Why do hardcore feminists try so hard to push their beliefs onto others, especially women who want to live a traditional family role?
Why do they care so much about what other women are doing with their lives? Who cares, live your own life, don't try to shove your agendas down other women's throats who are happy being stay at home moms and housewives or only working part time so they can raise their own children instead of shipping their child off to daycare all day to be raised by complete strangers
- FoofaLv 73 months ago
"Hardcore" anything tends to be extreme.
- 3 months ago
For decades centuries in fact; women have taken it on themselves to help the main bread winner support the family; it's a common sense thing to do. You want to make ends meet this is what you do. Feminists always over look that fact. The 1920s was just about the only decade we had all kids in school mom at home and dad working; after that and especially; the depression things changed. Heck; what are they so riled up about anyways; don't they realize there was a time not all men were allowed the right to vote? This whole world is not made up of entirely of the female gender. Basically; save for the landowners (male or female) no one voted and that is how it worked.
Daycare is not place to raise kids that is their mother's job. Kids need their mother and that is a fact.
- Green BrickLv 73 months ago
Actually it's mostly men that seem to have a problem with 'stay at home mums' & only a few Career women, who take issue.
Plus women or men that make judgements towards parents who decide to work full time and therefore need to depend on Day Care, or Child carers. Equally if you share that view about full time working parents, then you too are just as judgemental of their decisions, as you say they are of you!
I agree that it's no one else's business, just the parents.
- 3 months ago
The answer to that is that they are not true feminists. The whole point of feminism was to have equality and choice. What Bill is saying is true in parts, that there was opposition from females for working certain jobs and voting because they had been told most of their lives that this is something they were incapable of doing so that change scared them. Being able to partake in certain jobs, social situations, exhibit certain behaviours and becoming involved in politics was something that was discouraged from birth for females and that discouragement involved telling females that if they do a or b then they would be affected negatively physically, mentally or that they would not be able to find a husband.
Considering women were not allowed to own property (both structural property and patents) finding a husband was the only way that they would be able to be supported without a father, so you can understand why many women were against change, because they could lose everything.
Today you can see the restrictions from our past in countries like Saudi Arabia and the tactics they used to keep women under control. For example, before the law was changed in 2017, women were not allowed to drive in SA. One of the reasons they gave was that the vibrations of being in the drivers seat would affect the ovaries and cause infertility in women (apparently this only happened in the drivers seat). Obviously the other restriction they have is that they have to have male guardianship and authorisation before they can leave the house and to make any decisions in their life. The restrictions on females in many countries and religions are very similar to what life was like for women in the west prior to feminist change. This change has been incredibly beneficial to not only women, but men, the economy and countries as a whole. Easy access to birth control and choice over when or how many children you have which decreases poverty (in the population as a whole), pressure on the state and education system, maternal death and infant death and disease. The ability for women to be education and work in a variety of jobs also decreases this and removes the pressure of the male to be sole breadwinner, it also opens up better income for families and security as previously when the male of the house died the female and children were often left destitute. Also because the females would go to the husbands family it created a system all over the world where male infants were prided for and that female babies were unwelcome, still leading to issues now in places like India where a dowry has to be paid to take female wives meaning they are married off at very young ages or even abandoned on garbage heaps at birth, unfortunately in there thousands. This also lead to a huge amount of female infant deaths in China when the one child policy was brought in and now has lead to such a huge skew in male to female ratio that China has a severe problem with human trafficking, abducting females from surrounding countries to be brides (usually child brides) for the males who vastly outnumber females due to sex selective births. I still remember it in the papers often, pictures of new born girls being left to die on the streets and people walking past them.Basically making these changes for the better for females made things better for everyone as a whole. But to answer you're question, for every group that drive for social, environmental and political change there is always an insidious extreme group. Always. These groups are generally a minority. You have them within feminist groups, within animal rights groups, within every single good argument you will always have a minority that lose the plot and take it to the extreme. Hardcore feminists are like this. They have lost the key dynamic of feminism which was about choice. I want to work. I want to have children and be a stay at home mum. I was to be a stay at home mum until they are 1 and then go work. Or like me, I don't want children and I work within the construction industry testing materials for the road service as a quality control technician.. I also run a farm with my brother. I work long hard hours, get covered in mud, dust and bitumen but I still want to go home, get a wash and get dressed up and make dinner for my partner and do his washing and clean the house because doing the wifey stuff in the house makes both of us feel good, it makes him feel special and like a man and in return I get a lot of welcome loving attention and taken on date nights once a month. When I am at work I am independent me but when we are at home we are more traditional, of course we split the house cost and we each pay for own car but he pays for the date nights and I do the housewife stuff. Neither of us wants kids and none of this would be possible without feminism. But we are both very happy and also very against the hardcore feminist agenda.I would say the male side of hardcore feminism would be incels.. not right in the head either.
The point is that normal people should be able to empathise and understand without a need to jump to extremes. Particularly since we are in a day and age of many countries (Not all and not all religions of course) that will listen. Thankfully the extremes are a minority and we do all have a way to go but the loudest and angriest path is usually the wrong one. There is a reason why most are called the silent majority, because we are the still sane ones here everyday trying to get on with our lives. Don't let a minority make you angry against something, as a female i'd say rant about hardcore feminists the way i'd rant about incels, but don't let a minority colour your thinking of us as a whole. Because most of us are just trying to get out there everyday and deal with life
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- BillLv 73 months ago
That's easy. Back when feminists were trying to get women into the workplace full time there was a lot of resistance from women that liked how things were. These women were simply put not changing their lifestyle and thus the goal of feminists to get women into the workplace and into positions of power was held back.
Feminists would continue to demonize these women regularly well until the 1980's when many of these ladies were still not working or at least not working full time as feminists demanded of them. By the 1990's though the younger generation of women were pretty much all working full time and women were assuming positions of power at a growing pace, so while feminists still hated women that lived a more traditional life they saw them as less of a threat since they were considerably outnumbered by women that were doing as feminists wanted.
Another point of interest worth noting is that feminists are actually scared that women prefer traditional roles, and if they are available to women as a viable choice that the majority of women will choose that lifestyle. This would in turn be disastrous to the goals of feminists as it would mean effectively the end of that part of the feminist movement and an empowerment to what they deem as the patriarchy.
I think a lot of feminists are in fact still scared that traditionalism might come back and so when they come across a woman that decided on that lifestyle that give her a hard time for it.
On a related note, feminists work to undermine men in the workplace not only to push women up the ladder, but also because they want to keep men from climbing the ladder. You see, if men can climb the ladder this would in turn raise men's earnings and increase the threat that they can earn enough to provide for a family. This must be avoided as remember feminists fear if women can decide to stay at home they will.
- Anonymous3 months ago
Hardcore feminism is like hardcore Islam: A reality. There are no moderates.
- Anonymous3 months ago
Most feminist women are begotten from ethnic groups that have been extremely polygynist throughout their histories and therefore they want to destroy pair bonding people. In a monogamist society a woman is under threat of not having a kid as compared to a polygynist society were there will always be a psychopath male person there to breed the women.
- Common SenseLv 73 months ago
Feminists lobby for policies that advantage females over males. They way they justify these advantages is by claiming women are discriminated against. Their "proof" of discrimination is to claim that any observed difference between men and women can only be explained by discrimination against women, the wage gap is a classic example.
So, if women freely admit they don't want to do what men do, at least not to the same degree, it blows the whole feminist argument apart. If women for example admit they want to work at home and spend more time raising kids, rather than focus on work and income, it blows the whole feminist wage gap argument out of the water. This is one of the reasons, feminists can't admit men and women are not equal in all ways. Claiming women and men are in all ways equal is fundamental to their agenda.
- 3 months ago
If the wife is working why doesn't the hubby stay at home and look after the kids? It can be very rewarding playing tea parties with your dolls and changing nappies all day after all as you so eloquently stated. Even better nowadays with so many recipes on the internet to provide warm nutritious meals to your wife when she comes home from a tiring day at work and wants to put up her feet and read the newspaper.
- Anonymous3 months ago
it doesn't matter
there's so few of them it's a non issue