misogynism disguised as feminism

I'll give YOU a "believe it or not" that is based on reality, not gender based bias and hysteria.

Camargue, have an independent reader, read your post and then mine and ask which one sounds the most hysterical.

My, such wisdom! Such depth of understanding! Without a doubt, men were "a certain way" in the 1950.s and have completely changed their "ways" and their "character" and their "methods."

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you implying that there has been no change in attitudes towards women since the 1950's? Well, perhaps in rural America, which is where you appear to be from, the gender stereotypes are still in tact. Elsewhere there has been a marked change, I assure you.

My grandfather was a wheeltapper at Newcastle Central Station (N-E England) and yet managed to educate his daughters at college so that they could become teachers. People ridiculed him. "What was the point?" they asked. After all, the girls would only get married and have to leave their jobs. What a waste of money! He was of the opinion that if his girls had an education, no-one could "muck them about!". He was right.

What he gave my mother and my aunts was a choice. The 1944 Education Act meant that my mother got her £40 college fees returned. This was about a fifth of my grandfather's annual income. By the time she was married in 1951, the law had changed and she didn't have to give up her job.

Choice is the important word here. The Bletchley women had none. They had to return to a life which, for them, was suffocatingly tedious and unfulfilling. Today, women have a choice and a voice. The woman's lot is by no means as good as that of men, even today. That's why I said that I did not believe we were 'post-feminism'. But, anyone who could possibly believe that there has not been a seismic shift in the way women are treated today, as opposed to 60 years ago, is stuck in a time-warp!

So much for the 'gender-based hysteria' accusation.
Point 2.

I know exactly why people, men and women, had to keep quiet about Bletchley Park. That is irrelevant. After the war, the women were seen as being no longer useful - go back home dear and have babies.

Point 3.

Another thing you also seem to not know is that OFTEN times their spouses also worked in intelligence and also could not speak.

And you made that assumption on what basis exactly?

Point 4.

You are only interested in a childish desire to "be important" and if that means "by bragging" then that is taking a small approach and exhibits zero understanding of actual situations.

Another grotesquely sweeping statement, formulated on the basis of zero evidence.

And so to your next point.
The hard-working men in your family.

You may have NO respect for men of that era,

Another accusation out of the blue!

It took WWI, where my grandfather was shot through the head and blinded in one eye, to free the British people from almost feudal working conditions and to start giving women a voice. The women had taken over in the factories while the men were being blown up! When the men came back, the women went back to their domestic role. Women soon after got the vote. The genie was half way out of the bottle. But, it was squashed back in.

It took WWII to confirm that women were just as capable as men at taking on, just about, any role. They had a right to be educated, work and rise to respected positions and treated as if they were an individual and not just someone's wife. It took a long, hard struggle and it continues.

You look back at the men in your family, with the respect and love they deserve and I do too. I respect my grandfather for being one of the first 'Women's Libbers'. When his heavily pregnant wife found it hard to do the chores, he rolled his shirt sleeves up and went out into the street to wash the windows, the door and the step. "Come in Joe, you're shaming me in front of the neighbours!" my grandmother yelled. "I don't give a bugger!" he shouted back. He went to hear Ellen Wilkinson speak and cheered every word. He was there to wave the Jarrow Marchers off. He worked every hour he could to educate his girls so that no-one could "muck them about".

Finally:

And, it was NOT a one way street (I swear I don't know where your goofy notions come from; we do not have one perfect gender that gives, and one horrid gender of stinkers who do nothing but take

I said "Men back then, believe it or not, were (by today's standards) misogynistic d!ck-heads." Men as a general rule, back then, saw a woman's place as being in the home. The men in your family had no choice but to work every hour God sent. The women had no choice but to stay at home, washing the shirt your father and grandfather wore to church on Sunday, bringing up the children, cooking and cleaning and relying on their 'generosity' to buy anything they wanted.

Women may have been treated with respect by the men in your family. In many families they were treated like indentured servants, whose terms were 'til death do us part'. It is no surprise that the divorce rate went up by 100% after the war. Many women who had had their own, independent lives, with money in their pocket for six, long years were not going to be dictated to, in a paternalistic way, any more. Some were delighted that their men were back and they could return to domesticity. But, that was their choice.

The OP, perhaps, meant 'misandry' disguised as feminism. I feel that if a woman wants to be loved, respected and take on the role of mother, wife and home-maker (a position that should be lauded, far more than it is) then, more power to her elbow. If, however she wishes to have a different kind of fulfillment in life, then who are we to gainsay that ambition?


Now, if you wish to take issue, with anything I have said:
a) Read what I have said.
b) Don't make assumptions without reference to something I have said.
c) Turn off the Caps Lock - you sound hysterical.

reply share

add reply

formatting help