Feminism Killed Women’s “Old-Fashioned� Sense of Responsibil

[AtroposHeart]

In discussing the rise of “the single girl†in the sixties, the book “For Her Own Good†discusses “assertiveness training†as a tool to, in theory, make women come out of their shells and be equal with men, but in practice, and as you will see, it looks more like one of the millions of building blocks that made the modern women the heartless women they are today.

Assertiveness training, like popular psychology generally, is meant to be applied to all situations–work, sexual relationships, friendships. One assertiveness-training book opens with the following illustration of how to be “assertive†with a woman friend: In the story, “you†are at home alone, the housework done. You have some free time-two hours “just for yourself.†Then the phone rings. It’s a friend asking if you would please, as a very special favor, watch her two-year old daughter Alison for the morning while she goes out to a meeting. You have a “familiar sinking feeling in your stomach.†You really wanted those two hours for yourself:

If you were non-assertive you could simply deny your own wishes, and agree to care for Alison: “Well, I was going to do something else, but it really doesn’t matter. O.K., bring her over.â€

Or you could say, assertively, “I know it’s a drag to take Alison with you, but I’ve set aside two hours for myself this morning, so I won’t be able to take her today.â€

The book promises to help you learn to do what you want to do. Neatly evaded is the annoying question of what is right to do. There is no room here for you to balance Alison’s mother’s need to go to the meeting against your need to have two hours alone; nor of Alison’s mother’s relative hardships against your own. The only possible reason to take are of Alison is because you want to do it (which in fact the author assumes you don’t). The acknowledgement, “I know its a drag to take Alison with you†is nothing but a psychological “technique†intended to make the friend feel that you sympathize, even as you refuse to help. One is left to wonder what will become of Alison’s mother when she arrives at her meeting, child in tow, only to be told–assertively–that they really don’t want children at meetings any more.

But in the dog-eat-dog sexual marketplace no woman can afford an old-fashioned sense of responsibility to other women.

The sentence I made bold says it all. This is why women don’t get along, why there are catfights, caddiness, competition, backstabbing, gossiping, you name it–women no longer have a sense of “old-fashioned†responsibility to other women. Above all else the self matters. Assertiveness training wiped out or masked that annoying voice that says “what is right to do†and replaced it with “what I want to doâ€. I think women are masters of the technique that pretends to sympathize when they really don’t care–its called being fake. The new, modern version of responsibility to other women is wrapped up in feminism, through domestic violence and rape awareness, the right to “choose†and birth control, convincing other women there is a “war on womenâ€. This is how women are responsible to other women and if they can convince a woman that there is a “war on womenâ€, that they are oppressed, to sign up for a women’s studies course, or to be weary of men, then they pat themselves on the back and feel they did their moral duty.

Furthermore, if women can’t acknowledge or act on “old-fashioned†duty to other women (meaning simply lending a helping hand; selflessness), then what sort of responsibility do they feel they owe to men?

unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/feminism-killed-womens-old-fashioned-sense-of-responsibility-to-other-women/

[mockingbird]

Ugh, this drives me nuts. I feel like this is still a pretty common view in mainstream culture too. I have had (women) friends ask me if it is ok to stand up for themselves, or be direct about something in a relationship that is bothering them, because they do not want to be "mean" to the other person. It just makes me so sad. Society taught them that women should always be gracious and defer to other people and never put herself first but assertiveness is not being mean, and you are not going to be happy if you don't consider your needs, too.

[lilah]

ahh another pitiful attempt for Laura Grace (previously of "Full of Grace, seasoned with salt") to try and analyze anything.

She's an odd fundie, she blogs about anti-feminism issues only. Never talks about her own life but has mentioned she's married and supports her deadbeat husband and has no kids. I suspect she's bitter that the feminists for robbing her of a happy christian homemaking lifestyle.

[JesusFightClub]

The "non-assertive" response, which presumably she prefers, is actually passive-aggressive. Bit sigh of the martyr, isn't it?

There are loads of ways round this anyway. My preferred option is what us evil commies do, which is when we hold a meeting, and we think there's going to be a need for childcare, we organise it beforehand. Presumably Alison's mum is not the only person with children at this meeting?

Another way would be to say "Sure, I will take Alison today. Unfortunately when you go to the meeting next week I'm really not going to be able to take her. I have something on." That way you help your friend and set a boundary. She doesn't need to know that something is baking a lesbian cake and painting your toenails while watching the Jeremy Kyle show, or whatever the leisure activity of your choice may be.

This is weird, too:

I think women are masters of the technique that pretends to sympathize when they really don’t care–its called being fake.

No it's not, it's called being nice to your mate. What would be better, to say "I don't give a fuck that you're going to the stupid meeting. I don't approve of that group's politics/religion otherwise I would be there myself, you daft cow. And I have never liked Alison since she scribbled on my walls and I could NOT get that shit off and had to repaint"?

Most normal people do sympathise with other people in a predicament. In that case I might be thinking "Oh, poor her, I hope she finds someone to watch the wean. I just really can't, I'm pushed to the limit at the moment." All of those feelings would be real, none of them would be made up. And even if I was thinking something along the lines of the first rant, I hope, however "fake" it is, I'd have the decency not to say it.

[mkitten]

JFC, as usual, you've hit the nail on the head. If I had a friend who had a meetin or a class or something and was in a bind for childcare, of course I would I help her out by providing childcare. I am very assertive, but I'm neither an asshole nor a doormat. Just another example of a fundie standing on their soapbox screaming Lookit me! Aren't I great? Assholes.

[Claddagh]

The "non-assertive" response, which presumably she prefers, is actually passive-aggressive. Bit sigh of the martyr, isn't it?

Thank you! I was thinking the same thing and then thought "get off the cross!"

If one wants to get technical the woman with two free hours doesn't "owe" said friend the time to watch the child. There's a difference between being nice and feeling forced into feeling like you've got to do something.

I especially laughed at her entry about women's suffrage and the video link she posted.

[Witsec7]

ahh another pitiful attempt for Laura Grace (previously of "Full of Grace, seasoned with salt") to try and analyze anything.

She's an odd fundie, she blogs about anti-feminism issues only. Never talks about her own life but has mentioned she's married and supports her deadbeat husband and has no kids. I suspect she's bitter that the feminists for robbing her of a happy christian homemaking lifestyle.

She has to support her husband because some feminist sliced his balls off right before she took his job.

[MamaJunebug]

Doesn't occur to her that the woman who was anticipating her two free hours really *needed* those two free hours?

I'm writing this under the beautiful gaze of BigMJB's post-wedding photo. She had a sister who was a wretched individual, always making trouble while asserting that she was the blessing of the family. My mom was good-hearted by nature and - being born in the mid-1920s - had only the nuns' and priests' counsel "to be a good girl, selfless, helpful."

Well, eventually, BigMJB figured it out. When her sister phoned and expected Mom to amuse her, Mom would say evenly, "You called me, if there's nothing pressing, I've got stuff to do. TTYL." When her sister would drop in with a rag or two (almost literally) she got from a garage sale as a big-deal gift for Mom, instead of graciously accepting it, Mom would give it a look-see and hand it back. "I don't need it. You can have it."

Sounds like very little things but they added up to a much happier, balanced Mom in her last years. Best part was that we Boomer Junebugs watched this and learned that it was okay to assert, especially when your needs were pressing, or when you suspected someone of attempting to take advantage. Which the friend who needed two hours of childcare for her meeting could have been.

The blogger needs to be schooled. Does she accept comments?

ETA: I think it's not "responsibility" we refuse, but unthinking doormatness and adherence to rules that don't make sense, and I think JESUS killed [sic] that when He instructed numerous folks about behavior: Don't just watch a cow die in a bog on the Sabbath, save it; don't starve yourself on the holy day, have a nosh; don't worry about getting the dinner just-so when you have The Ultimate Teacher in the house, teaching; don't summarily dismiss children because you've been taught it's cool to stone them for sassing, but love and respect them as immature members of God's creation.

Feminism teaches responsibilty: determine your own strengths and weaknesses, talents and abilities and make the most of them, without adherence to gender rules that don't make sense.

[swissbeauty]

OH GOOD GRIEF

So if you're not being a total subservient doormat, you're suddenly a bad person?

Why does the world exist for these types of people in black and white? Why are there no gray areas? I mean, if life really WERE so black and white, you'd think it'd be a hell of a lot easier to navigate!

And then she has the nerve (and absolute ignorance) to blame cattiness, competitiveness and power-struggles between women on FEMINISM?

It makes no logical sense. None of it. My brain cannot and refuses to compute this utter nonsense. :snooty:

[swissbeauty]

Ugh, this drives me nuts. I feel like this is still a pretty common view in mainstream culture too. I have had (women) friends ask me if it is ok to stand up for themselves, or be direct about something in a relationship that is bothering them, because they do not want to be "mean" to the other person. It just makes me so sad. Society taught them that women should always be gracious and defer to other people and never put herself first but assertiveness is not being mean, and you are not going to be happy if you don't consider your needs, too.

In my opinion, one of the REAL underlying reasons for "cattiness" and meanness between women (besides well, the fact that a lot of people simply don't get along regardless of gender) is the fact that we are expected to keep sweet, "be nice", be polite, don't be a "bitch". Help everyone, no questions asked.

So a lot of women, and young girls especially (the "mean girl" syndrome), become passive-aggressive and sneaky. They learn to sugarcoat everything and put on an image of perfection, when really they're hiding anger, resentment and frustrations.

[Minerva]

This is why women don’t get along, why there are catfights, caddiness, competition, backstabbing, gossiping, you name it–women no longer have a sense of “old-fashioned†responsibility to other women.

Pretty sure all this stuff happened before feminism, too. And it's spelled cattiness, dumbass.

[Austin]

The "non-assertive" response, which presumably she prefers, is actually passive-aggressive. Bit sigh of the martyr, isn't it?

There are loads of ways round this anyway. My preferred option is what us evil commies do, which is when we hold a meeting, and we think there's going to be a need for childcare, we organise it beforehand. Presumably Alison's mum is not the only person with children at this meeting?

Another way would be to say "Sure, I will take Alison today. Unfortunately when you go to the meeting next week I'm really not going to be able to take her. I have something on." That way you help your friend and set a boundary. She doesn't need to know that something is baking a lesbian cake and painting your toenails while watching the Jeremy Kyle show, or whatever the leisure activity of your choice may be.

This is weird, too:

No it's not, it's called being nice to your mate. What would be better, to say "I don't give a fuck that you're going to the stupid meeting. I don't approve of that group's politics/religion otherwise I would be there myself, you daft cow. And I have never liked Alison since she scribbled on my walls and I could NOT get that shit off and had to repaint"?

Most normal people do sympathise with other people in a predicament. In that case I might be thinking "Oh, poor her, I hope she finds someone to watch the wean. I just really can't, I'm pushed to the limit at the moment." All of those feelings would be real, none of them would be made up. And even if I was thinking something along the lines of the first rant, I hope, however "fake" it is, I'd have the decency not to say it.

I love these situations filtered through your brain, JFC. I think you should do much more of this. :D Spot on!

[Conuly]

In normal circumstances, isn't this woman more likely to be bitching about people who ditch* the responsibility of watching their children on other people, with or without advance warning? If they're not okay with women letting others watch their kids so they can earn the money to keep a roof over their heads (or even just get out of the house regularly and preserve their sanity), why is it suddenly every woman's responsibility to watch their friends' kids so they can go to a vaguely defined "meeting" at the drop of a hat? I mean, shit, just a few posts down she talks about how it's wrong for women to expect men to pick up the slack with watching their OWN children, but now it's okay to just expect your friends to do it for free, all the time?

* Presumably her feelings, no matter what the reason for asking for a babysitter/full-time nanny/daycare referral.

[Three and Done]

The "non-assertive" response, which presumably she prefers, is actually passive-aggressive. Bit sigh of the martyr, isn't it?

There are loads of ways round this anyway. My preferred option is what us evil commies do, which is when we hold a meeting, and we think there's going to be a need for childcare, we organise it beforehand. Presumably Alison's mum is not the only person with children at this meeting?

Another way would be to say "Sure, I will take Alison today. Unfortunately when you go to the meeting next week I'm really not going to be able to take her. I have something on." That way you help your friend and set a boundary. She doesn't need to know that something is baking a lesbian cake and painting your toenails while watching the Jeremy Kyle show, or whatever the leisure activity of your choice may be.

This is weird, too:

No it's not, it's called being nice to your mate. What would be better, to say "I don't give a fuck that you're going to the stupid meeting. I don't approve of that group's politics/religion otherwise I would be there myself, you daft cow. And I have never liked Alison since she scribbled on my walls and I could NOT get that shit off and had to repaint"?

Most normal people do sympathise with other people in a predicament. In that case I might be thinking "Oh, poor her, I hope she finds someone to watch the wean. I just really can't, I'm pushed to the limit at the moment." All of those feelings would be real, none of them would be made up. And even if I was thinking something along the lines of the first rant, I hope, however "fake" it is, I'd have the decency not to say it.

I love you, JFC!

[rock_girl]

Furthermore, if women can’t acknowledge or act on “old-fashioned†duty to other women (meaning simply lending a helping hand; selflessness), then what sort of responsibility do they feel they owe to men?

The last bit really annoys me. Women don't owe men anything. In fact, there are plenty of men out there who need to hear from women that they're worthless sacks of flesh and they need to bugger off. But of course those men never hear it because women are supposed to be nice and sweet all that rubbish. So they continue on thinking that those of us who do sneer at their unwanted attention are bitches and dumb sluts and all the other stuff I hear on a regular basis.

We really need an international 'tell the creep he's actually a creep' day.

[awmom]

In normal circumstances, isn't this woman more likely to be bitching about people who ditch* the responsibility of watching their children on other people, with or without advance warning? If they're not okay with women letting others watch their kids so they can earn the money to keep a roof over their heads (or even just get out of the house regularly and preserve their sanity), why is it suddenly every woman's responsibility to watch their friends' kids so they can go to a vaguely defined "meeting" at the drop of a hat? I mean, shit, just a few posts down she talks about how it's wrong for women to expect men to pick up the slack with watching their OWN children, but now it's okay to just expect your friends to do it for free, all the time?

* Presumably her feelings, no matter what the reason for asking for a babysitter/full-time nanny/daycare referral.

This is exactly the point! The underlying message is that you can't expect your piece of shit husband to neglect his bible study in order to help you with the kids so your female friends should be available at the drop of a hat instead! The whole "women owe each other selfless and unquestioning assistance with childcare etc." is just code for "I can't count on my husband and I'm not allowed to say so or (gasp!) be angry about it so I'm going to be angry at all the selfish feminist bitches who think they're entitled to hours to themselves when I need help with my kids!" Um, who exactly is being "irresponsible" in this scenario?

[Sola]

JFC, why are you not on the facebook group? You need to be, really.

[debrand]

Because most of my family are super conservatives, I would LOVE to connect with JFC if she ever gets a facebook account.

My question is what mother would want an unwilling person to care for their child? The babysitter's stress will be felt by the poor kid. Also, why isn't the mother offering to pay or at least do some service for the babysitter? I've made arrangement with other couples to care for my children in return for my taking care of their kids. And how long did the mother know about the upcoming meeting? Why didn't she make arrangements beforehand?

[JesusFightClub]

Thank you guys, I get very confused by Facebook unfortunately :lol: I've got one and the only people who ever talk to me are ex-Provos and Mexican Stalinists. :oops:

I realised I have a copy of that book! I found it while moving house today. It's a good book (don't agree with that part, but generally) and I would recommend it to FJists, if you haven't read it. There are some strange conclusions and it's rather dated but it's very feminist and opposing patriarchy. Some of the arguments are really relevant for nowadays.