Does this video set feminisim back to day 1?

Question

Le Bell that is exactly what I mean. On day 1 they were wrong from the beginning.

Answer 1

I don't know if it sets feminism back, nor if there is any consensus on what Day 1 would possibly be.

However, there are a number of problems in these analyzes, namely that they present destructive rather than constructive criticism towards feminism and blame feminism for problems that are obviously attributable to other things.

On vid 1 - I found quite interesting how this video claims that women had an advantage because they were able to commit crimes and their husbands would be held responsible. This is at the heart of many debates on whether or not feminists are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Evidently they were interested in taking responsibility for their actions. This wasn't a complaint over who gets to commit as much crime as possible and get away with it. It as about having the right and the responsibility to be accountable for oneself.

The other main issue I had with this one is that there is a lot of victim-blame going on here. Apparently women are to blame because they were not choosing to run for public office. Given their responsibilities in the home and the fact that their husbands had authority over them it was scarcely a matter of their choice, but of their husbands' choice.

On vid 2 - The dissolution of the family unit has to do with the capitalist economic system that devalues all of us. Feminism, I would argue has existed long before capitalism even if it was not always called such. Women have always organized and resisted.

Blaming feminism for the world's troubles is a petty cop-out that stems from men's contempt for women who wish to share power and decision-making. It goes without saying that if an oppressed group is to empower themselves, the oppressor must relinquish that power. Evidently, these men are holding a grudge at their loss of power and resent the fact that they have to share it now instead of having it all to themselves.

Answer 2

Well, it's true that a married woman was not considered to be responsible for criminal actions, the same was true in Britain at this period.  One of my favourite passages from Dickens is the part in 'Oliver Twist' where Mr Bumble protests that it was his wife, not him, who conspired to cheat Oliver of his inheritance, whereupon it is pointed out to him that the law will hold him responsible since it assumes that his wife is under his direction.  To which Mr Bumble replies with spirit:

"If that's what the law supposes then the law is a  as, a idiot.  if that's what the law supposes then the law's a bachelor!  And the worst I can wish the law is that it's eyes may be opened by experience!"

And while married women were not considered to own their own property, they were also not considered to be responsible for their own debts. their husbands were.

The bit about wife battering being illegal in most states by that time is very interesting, but I think there is a definite distinction to be drawn between 'battering' and 'chastisement' (the word used in the declaration).  The principle that a man had the right to chastise his wife if he thought it necessary was a common assumption in past times, but brutality towards women could be strongly disapproved of.  In England the custom of 'rough music' prevailed in rural areas, where when a man was known to have beaten up his wife villagers would gather outside his house, blowing horns, beating on saucepans or any other items that would make a noise, and singing and howling and burning bonfires etc.  A distinction was drawn between 'chastisement' and violence.

However, I think the argument that women were not prevented from standing for political office is a bit spurious.  While they may not have been legally prevented from standing for office, the fact that they were excluded from voting suggests that politics was not considered to be a woman's business, and I would think that society would have been quite strongly disapproving of any woman who tried to stand for office, which would discourage most from even thinking about it.

The fact remains that few women are interested in running for office even today, and I don't think you can argue with that.  Politics does not appeal to women as much as it does to men.

Answer 3

most boring video I have ever seen and worst produced.

Answer 4

I love how you guys take facts and opinions and twist them to say what you want them to say. NO one is taking away the fathers right to represent god before his family, or his family before god. The only people that keep most men from carrying out their fatherly duties are the men who chose not too. No one can tell you how to raise, or take care of your family. Feminist are not in the homes of Americans telling them what to do, how to raise their families or how to live their lives. You tell me (give in account) how many times a feminist (physically) entered your home and took your husbands man hood and told him how to raise YOUR family?

All in all, no one’s constitutional rights have been stripped away from them. You can still do the same things now you could many years ago. The only thing that has changed is the way people view life, careers, family, and relationships. The social views of America are no longer the same, which is the reason why it took so long for women to enter politics successfully and be accepted. Women no longer are limited to the roles of homemaker. They can now work in a number of career fields and still have a family, and it’s accepted. It’s not taking away from a mans duties to be a father (country to popular belief). If you marry a man that wants to play the husband /father role and take care of his wife/kids, be a man of good, hold a steady job and be the head of his household, HE CAN! No one is stopping him from doing so. No one is stripping men of their masculinity! No one is going out and telling men how to dress, how to act, or who to be.  Fella’s no one is buying your cloths for you, telling you how to dress or how or what mannerisms you should portray. You all still do as you please regardless of how people feel about it.

And what do you mean “we”? I wasn’t there debating the politics of feminism and neither where you! Those where way different times then what we currently live in today. So there will be a difference in both opinion and reasoning based on the political views of people during that time and period. It doesn’t mean that “feminist” in general where wrong, it just means that like any other cause they had to start out with a basis for their arguments, live and learn through trial and error and take it from the top.  If it wasn’t for the feminist of yesterday fighting for your rights today you wouldn’t enjoy the liberties you do now! (Like the right to vote, the right to ownership, the right to work in what ever career field you chose too) Stop gobbling up that anit-feminist bullsh!t you see in this forum. No one cares! I really don’t even know why you personally give a dam.  If you’re against feminist, then their actions, thoughts and opinions shouldn’t affect you, because you don’t pay attention to them anyway.

Answer 5

Yeah, pretty much. They cover the most important aspect of modern day feminism - misogyny. Yes, I said misogyny.

Answer 6

Feminism is about devaluing the traditional female role of care giving and nurturing and an obsession with the traditional male role of providing.  

The development of spoiled kids is a result of them being part time to full time orphans throughout their childhood. Parents end up buying their kids love by giving them material goods in a hope to bond with them.

Children see their parents as cash machines, which is the same way divorced mothers see their ex-husbands who fathered their children. The biological duty to tend to their children is being ignored by women to fulfill the social expectation to work. Women should either have a family or work if they don't have a job that has flexible hours. The economics of society are in the next paragraph.

The feminist obsession with the traditional male role of providing has made dual income households an expectation. The feminist ideology has justified the increase in the cost of living. The more money in an average household, the more money they can afford to spend on goods. In the household of single people it is justified because there is no other person for them to care for. As for single parents, it just means they are slaves to work more than married couples to survive.

Answer 7

Seneca Falls WAS feminism Day 1????

Perhaps the so-called destruction of the family is because of the end of corporeal punishment for children, making them spoiled, and because of deadbeat Dads.  There are far more deadbeat Dads than feminists mothers - remember - we are all old childless lesbians, who have no family...

How can a bunch of hairy old crones that are too ugly to get a man and have children to begin with, be responsible for anything remotely related to the family???

You can't have it both ways!

Answer 8

What strikes me about this video is that it says women could get away with more crimes and such. Generally speaking, women are more likely to be persecuted for crimes, even when they are on the side of the prosecution, for the woman's reputation counts more than actual events in a given legal scenario.

The second part of this video, though, the refutations, are entirely innacurrate. There was of course no explicit law stating women could not run for office because the thought was impossible. They could not hold contracts or own property of their own, and literally were other people's property. There aren't any laws claiming slaves can't run for office either, for the same reason; they can't by definition as they've no rights as a person or citizen.

This video certainly seeks to set feminism back, especially in that it supports the notion many like to bring up in support of make supremacy: that women have had far less great accomplishments historically, thus must be inferior. I just don't know what to do with the world sometimes.

Answer 9

No, it doesn't. The logic is extremely shoddy, it makes no attempt to take into account gender expectations at the time, and it makes wildly ludicrous assumptions.

In short, only a child with very little real knowledge of history would think that the points were valid at all.

How old are you?

Answer 10

In the first video, he took the quotes literally. Stanton and Mott were well aware that the male s*x as a whole was not to blame for women's problems. But men were given unfair advantages at the time, which was what they were really opposing.

The second video is a total waste of time. The family isn't being destroyed because men are becoming more effeminate, or because women are becoming more masculine, or whatever. It's being destroyed because of shoddy parenting and spoiled kids. That's it.

EDIT: What does that have to do with anything? The fact is that kids are more shallow today than ever. The Sweet 16 kids' love for their parents is entirely dependent on the amount of stuff they get for their birthday.

EDIT: Also, don't listen to Know It All, for he knows very little. I haven't reported anyone in months, despite numerous temptations. And I've never had an ID besides this one.

Answer 11

I believe if men fulfill their role in the home as provider, protector and head of the house.

Women would not have to be commanded to obey them.

But I see so many men leaving women alone to raise the children.  With those who fight for women's rights they can get a decent job to support those children.

The USA could be like the middle east and widowed women cover themselves in dust and ashes and beg in the streets.

the bad thing is no matter how many wives they take some are left to just starve to death.  Why because insecure men are afraid to get them any rights.  They even holler obscenities at them and force them into prostitution.

They want to be able to treat them like cattle.

They are real live human beings and deserve to be treated like that.  Now as to a man not knowing his place and feels femine because he can no longer beat his wife, that's c**p and hiding behind religion to do unspeakable things.

By the way they used the bible to condone slavery.

  What is his christian role?  Why don't you treat women the way Jesus did.  He was good to them and kind.  

You might be suprised to learn they respond well to that.

Answer 12

The feminist.org video is an insult to humankind. If there ever was an example of brain-washing ...

Feminism is tearing at the foundation of American society. The American Republic will soon fail.