminists were ascendant back then, feeling their oats like racehorses, but decades later they’ve realized how asinine it was to trade family for career, as they comb their grey hair. And mentioning the rare dictatorial husband is a straw man argument.
Any trade off was worth having the choice. Freedom to choose was the cause. Any corruption came afterward by those who sought to thwart and those who sought to change. Much like today. It’s the corruption that is the real fight.
Any trade off? Listen to yourself. They traded away the best and now regret it—en masse. Millions of women across two or three generations are suffering.
Not fighting back harder against internet pornography in the 90's and 2000's was where feminism went to die.
An oldie, but still relevant essay on the failures of feminism:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/naomi-schaefer-riley/feminism-is-in-trouble/
I'm glad that people are still naturally stumbling into the perennial truths.
All women are liars, hypocrites, manhaters, sexists and bigots.
Absolutely beautiful! ❤️🙏🏻
Hi! I write a lot about topics similar to this. It’s part of my mission to redefine what it means to be a woman again.
https://odysee.com/@DwarvenAllFather:e/The-Son-Of-Man-And-The-Daughter-Of-Skynet:4