Is society becoming more unisex?

Post Reply New Topic

Even better: Can she write her name in the snow?

Here is one little example: http://action.now.org/p/dia/action/publ ... n_KEY=7132

If only more women were qualified for predominantly male-occupied jobs ... and if only those women would actually apply for those jobs, as well.

I don't really see any change in female mentality in general. Same as old.

How does this lead to even the slightest restriction in how I live my life?

It is restricting to President Obama, and restricting to qualified white male candidates. But, it does increase your chances of a government job.

Your original statement that I objected to:

Unless feminists are demanding and pressuring all women to become politicians even if they don't want to, this doesn't count as being forced into new roles rather than being freed from them.

If you're going to try to make an argument that women don't have more freedom and options in life than they did before feminism, you might have a hard time.

I haven't noticed any change in the male mind either,same as old

Having more freedom and options is not the same as being freed from social expectations and roles.

I would hate to be in politics.I'd rather putter around in my garden and make pies.And resume my embroidery.And flower arranging.

The new social expectation seems to be for women to be aggressive and to demand everything, and for men (especially White men, and President Obama seems to be counted as one of us, now) to be perfectly passive and to accede to a woman's every whim. Otherwise, we are the M-word.

As more and more men are pushed out of jobs in order to make way for women, the number of men who would be able to support a wife and family declines. Which also reduces options for women.

Less men are able to support a family because "traditional family" Republican posers and "working man" Democrat posers support multinational businesses that shift manufacturing to countries where they need to pay much less, leaving large swathes of the country empty of jobs that used to form the core of their communities. "Traditional family" Republican posers also reject minimum wage, unions, and other labor laws that make it possible for middle class to live off single income. As someone who has lived in both US and Canada, I also strongly believe that your struggling lower/middle class family man would also be much better off under a government funded healthcare system rather than needing to give so much money into bad insurance. Executive wages have skyrocketed while wages for the rest of us remain stagnant. I believe that all of this combined has had a far greater negative impact on lower/middle class family support than women being allowed to do more things than raise children.

I won't address your first paragraph because it is paranoid hyperbole with no factual content.

Those are all important factors, too. But, doubling the workforce (through increased female participation) also has the effect of depressing wages.

So I agree to some parts. So there actually are "radical battlefeminists" telling women, that they are betraying feminism if they dare to choose the role of housemom, "freely becoming slaves of patriarchy again" ........... but feminists are different as are humans, so from my personal oppinion feminism is about having the right to accept your own deeds, and not getting told to ignore your deeds because they dont fit into society. According to this, these battle feminists are no better then people 50 years ago telling woman that all of them have to stay at home. A woman that is forced to stay at home by her social surrounding, when she wants to have an career is as unhappy as a woman that wants to stay at home, and is forced to concentrate on her job because of some "battle feminists", in my opinion. So for me feminism is the acceptance of your own deeds, anyway if you are a woman or a man.

So I dont think that people become more unisex, because it would mean, that people are the same. Instead people accept themselfs and create by doing so a much broader variety then in earlier days, when you simply had one sight on men and one sight of women.

Allowing black people to work for a decent wage instead of keeping them enslaved might have depressed a few wages too, but it was still the right thing to do and didn't hit the working man nearly as hard as taking manufacturing jobs out of the country.

There are still very clear delineations of "masculine" and "feminine". The old gender roles are still accepted. Androgyny is just becoming more accepted. The day that we feel like people have to be androgynous, when society is really unisex, that's when I quit. I came out of the womb vaguely resembling Brian Blessed, and I like it that way.

Seriously, though, no. There are clear differences in the way the two genders evolved to think. Sure, I think some men are becoming more effeminate, and while I'm not a fan, if it works for them then good for them. I think that women have as much of a range as ever. Some wear the latest fashions and talk about fifteen million different kinds of lipstick and some put on a pair of trousers, grab a gun, and go open a ranch in Oklahoma. Its just more accepted for men to run that gamut as well.