Does feminism increase abuse?

I was talking to one of my friends, and she was wondering if feminism is affecting marriages negatively.

She phrased it sorta in this way: "Men like to have control of a household and relationships. Because women are moving away from traditional roles and taking more control, are men getting frustrated by their loss of control and abusing their wives more?"

Also: "Since society is allowing little girls to dress more inappropriately, does that fuel men's sexual desires even more, and does that contribute to abuse?"

Also: "Is there much more abuse than there was before, or was it just more "kept under the covers" before?" (before meaning "years and years ago")


And to spice things up, "Does abuse increase feminism?" Would an abused woman be more prone to feminism, and be more likely to say "I want the control. I don't want a guy to control me any more."

It's my friend talking, not me.

I think feminism hurts a marriage the same way that chauvenism does. Bad attitudes don't help anything.

Militant feminism, fundie religion, both tell you your penis is evil.

This the same friend whose parents are uberstrict?

Well...it is!

Exactly. Which is why Tamar and her cronies belong to the Evil Manly Parts cult.

I think you ought to reconsider which side of the table is more evil.

A woman that doesn't know her place brings the abuse on herself. If she would just have the house clean, dinner cooked, the laundry done, and be ready to take a couple of romps around the bed, then hubby wouldn't have to "knock some sense into her".

1)Women who have interests other than serving anyone besides themselves are far less likely to be abused, or put up with it for too long once they see it for what it is.

2)No, it just means people don't give a shit about what their children wear. A man is going to abuse someone with low self-esteem if they wear slutty clothing or a potato sack.

3)Point three I do agree with. People took the "Till death do us part" line in the wedding vowels pretty seriously. In many ways, that was a good thing, but in some cases, not so much. Women felt more pressure to keep a fake ass smile on their faces and ever express what they really feel and call a spade a spade.

Nowadays, abused women CAN be taken seriously and get the help she needs for herself and any children involved. There's no big shame in being divorced now, so abused women have a better oppotunity to get out a bad situation these days and speak up against it (Sadly, a lot don't, but that's a different issue entirely).

4) Feminist =/= Feminazi. At least, it shouldn't have to these days. It made sense to take things to the way extreme in the sevenites to prove a point (much like the attitudes of "Free love"), but now I think people need to find a middle point. I can't stand the Feminazis who assume that any and every housewife who puts the family needs above having a career is a brainless idiot or being abused (Not the life for me, but can't knock it till I try it. ).

Friend is asking:

If a woman tries to take over a relationship, is a man most likely to a) abuse her b) cheat or 3) divorce?


I think he's most likely to leave, maybe cheat.

My friend has been overthinking.

It really depends on the man and woman involved. If the man is sensible, he'll leave that bitch, because no one should have dominance in a relationship--that defeats the purpose. If he's crazy, he'll beat her. If he's cowardly or has low self-esteem, he'll either go along with it or cheat on her.

Yay!

What does she mean by "take over the relationship"?

Gee, how about fucking communication?

Y'know, like "look, woman, this is gonna be a long fucking haul if we're gonna be arm wrestling over boss status, how about we drop that powerplay crap, and just alternate chores or something?".

I dunno, anything. Long as it's talk.

But, maybe you and your cynical pal are saying that most guys are assholes, and fit into A,B,3.

Probably B) and 3).

She means "Whatever she says goes, and if she doesn't want to have sex on a certain night, the guy's gotta wait until she feels like it. She might be making more money than the man (or the same amount) but she'll be more controlling over the finances. She'll have a viewpoint of "I'm going to make almost all the decisions in a relationship, because I can't let a man control me."

Basically, a stupid woman.

She'd decide the kids' schools, church, everything.

Sounds like one hell of a stupid, abusive woman to me.

She basically declares from the beginning that she is in control, and that everything should go by her before any decision is made.

Basically, my friend's dad... but in a woman version.

I said b) and 3) ??

A good marriage is a partnership. If either side decides everything unilaterally, there'll be trouble.

*Cough* post 17 *cough*

My friend thinks the trick to a good marriage might (I'm saying might) be for both to have equal control over the relationship, but to let the man think he's got more control than the woman.

And she's swearing up and down that she's not a feminist! But I read her Baba's thread title about tying the tubes of all welfare women, and the first thing she said was "Give the men vasectomies!"

It's got my vote.

Neuter 'em both!

Does she realize that the woman would still be able to get pregnant if just her husband had his tubes tied, but not her? I mean it's not like welfare women have sex with just one guy.

Well, if we give all welfare guys vasectomies, women would have to cheat with slightly wealthy men to get pregnant, and then they could get child support out of it, which beats welfare, so it would be a way to get... I lost where I was going with this.