An example of Feminazi in action

[Grendel]

I think of the word "feminazi" when a man holds open a door for her and she refuses to go in saying "I can open my own door, you know!" Oy.

That happened to me once in college. One of those times where you approach a door from the side while someone else approaches from the front, and you either have to let them pass, or (very rudely) step in front of them and let it shut behind you. A week later I was going back in the same door and had a chance to step in front and let it slam behind me as the same woman was approaching. In those situations, I let the other person pass regardless of gender, because it's just rude to jump in front of someone then let the door shut on them.

However, the word "feminazi" is a Limaughism. Using it at all makes you sound like a Rush fan. If that's your thing, no problem, but if it isn't, you should know that.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The "barefoot and pregnant" part of your post tells me you don't get it.

Men and women have lost more than's been gained by two-income families being the norm.

There are real joys for moms and stay-at-home motherhood. Real benefits to husbands. And real benefits to children.

As a Realtor, I've seen more broken-hearted/broken-spirited moms working their asses off and out of the home ten hours a day than I'd care to count. They come home from work exhausted to their two little rug-rats ready to suck the virtual life right out of them for the rest of the evening. They pick up the kids at daycare by 6 PM, stop at the grocery store, come home and start dinner, do dishes, bath the kids, maybe read them a story, go to bed exhausted, and get up in the morning to start the whole thing all over again. It's sad to watch.

And I've seen plenty of stay at home moms who are damn near insane from lack of mental stimulation. A friend of mine is dealing with one of these that she babysits for right now and is actually afraid she's going to go off the rails. What's your point?

There's no path that leads all people to happiness. And what about women with, you know, dreams that involve the outside world? Sure, it's nice for hubby to be free to pursue his goals with most of the grunt work taken off his back, but what about hers?

Although to be fair, men weren't exactly thrilled during the stay at home heyday either. A lot of them drank themselves to sleep so they could get through another evening of their dead marriage with their wife who's gone half mad from trying so hard to be the Stepford dream. Benzos for mommy, booze for daddy.

This utopian past of yours has never existed here on earth.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And I've seen plenty of stay at home moms who are damn near insane from lack of mental stimulation. A friend of mine is dealing with one of these that she babysits for right now and is actually afraid she's going to go off the rails. What's your point?

There's no path that leads all people to happiness. And what about women with, you know, dreams that involve the outside world? Sure, it's nice for hubby to be free to pursue his goals with most of the grunt work taken off his back, but what about hers?

Although to be fair, men weren't exactly thrilled during the stay at home heyday either. A lot of them drank themselves to sleep so they could get through another evening of their dead marriage with their wife who's gone half mad from trying so hard to be the Stepford dream. Benzos for mommy, booze for daddy.

This utopian past of yours has never existed here on earth.

LOL - AMEN to that! Why else do you think I took on debate politics as part of my otherwise drab life? I felt my brain was rotting straight out of my head.

I love my kids and all - but damn.

There are real benefits to the kids, though - at my personal and long lasting sacrifices.
Benefits to my husband? None - the military didn't consider him a more worthy soldier because I've been a sahm. It made him feel good, but now that I'm not really employable due to a lack of employment for years and he's facing military med-retirement, he's not taking it too well . . . and he's the one who really pushed me toward it.

If I didn't force myself to do something intellectual beyond caring for the kids I would have committed suicide by now - no joke. It was very rough for a long time. Being a mom is thankless, kids only fight and argue and really don't care that you've given up anything to dedicate your life to them. They'll care when they're older, but not when it counts the most.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

In fact - now that I'm thinking about it - it's been a bad thing for my husband.

He's become 90% reliant on me to follow up and do anything related to the kids, their schooling, their care, home improvement, and all else.

This is why - for a few years - I felt like nothing more than a nanny around here. I did everything. It wasn't an issue when he deployed - but then he was in a different position when he came back home and I still did everything. He'd work - come home - and veg out. Health issues crept up and now, I still do everything, including extras like driving him to dr's appointments because he can't really do this anymore.

For him - it's developed complacency and a disconnect with all things family wise. If we both worked, then he would have to balance things out more. (Or maybe not - before, I remember being hte one to still do all the cooking / cleaning / laundry / school stuff. I just worked, too)

 

[jimbo]

The "standards" were written for men. You don't have to be a power-lifter to put out fires and save lives now do you?

Tell that to a person trapped under a 200 pound beam when the standard for the rescuer is 50 pounds.

 

[MaggieD]

And I've seen plenty of stay at home moms who are damn near insane from lack of mental stimulation. A friend of mine is dealing with one of these that she babysits for right now and is actually afraid she's going to go off the rails. What's your point?

There's no path that leads all people to happiness. And what about women with, you know, dreams that involve the outside world? Sure, it's nice for hubby to be free to pursue his goals with most of the grunt work taken off his back, but what about hers?

Although to be fair, men weren't exactly thrilled during the stay at home heyday either. A lot of them drank themselves to sleep so they could get through another evening of their dead marriage with their wife who's gone half mad from trying so hard to be the Stepford dream. Benzos for mommy, booze for daddy.

This utopian past of yours has never existed here on earth.

I agree. There's no one path that leads to happiness. Choices are important. The problem is that most of the middle class doesn't think they have choices. And they aren't too far wrong. Two-family earners have become the norm to sustain lifestyles that include expensive toys, too-much house, flashy vacations, etc., etc.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I agree. There's no one path that leads to happiness. Choices are important. The problem is that most of the middle class doesn't think they have choices. And they aren't too far wrong. Two-family earners have become the norm to sustain lifestyles that include expensive toys, too-much house, flashy vacations, etc., etc.

You know, I don't see very much of that in reality. I just see women who want to have a life outside the home. A life centered around staying home with your kids is not very appealing to the majority of women. And it's easy to see why: humans are social creatures. Interacting with young children doesn't fulfill most peoples' need for mental stimultion, because young kids aren't very good at responding to it. No "state of nature" woman ever stayed in her hut alone with her children. She had everyone else in the tribe to talk to.

The main issue is that while their partners are willing to work with that, they generally AREN'T willing to help with childcare at all. So not only is the woman working, but she's also getting all of the childcare dumped on her in addition. Oftentimes she doesn't see that coming until it's already happening. See Auntie's addendum for an example. Men in America generally don't even take parental leave, even though they could with full pay.

While every other Western country is starting to see that change, America, as usual, is dragging behind the rest of the developed world, in terms of spousal equality in raising children.

 

[TiredOfLife]

Tell that to a person trapped under a 200 pound beam when the standard for the rescuer is 50 pounds.

We have tools eh? Not all firemen look like the Hulk, nor do they need to.

 

[jimbo]

We have tools eh? Not all firemen look like the Hulk, nor do they need to.

A different situation. Firemen are often required to move objects far larger than the capabiity of most women, including humans.

To often the "tool" sent in with the 90 pound woman is a 200 pound man.

 

[ChrisL]

A different situation. Firemen are often required to move objects far larger than the capabiity of most women, including humans.

To often the "tool" sent in with the 90 pound woman is a 200 pound man.

I have to agree. It would be the rare woman who would have the upper body strength equivalent to a man. Not that there aren't SOME women who might be able to handle it though. There are some women MMA fighters. Granted, they don't fight with the men, but they are some tough bitches who could probably kick the crap out of a lot of men. :lol: They are BEASTS!

 

[Ikari]

We have tools eh? Not all firemen look like the Hulk, nor do they need to.

You may have tools, but that doesn't mean that the physical demands of the job are significantly lighter. Less that tool is a robot that can do all the firefighting for you, then sure there would be no physical requirement. Still the regulations developed as a way of discerning who can do the job and who cannot. The requirements were written for the job. Lessening the requirements because one is a woman undercuts that and is pretty damned insulting.

The requirements are the requirements, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if one is male or female. If you can perform, then you should be considered; if you can't, then you should be dismissed. That's the end of it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

A different situation. Firemen are often required to move objects far larger than the capabiity of most women, including humans.

To often the "tool" sent in with the 90 pound woman is a 200 pound man.

A 90 lb woman? Jesus - what is she? 4'11" and eating beansprouts? :rofl:

This exchange between the two of you reminds me of my son obsessively challenging me to match after match of arm wrestling - he works out, he looks cut, and then wonders why he can't beat me time and again. . . and again.

He said "damnit! I'm supposed to beat you, you're a girl. I'm bigger than you, too." - He's always sizing himself up against me.
I laughed, telling him, "I'm not a guuurl. I'm your mother."

I have my 'job' (home improvement) and I stay fit enough to see it done. :shrug: That's all anyone needs to manage.

 

[ChrisL]

A 90 lb woman? Jesus - what is she? 4'11" and eating beansprouts? :rofl:

This exchange between the two of you reminds me of my son obsessively challenging me to match after match of arm wrestling - he works out, he looks cut, and then wonders why he can't beat me time and again. . . and again.

He said "damnit! I'm supposed to beat you, you're a girl. I'm bigger than you, too." - He's always sizing himself up against me.
I laughed, telling him, "I'm not a guuurl. I'm your mother."

I have my 'job' (home improvement) and I stay fit enough to see it done. :shrug: That's all anyone needs to manage.

There are 4'11" girls out there, plenty of them. I am only 5'1", and I weigh about 105 pounds. :shrug: My little cousin (who is an adult BTW) is only 4'10". MOST Asian girls are very tiny.

 

[Cephus]

I have to agree. It would be the rare woman who would have the upper body strength equivalent to a man. Not that there aren't SOME women who might be able to handle it though. There are some women MMA fighters. Granted, they don't fight with the men, but they are some tough bitches who could probably kick the crap out of a lot of men. :lol: They are BEASTS!

Yes, but the strongest woman in the world cannot compete with the strongest man in the world. It's not a sexism thing, it's a biology thing. The fact that someone can take the strongest woman they can find and match them with the weakest man they can find and declare the woman the winner doesn't prove that women, on average, are just as strong as men.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There are 4'11" girls out there, plenty of them. I am only 5'1", and I weigh about 105 pounds. :shrug: My little cousin (who is an adult BTW) is only 4'10". MOST Asian girls are very tiny.

Yes - I use to be 80 lbs. I know, though, that those aren't the ones joining the military and such . . . that's like me making a point trying to use a 6'6" dude as my example of 'why it won't work.'

If he's going to oppose something he needs to be realistic. . . when painting such extremes they never refer to the group of women who are, say, 6' . . .and in reverse: the average man can't life 200lbs, etc.

There are the fit-examples, and the average jill and joe.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, but the strongest woman in the world cannot compete with the strongest man in the world. It's not a sexism thing, it's a biology thing. The fact that someone can take the strongest woman they can find and match them with the weakest man they can find and declare the woman the winner doesn't prove that women, on average, are just as strong as men.

I agree, but there are some very strong women out there who could probably compete very well against your average man. I would agree that it wouldn't be the average woman though.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes - I use to be 80 lbs. I know, though, that those aren't the ones joining the military and such . . . that's like me making a point trying to use a 6'6" dude as my example of 'why it won't work.'

If he's going to oppose something he needs to be realistic. . . when painting such extremes they never refer to the group of women who are, say, 6'

I agree because I don't think many 90-pound females could pass the physical fitness tests and most certainly could never throw an average-sized person over their shoulder and carry them around. I've seen female firefighters, and they are NOT petite little things. :lol:

I have seen some petite policewomen though.

 

[TiredOfLife]

You may have tools, but that doesn't mean that the physical demands of the job are significantly lighter. Less that tool is a robot that can do all the firefighting for you, then sure there would be no physical requirement. Still the regulations developed as a way of discerning who can do the job and who cannot. The requirements were written for the job. Lessening the requirements because one is a woman undercuts that and is pretty damned insulting.

The requirements are the requirements, and it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if one is male or female. If you can perform, then you should be considered; if you can't, then you should be dismissed. That's the end of it.

If the requirements were based on a false criteria or a false premise, then they are invalid, and I believe that they are. I see no reason why to be a fireman you have to be able to lift a 200 pound beam off of someone? It's nice of course, but they are supposed to know how to put out fires and save the lives of people not in the middle of a raging fire. The hero part, running into a burning building, makes for great TV but is frankly very stupid. We lose a lot of good people that way. If the rule was do CPR or hold this hose and spray down that fire, the girls will have no issues with that at all and that's what it should be. I don't expect a doctor to open his vein to save my life, and I don't expect a fireman to die trying to save me when I'm going to burn. That's frankly too much to ask, and so it the ability to lift a 200 pond beam.

 

[Paschendale]

"Herstory" always made me laugh. The complete lack of relation between "history" and any male pronoun makes complaining about it pretty silly.

 

[Ikari]

If the requirements were based on a false criteria or a false premise, then they are invalid, and I believe that they are. I see no reason why to be a fireman you have to be able to lift a 200 pound beam off of someone? It's nice of course, but they are supposed to know how to put out fires and save the lives of people not in the middle of a raging fire. The hero part, running into a burning building, makes for great TV but is frankly very stupid. We lose a lot of good people that way. If the rule was do CPR or hold this hose and spray down that fire, the girls will have no issues with that at all and that's what it should be. I don't expect a doctor to open his vein to save my life, and I don't expect a fireman to die trying to save me when I'm going to burn. That's frankly too much to ask, and so it the ability to lift a 200 pond beam.

They're based on the criteria of the job and developed organically to best fit the demands of said job. Police, fire, army, etc. those requirements are there because the functionally outline the necessities of the job that could be experienced at any given moment, and these are jobs that you cannot fail at. You fail, people die.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I agree because I don't think many 90-pound females could pass the physical fitness tests and most certainly could never throw an average-sized person over their shoulder and carry them around. I've seen female firefighters, and they are NOT petite little things. :lol:

I have seen some petite policewomen though.

My initial interjection was just a joke, though ****s and giggles.

 

[jimbo]

My initial interjection was just a joke, though ****s and giggles.

And my reference to 90 pound firefighters was perhaps an over reaction to the reference to the tool remark.

 

[TiredOfLife]

They're based on the criteria of the job and developed organically to best fit the demands of said job. Police, fire, army, etc. those requirements are there because the functionally outline the necessities of the job that could be experienced at any given moment, and these are jobs that you cannot fail at. You fail, people die.

You have a lot of faith in how those criteria were developed? They were written by men, maybe rationally maybe not, at a time when the biggest factor was being born with a penis. Times, and tools, and strategies, and the necessity of a penis to do a job change.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, but the strongest woman in the world cannot compete with the strongest man in the world. It's not a sexism thing, it's a biology thing. The fact that someone can take the strongest woman they can find and match them with the weakest man they can find and declare the woman the winner doesn't prove that women, on average, are just as strong as men.

I didn't claim they were. I just said some women could handle the job. I didn't mean the majority or even close to the majority could.

 

[Ikari]

You have a lot of faith in how those criteria were developed? They were written by men, maybe rationally maybe not, at a time when the biggest factor was being born with a penis. Times, and tools, and strategies, and the necessity of a penis, change.

If that were the case than the only restriction would be to have a penis. But it's not. The restrictions are based on realities of the job.