is feminism dead

Women's lib, wasn't about not needing a man, it was about being just as important as one. Do a history search on it. Me personaly, I like being a mans equal, yet I also love it when they get the door for me. Reckon, I'm a happy fence setter.

Like most of the previous posters, I think you may want to check what feminism and women's lib are all about. I don't need a man. I'm single, I support myself and my daughter very well. Would I like to remarry one day? Sure! But I don't need a man to be complete, I know that I'm important and my opinions are as valid as anyone. I'm very capable of standing on my own two feet, and there are many other women just like me out there. Good question, though!

Feminism is about respect and appreciation, not relationships. No one likes to have his or her ideas, values, contributions, etc. overlooked and ignored. Women have traditionally been treated as second class citizens in ancient history. However, there have always been women who have broken through and defied their own times and shown that they could accieve great things. Now society is more balanced in understanding that women can be smart and can accomplish things that add to and benefit our society outside of the home. Relationships are about getting to know others, seeing them as a whole person, respecting and valuing that person for everything that he or she is, and loving them for all that you like in him or her and in spite of all that you dislike about him or her. In a relationship, what makes the person you love happy makes you happy for them as long as that happiness is respectful and not taking advantage of the other. Women can accomplish great things and still have room for a loving relationship with a great guy. A great guy can see all that and isn't offended.

I believe it is more complex then women wanting children on their own. Some women don't want to further their education and have their own jobs. They believe if they can have a man's child then he will support them (she and the child or children). There is a small group of women who love working,traveling and don't want to spend their free time cleaning up after everybody else. After all some women like to have time to be on the golf court,or go to a baseball game. Some men can be equal partner with a woman with the cooking,child care, cleaning and others. Other men feel that because they work then the nights and weekends are theirs to play, watch t.v. or hang out with their friends. The house cleaning and child up-bringing is a woman job. Each person has the right to choose which life style they want. And there are women who are "Super Mom". They have a job and their spare time is doing it all at home with raising children,housework and picking up after the husbands. Back in the old days when a husband die or left the family the mother could not find a job to support her family. Either a woman was not allow to work or she was not allow to get a higher education to get a well-paying job. Read history on the "Glass Ceiling". She clean houses, took in ironing, or became a "Lady of the Night" to try and support her family. Women wasn't allow to work in factories until WWII. After the war,when the men came home,women were expected to give up their job for the men. Again read history. There are many cultures today that believes a woman is not worth anything but to be a man's wife and the mother to his children. "Being all that she can be" is taken away from her. She can be no more then a servent.

men r and always will be an intregal part of a woman,one cant do without the other.

I think no but i like the feticism

The answer is absolutely not. In fact what the article does is attack non-feminists and anti-feminists, whose work is quite minor, instead of talking about the media culture, publishing culture, church culture -- the patriarchy itself which buys and promotes such books and treats them as if they're representative of feminism. While I agree that many of the very minor works that TIME referred to are beside the point, these are not feminist works. There are, however, many feminist works, serious works, that the article does not refer to. You would not have a lawsuit won against Mitsubishi, a win of $35 million, over gender harassment if you didn't have serious feminism. Those ideas are fighting very hard to win some justice for women. In the bibliography to Letters to A Young Feminist, there is a serious bibliography, 1992-1997, where very important works are cited, works such as Joanna Russ' "What Are We Fighting For?" And from my point of view, there's a long history, long before Susan B. Anthony, and those ideas are not discussed in this article. Neither are Betty Friedan's or Gloria Steinem's. What the article focuses on is the silliness, the superficiality of some women, which has always existed. If women could get ahead by flirting, they would rule the world. All of these fantasies, Ally McBeal and worse, are not feminist role models. Just because they say they're bad, that doesn't make them revolutionaries or feminists.

I believe that feminism is still around, it's just not as popular as before. We as women, have been given the choice. We can choose to work or to stay at home. Some of us are chosing to work since financially we cannot stay at home. We are not saying that we need men or that we don't need men, we are saying that we are as important as men. That's all that matters.

ok. just enjoy it.

dont Know

there is no need today

listening to others is good but use yr brains too, treat yr partner with all respect & equality, the last movement wud then just b love & affection

Feminism was originally a good think: equal rights for women, such as preventing discrimination in work force, etc... But it quickly turned into an anti-male thing. Soon, it was about proving how women don't need men at all, and that is complete garbage. So why is it hard for both women and men to have relationships? Because men feel intimidated. The solution, in my opinion, is to open up a discussion that focuses not on a power struggle between the sexes but a partnership and mutual respect. Now it seems like thats gone and it's everybody for themselves.

I think this sounds backwards. I think from what i've heard about women's lib, that it was about not needing a man...

no way

his very survival is on it, you fool! otherwise why would men insist of their children taking their names istead of their mother's? logically if you think, only a child's mother can be traced accurately and not the father, so a child should ideally take its mother's name which is certain. instead men impose their name on the family on the pretext that they are the breadwinners. all shucks! if women got a chance to prove themselves long back, they would definitely have made a the world a much better better place than what men have managed to do. and believe me, our wise old men (centuries back) understood the true potential of women and thus to protect their own gender, they framed such baised rules on various religious pretexts.

women have come a long way.

yes

I hope so

it should be...