Seems to be my lot in life that men want me for my house. No one wants me for my brains, my cooking skills, or my sexual appetite.

Hey I have a house too dammit.

More like a shack.

Oh well now that you mention all those other qualities.......LOL.

I like playing the needy insufficient girl, that way I know I am not being used when they find out how RICH I AM> AHAAAHAAHAA

Hey I have a house too dammit.

More like a shack.

I disagree with most of this.

It is an old fashioned ideal that is not feasible for most women of today.

It is not a me me thing. It is a better me takes better care of everyone kinda thing.

I think, by and large, women today are not only granted much more equality to men, but also regard themselves as equals to men much more than when I was a child during the '70s. I think we have made great strides.

The equal pay issue is disheartening, but there are also other segments of the work force that do not receive fair pay either. The lower and lower middle classes often have to work longer hours at a faster pace for less money, especially in service industries. Meanwhile, they are trying to balance school, family, a tight budget, and personal time. Point is, some employers are always going to find excuses to underpay workers just so they can pocket a greater chunk of change themselves. All people should be paid according to their merit, regardless of gender, education, or experience. If a worker can consistently perform the job at a higher level than his/her peers, that worker is more valuable to the employer. Hence, that worker should make more than his/her peers as a reward, and to reflect how valuable s/he is.

The problem I have seen in the feminist movement has been that as women have become more equal in society, there are fewer women involved with the feminist movement. What this means is that, many of those who remain involved are more radical, outspoken, and domineering. At least, this has been my personal experience, the experience of people I have known from both genders, and from articles written by more moderate feminists taking exception to the direction feminism was heading in.

Professors of Women's Studies at Smith College (which I have visited several times, and where my friend Candice went to college) have been accused of coercion and brainwashing students. These accusations were leveled by students, alumni, and moderate leaders of the feminist movement. Personally, I had few problems when I visited Smith. The students and I got along well, and we had some great discussions. There were a few I noticed were a bit uptight, but even they managed to get along with me. Having had friends from Mt. Holyoke College, I heard a few gripes about Smith College's Women Studies being a bit too extreme. I never saw it, but after visiting Wellesley College, I began to realize the Mt. Holyoke women were probably right.

Wellesley, at the time (early '90s), had some Gestapo-like policies against men. I didn't get the chance to interact with students there on any real level, so I never found out if the policies were justified due to local events or not. All I knew was that their policies gave me the creeps. I was only there for a debate tournament, and it was during the Anita Hill - Clarence Thomas hearings. (From some colleges and universities, entire van loads of guys would go to an all-women's college looking for an easy score. Being outside of Boston, I would guess Wellesley had its share of incidents. At Smith and Mt. Holyoke, guys would drive down from Dartmouth looking to get laid.)

And then there were my own experiences at Colby College. There are a number of stories I could tell. I personally knew some of the leaders of the campus feminist movement, primarily the President of the Women's Group and the Dean of Students. Some of what went on was just plain over-reaction. Some was justified. Some of it was one person within the administration (like the adviser of the Women's Group) ramming an idea or policy through despite students' - including the Women's Group - objections.

Just one person focused on a personal agenda can be dangerous when placed within a position of power. From my experiences, it is such people that were seizing control of the feminist movement during the '90s, but many of them were doing their work out of view from the public eye.

Since then, we have had a few media people who have used their position to further the feminist cause. Some of them had received a backlash (like Rosie O'Donnell), and others have been more-or-less accepted (like Whoopie Goldberg). And then their are the ones where there is a big split along gender lines (like Oprah Winfrey). In my view, except for a few, most media feminists are not as radical as what I encountered on college campuses during the '90s.

Ann Coulter can come across as a radical feminist (perhaps she is), but she also admits to being a polemicist, stirring the pot to create discussion and debate of issues she has a view on.

Arianna Huffington is another feminist in the media who tends to stir the pot, most often from a perspective opposite to Ann Coulter, though she tends to flip-flop a bit.

These two women are often regarded as anti-feminists though. That's because there is a camp within the feminist movement which resent how the two represent themselves. The image presented is not how some feminists want to be received. Other feminists simply do not agree with the beliefs these two women espouse. Both, however, are a product of the feminist movement, and both use the media to spread their beliefs, especially on political issues.

Basically, moderate feminists need to organize and have their voices heard so as to drown out the ones who shout loudest and misrepresent the majority of women. It all begins on the college campuses. Soon there will a changing of the guard because those who are prominent, or have been prominent, are aging and withdrawing from the limelight. I have only named a small portion of high-profile feminists to use as examples. There are many others, and they range all over the the spectrum of belief. At one point the radical women needed to lead to the average woman could have her voice heard. Feminism has moved past that stage. Now it's time for the women's movement to become more centered so it can better represent women as a whole, at least within the U.S - which has been my focus here. Feminists are already beginning to fracture into different camps. If the moderates don't assume the mantle, they will become polarized and begin to work against each other. That alone could begin to undo what as been achieved, as resentment takes root and vultures beginning picking feminism apart. Is that what the average woman really wants?

Just my two cents from how I have seen things within my isolated portion of the world.

The Tibetan word for ego is Dak Dzin. Dak means “self” and Dzin “to grasp”, and put together it means grasping at a self. In particular, the teachings say that it refers to grasping at or identifying with a false sense of self.

The Chopra Center www.chopra/node/1462
Our true Self may be perfect with respect to its essential nature, but until it is fully cognizant of it’s oneness with the wholeness of the cosmos, it is still lacking in self-knowledge. This lack of awareness is represented by the ego’s mistaken notion that it is our real self, our identity.

True realization is letting go of ego

Why are you assuming we're all feminists? And why are you assuming those who aren't thin they're inferior to men?

Two questions for the women here:
How many women here consider themselves to be feminists? How many women agree with Spider?

The Tibetan word for ego is Dak Dzin. Dak means “self” and Dzin “to grasp”, and put together it means grasping at a self. In particular, the teachings say that it refers to grasping at or identifying with a false sense of self.

The Chopra Center www.chopra/node/1462
Our true Self may be perfect with respect to its essential nature, but until it is fully cognizant of it’s oneness with the wholeness of the cosmos, it is still lacking in self-knowledge. This lack of awareness is represented by the ego’s mistaken notion that it is our real self, our identity.

True realization is letting go of ego

Are we taking this personally? Shouldn't do that.

Not at all...why would you ask? I have been all roles to my children.

I did not say they were "underneath" these women, I said they do not stand on their own, which is factual and they are vulnerable to being discarded at any time which makes the role itself precarious.

No women is less than any other woman, they just make better choices.

Are we taking this personally? Shouldn't do that.

I did not say they were "underneath" these women, I said they do not stand on their own, which is factual and they are vulnerable to being discarded at any time which makes the role itself precarious.

No women is less than any other woman, they just make better choices.

I get what you are saying. My mom is a prime example of what youa re talking about. Because she couldn`t stand on her own, or make her own money; she put herself and us kids through years of abuse by my dad. I vowed never to be like her and have my own career so that I would have the chance to walk away from a horrible relationship that she had with no way out. So I certainly understand about standing on your own and making better choices. I would never want to be like my mom.

Not a stand alone identity though, which is dangerous for them when their identity givers leave them.

who has one 'stand alone' identity?

Actually I do have "stand alone" identity. I renovated my house, paid my own bills, went through unemployment, and even a bout of depression. I had no family, friends, employers, or counselors to lean on or turn to. So, yes I did stand completely alone. Ont he other hand; my mom couldn't even go to my neighbor to ask for help as she simply didn't know how to do this. My dad made her feel like she was nothing but a complete waste of space. She had no survival extinct and let my dad abuse all of us. If only she had the knowledge that women do now; I think her life and ours would have been a heck of a lot better.

who has one 'stand alone' identity?

we are someone's sister, someone's friend, someone's daughter, someone's wife, and all these identities are substantial on their own.

I think it is illogical to equate independence(personal identity) with income. The two have little to do with each other.

An independent person knows what they need and how to get it. Sometimes that may require knowing who to turn to as well. Some turn to an employer, some have a partner to turn to, how are either situations anymore 'independent' than the other.

A spouse can discard us, but so can an employer. But noone can take away our survival instinct or knowledge which calls for us to be able to adjust to either situation.

and many like you who have noone to turn to are likewise 'independent' and 'stand alone' personalities even if they have no 'income'


most who claim those women are not 'independent' are fortunate enough to have resources and people that they take for granted as part of their 'identity'

I have a stand alone identity. It allows me to stand alone and be perfectly okay.

It is not the same if your employer lets you go and your man. If you are employed finding another job is easy. If your man dumps you not only will you not have the means to find another man but you are not employable because you were not working...

LOL this is funny to me.

HUH?

So you are saying that she stood alone with no income?
And that women who claim to be independent are taking their support system for granted as dependence?