A Few Rambunctious Questions

1. I don't think this was feminism's aim. Does patriarchy bring women and men together?
2. Having googled what a shit test is, I won't lower myself answering that.
3. No, but women have wanted financial independence and there has been some progress on that.
4. Define lesbianic (better than the urban dictionary), but lesbians being women, yes they do have a loud voice and rightly so. Many lesbians were at the forefront of the women's movement.
5. A parent, together with my partner.
6. People of intelligence cope.
7. I think many people will revert, but I don't think it would be a useful thing to do.

1. Do you think rambunctious=knobheadish? Fuck off.

1. Feminism is about ending women's oppression; oppressors don't usually like this. Did slavery abolitionism bring slave owners and slaves closer together?

1. This may shock you, but feminism isn't about showing off to men at all. It's about ending women's oppression.

1. As a Marxist feminist, I find this to be a poorly-phrased but actually interesting question. Certainly I believe wage suppression has been pinned on women; however, it would have been just as easy to have responded to the surging women's work force by reducing the number of hours for a "full time" position--in the mid-19th to mid-20th century, the number of hours in a full time worker's week dropped steadily, and most thinkers thought it would continue to. Women are perhaps a convenient scapegoat for the cessation of this trend, but did not themselves create it.

1. Lesbians are critical to feminism and their voices should be heard. I'd actually like to hear more from them, not less.

1. I'm an expectant mother to my future son, and my husband is planning to be a stay at home father. Perhaps if the work week was reduced (see #3), shared parenting and stay at home dads would become significantly more common. There are feminists, usually radical separatists, who would prefer for children to be raised outside of traditional "family" structures, but I do not believe any of them would prefer, say, state foster care as it is currently implemented to a loving family.

1. Did the end of chattel slavery lead to a lot of people who were very confused about their social roles? Yes, it really did. Does that mean it shouldn't have been ended? No, it really doesn't.

1. Another actually interesting question. I believe the answer to be "yes," for the most part. In times of social upheaval, oppression often spikes, and not just on the sex axis. The "woman question"whether female human beings deserve a role in society equal to that of menhas been coming up for centuries and centuries in many, many places. Typically, when the "woman question" is decided in a way that leads to reduced oppression of female human beings, progress is reversed by social upheavals. However, there are exceptions: the Black Death, for instance, led to a couple of generations of increased prosperity and more equal gender roles. Without knowing the exact nature of the social upheavals to come, it is difficult to forecast an answer with any accuracy. I will go with "it will probably lead to more segregated gender roles, unless it involves a large die-off of the male population." Typically, women's roles become more diverse and equalized when men die off (there's a reason suffrage for women kicked off when it did), and more constricted when population surges and people are pushed out of the labor market.

Here we go again!

1. Why should it?
2. No
3. No- but the issue is complex
4. No
5. Daft question
6. Not people with brains, no
7. Hypothetical- who knows?

I don't think rambunctious means what you think it means.

1. What do you think?
2. What do you think?
3. What do you think?
4. What's "lesbianic"?
5. What do you think?
6. What do you think?
7. What do you think?