toldailytopic: The feminist movement.

[taikoo]

I was just reading this tribute to Barbara Billingsley who played June Cleaver in the TV show "Leave it to Beaver":

As June Cleaver, Billingsley was the personification of an Eisenhower-era stay-at-home mom — at least one residing in fictional Mayfield, U.S.A.: a mild-mannered, perfectly coiffed housewife who typically wore dresses, high heels and a strand of white pearls even while vacuuming or baking cookies for her boys.

"She was the ideal mother," Billingsley said of her character in 1997 in TV Guide. "Some people think she was weakish, but I don't. She was the love in that family. She set a good example for what a wife could be. I had two boys at home when I did the show. I think the character became kind of like me and vice versa. I've never known where one started and where one stopped."

Yeah, "some people" like NOW feminists think that staying at home and raising children to become responsible adults is "weakish".

well, that is what I am doing and if they want to say I am weak, let them come try it.

 

[vegascowboy]

I was just reading this tribute to Barbara Billingsley who played June Cleaver in the TV show "Leave it to Beaver":

As June Cleaver, Billingsley was the personification of an Eisenhower-era stay-at-home mom — at least one residing in fictional Mayfield, U.S.A.: a mild-mannered, perfectly coiffed housewife who typically wore dresses, high heels and a strand of white pearls even while vacuuming or baking cookies for her boys.

"She was the ideal mother," Billingsley said of her character in 1997 in TV Guide. "Some people think she was weakish, but I don't. She was the love in that family. She set a good example for what a wife could be. I had two boys at home when I did the show. I think the character became kind of like me and vice versa. I've never known where one started and where one stopped."

Yeah, "some people" like NOW feminists think that staying at home and raising children to become responsible adults is "weakish".

:up:

 

[Granite]

I am a member of a minority (seemingly) who finds not a small amount of irony in the hypocrisy of the very existence of that channel.

A minority? Okay, which one? I'm an atheist, so you know what my pigeonhole happens to be.

I am not a respecter of persons, I am a respecter of actions. Black, white, yellow, brown, purple...I really couldn't care any less than I do. I trust everyone implicitly until and if they give me substantial reason not to.

Fair enough. I agree.

The dichotomy is the problem. This isn't a matter of predominance. It's the same fallacy that exists with the "need" for Affirmative Action.

I don't care for affirmative action, either, although I understand the (misguided) intent behind it.

Do you think that eyebrows would be raised if a person started a Chinese Entertainment Television channel? or a Native American Television channel? Probably not.

No, likely not.

A White Entertainment Television channel, however, would certainly get the Whoopi's and the Joy's and the Ellen's of the world up in arms.

Again, Vegas: where is the need or market for an exclusively white network when it seems like that's what we already have in so many cases?

 

[vegascowboy]

A minority? Okay, which one?

I already said, goof...

Let's read it again...

I am a member of a minority (seemingly) who finds not a small amount of irony in the hypocrisy of the very existence of that channel.

Ok, ok...it's a rather strange minority. I am rather strange though.

Fair enough. I agree.

You are not supposed to agree with me! I have failed. :crackup:

Again, Vegas: where is the need or market for an exclusively white network when it seems like that's what we already have in so many cases?

Again, Granite: There isn't a need for it. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, no more, no less. (At least I think that's what I was doing. It's all rather blurry now.)

Where is the need for a Taco Bell in downtown Mexico City? :idunno:

 

[Granite]

There isn't a need for it. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy, no more, no less. (At least I think that's what I was doing. It's all rather blurry now.)

I'd submit that the need, perceived or otherwise, for something like BET comes from the prevalence of programming and entertainment tailor-made, customized, designed, and intended for a predominantly white audience. BET is a reaction to a largely white society, Vegas. We don't need a Whites Only Network because we already have them, or something darn close to it. (Unless you're counting the Token Ethnicities or the Black Guys Who Die First.):chuckle:

You see BET as unfair, I see it as the logical outgrowth of a minority surrounded by films and TV catered to an audience they don't want to identify with, can't relate to, or who have different lifestyles and expectations.

 

[vegascowboy]

I'd submit that the need, perceived or otherwise, for something like BET comes from the prevalence of programming and entertainment tailor-made, customized, designed, and intended for a predominantly white audience. BET is a reaction to a largely white society, Vegas. We don't need a Whites Only Network because we already have them, or something darn close to it. (Unless you're counting the Token Ethnicities or the Black Guys Who Die First.):chuckle:

You see BET as unfair, I see it as the logical outgrowth of a minority surrounded by films and TV catered to an audience they largely can't relate to.

BUT.........

What possible satisfaction can BET give to black folks if it is nothing more than a reaction to so many predominately white networks?

5 year old number 1: "I love white!"
5 year old number 2: "Oh yeah...well I love black then! Well, not really, but it's the opposite of what you like!"

(And seeing as how this has nothing to do with this thread, I shall start another thread now. Please direct your answer(s) there.)

 

[Granite]

:thumb:

Sounds good.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I was just reading this tribute to Barbara Billingsley who played June Cleaver in the TV show "Leave it to Beaver":

As June Cleaver, Billingsley was the personification of an Eisenhower-era stay-at-home mom — at least one residing in fictional Mayfield, U.S.A.: a mild-mannered, perfectly coiffed housewife who typically wore dresses, high heels and a strand of white pearls even while vacuuming or baking cookies for her boys.

"She was the ideal mother," Billingsley said of her character in 1997 in TV Guide. "Some people think she was weakish, but I don't. She was the love in that family. She set a good example for what a wife could be. I had two boys at home when I did the show. I think the character became kind of like me and vice versa. I've never known where one started and where one stopped."

Yeah, "some people" like NOW feminists think that staying at home and raising children to become responsible adults is "weakish".

As Granite pointed out you're using an example of a working woman, unless being an actress somehow doesn't fit under the jurisdiction of 'work'?

And what has what she wore got to do with anything? High heels and white pearls? Is a woman a feminist if she wears sneakers and pants?

Those who think it's *weak* to stay at home and raise children are morons. The same as those who think a woman's only place is to be doing such. See the difference?

Nope, thought not....

lain:

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

As Granite pointed out you're using an example of a working woman, unless being an actress somehow doesn't fit under the jurisdiction of 'work'?

And what has what she wore got to do with anything? High heels and white pearls? Is a woman a feminist if she wears sneakers and pants?

Those who think it's *weak* to stay at home and raise children are morons. The same as those who think a woman's only place is to be doing such. See the difference?

Nope, thought not....

lain:

And sometimes vacuuming in a bathing suit and espadrilles was in order.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And sometimes vacuuming in a bathing suit and espadrilles was in order.

Sounds like a forerunner to Baywatch!

Oh, and ASC, if you're actually a woman and also a cop then you're a hypocrite. Though I have serious doubts to the latter and think you're a contender for proof in the latest 'topic of the day' in regards to the former...

:freak:

 

[MaryContrary]

High school girl sets national football record.

This seems to me to be what feminism should be all about. This girl can kick the ball, so she's on the team. That's what feminism should be seeking.

I think modern "feminism" would argue for any girl being allowed on the team regardless of individual merit. That is not feminism.

Overall, I think the feminist movement suffered from the same problem all such movements suffer from. Once they get within sight of their goal, they get scared, fearing they may actually reach and achieve their goal, rendering themselves irrelevant. So they shift their goals to keep themselves relevant.

And shifting one's goals from anything worthy often means shifting to something other than worthy. That is how modern feminism has come to uphold goals and means that are largely counter-productive and often outright destructive to women. Supporting things that have either nothing to do with feminism or are entirely in opposition to it. Because they're aware on some level that succeeding in achieving a true equality of worth between men and women would render feminism, and themselves specifically, obsolete.

Additionally, I'm a little disgusted with how often throughout this thread the rejection of modern feminism is being equated with the rejection of earlier feminism in the effort to discredit. The two have almost nothing in common. In fact, I see modern feminism working in direct opposition to equality between the sexes quite often enough. So much so that I almost view the utter rejection of modern feminism as a prerequisite to calling oneself a feminist.

 

[Nydhogg]

Wanting equal rights, non-discrimination and meritocracy is entirely worthwile.
Wanting special privileges and reverse discrimination is completely asinine and inimical to the spirit of the earlier movement.

I'm not sure what's wrong, but I agree with MaryContrary.

The civil rights leaders and the feminists fought for equal rights. They got'em.

Then, instead of saying "mission accomplished" and going about their business, or finding small patches of discrimination that lingered on and should be eliminated, they thought "hey, we've gotta stay relevant" and started inventing straw men to fight against and stay in the limelight.