My daddy always told me...... by SignyM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Damn right. Women need to EARN that seed!

J/k

I actually agree with what you just said. Will wonders never cease?

Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too."

But it's a job that can be done by men as well as women.

By rough numbers: most people had mothers who were less nurturing than their fathers.

***************************************************************

And Wulf, if that is one of your issues, it's way past time to get the frak over it. It puts you in the same boat as most of everyone else.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Why are there no women in the Double-0 section?
Eh?
Answer me that, Miss Signyfeminazi!*

* U know I'm playin' here

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, to get back to reproductive strategies... Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids.

Really.

In species where the young need two adults in contant attendance (many birds, humans) you will often find equal ratios of males to females. Why?
'cause the guys are just as important gathering food for the young.

Species where the young don't need two adults in attendance (most herd animals) you'll find the ratio very heavily skewed towards females. Why? Because excess males... males that don't directly provide for the young... are just a drag on local resources. All of that stuff about alpha males? It's just a way to get rid of those beer-drinking couch potatoes by making them fight each other until a whole bunch go off in a huff.

Honest!

ETA: Maybe I just answered your question, Laughingisall!

[joke] Men are so... yesterday! [/joke]

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:54 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"And Wulf, if that is one of your issues, it's way past time to get the frak over it. It puts you in the same boat as most of everyone else."

Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids."

Since you didn't mention this, I thought I'd put it in for others: it doesn't matter how 'fit' you are - in terms of evolution, sterility negates virility. But even more, it isn't even about how many you spawn - in terms of evolution, dead young ones won't carry your family tradition, or you genes.

It's about how many of your young SURVIVE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUNG OF THEIR OWN.

Otherwise --- game over.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:58 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?"

I AM playing nice. It's the truest and most helpful thing you'll ever get from anyone.

Or, in a more extended version: as long as you define who you are by the things that were done to you, you will never get over them - and you will never grow up to be a free adult.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:18 AM

BYTEMITE

Didn't Wulf just agree with the thread topic about women being viable members of the workforce?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But is working at home and raising kids exclusively "women's work"? And if it's so gorram important, how come nobody gets paid for it?

Anyway, I think the importance of having children is waaaay overplayed. With 6 billion of us around, it's not like we're going extinct any time in the near future. And for those who think having children in some kind of womanly duty... birth rates always fall with urbanization. ALWAYS. Doesn't seem to matter if the cities are in socalizied economies, oligarchies, or capitalist economies. So if you really want to know the enemy of that "tradition" look towards technology, not feminism.

Just trying to move the conversation to theory isall.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:47 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

ETA: Maybe I just answered your question, Laughingisall!

[joke] Men are so... yesterday! [/joke]

Women are people. Men are people with added aggression.
That's mainly why, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ergo, if we want to become a more peaceful society we should....

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:55 AM

CHRISISALL

...that's right, withhold sex until we stop fighting!

The Italian-movie-watching Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:18 PM

BYTEMITE

Ooh, I do hear you, SignyM. Growing up a non-mormon in Salt Lake City with no intentions to marry and have children... The social expectations are almost cruel around here.

They pressure kids into marrying when they're just out of high school around here; seriously, pressure! Kids didn't really want to, but parents and family just keep pushing and pushing at them until they had to give in and find themselves a spouse.

Thank goodness I have good reason, though some people I meet still try it on me... It's nice to be supported and respected for your lifestyle choices, isn't it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
...that's right, withhold sex until we stop fighting

The Goddess Kali smiles upon you!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTEMITE- Yeah, it's amazing what social pressure can do!!!!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... seriously, pressure!"

Oh great. Now I have the song going through my head ...

PRESSURE !
Under pressure ...
Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:30 PM

Chris, I'm afraid you just invented the rapeocracy.

Meanwhile, I'm chalking up feminism, along with 2nd amendment, abortion, and gaza as locations of landmines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Landmines?

Are they to be avoided? Or... set off deliberately?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:57 PM

siggie, depends who you are :)

I think they're planted deliberately, but I intend to avoid them.

I can deconstruct feminism, but I should get into an argument with self-defined feminists who I would term "female empowerment people" vs. what i would term "female supremacists" which is what I would call the old school, but rather, I should make that deconstruction on a site or a book, and then debate it from there.

It's not that I don't want the counter input, I get tons, but that a pointless fight would ensue.

Lemme give you another classic landmine example that I'm not going to discuss, but which needles at me. Okay, I'm RTL, because I'm basically a religious person, I think that life is sacred, etc. A topic of interest to me on this topic would be one like this:

1. What's the limiting factor: If there's food available, then perhaps that's the limiting factor?

2. Will science soon be able to extract a foetus into suspended animation? transplant it? incubate it? If science could save the aborted foetus, should it?

3. If a maple produces a million seeds, but there are not enough nutrients in the soil for a million maple trees, then what would determine whether or not a seed should become a maple tree?

All of this is philosophical discussion within right to life, which could be discussed, to interesting conclusions, potentially.

I'm sure the pro-choice crowd has questions to gnaw on:

1. Whose choice? Feminists would say the woman's, but what about cases where the doctor makes it, that's probably okay with them. How about where the husband makes it. That happens, and makes the femmes nervous. How about if the parents of the woman make it? Or the church? Or the govt.?

2. How late is too late?

3. Is it always acceptable? Is it only for emergencies? A matter of leisure? Should it be used as a form of birth control?

PLEASE, PEOPLE, LET'S NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT.

That's a landmine.

Because none of the above topics on either side of this issue could be discussed in a logical and rational manner without the other side just going ballistic on them.

Oh, and don't try to change my mind ;) I used to be pro choice, and I found faith, which gives me insight, and under that, everything is the flow of forces. The forces of nature trump the forces of economics. Always. So, abortion for economic reasons is not something that I can ever accept. Health of the mother, I could, but I'm not going to get into a Roe v Wade argument on how I should cross a lake. I'm simply pointing out the completely destructive potential of a landmine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mmm. Well, I suspect you and I could have a reasoned discussion. I'd certainly be interested in your viewpoints... you see things from a different direction, and many times your directions are completely unexpected.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:26 PM

Signy

Oh, I'd be up for that over email or relocated. If we began that discussion here, it would turn into a war

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:24 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I can deconstruct feminism, but I should get into an argument with self-defined feminists who I would term "female empowerment people" vs. what i would term "female supremacists" which is what I would call the old school, but rather, I should make that deconstruction on a site or a book, and then debate it from there.

Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:36 PM

PONYXPRESSINC

Quote:
ALL moms are working moms!

YES. thank you!

Since I've had my daughter I've always worked outside the home. But, I take work which fits around her and there have been times when it's been hard to find.

In those thin times I worked more in the home. repairs and renovations, house work, baking, mending clothes, gardening, doing educational stuff with my daughter. Stuff I always do but when outside work is short I do more, because at that point that's my job.

I have never sat on my bum and waited for the wage earner to divvy up and I get a little ticked when what I do is not regarded as work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:10 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Nowhere in nature will you find females lolling around all day, waiting for males to bring home the bacon. The whole concept is unatural.

So the idea that women don't have to be "full-time moms and wives"? It's not feminism, it's NORMAL!

It's also not really the human way to take care of kids full-time.

In most cultures, most pregnant women have continued working on whatever their job was until shortly before birth and started up soon after. Can anyone imagine a female farmer of any century just staying in the house, dusting and caring for junior's education? She put food on the table the same as the man. How else did women take care of their world when men were gone at wars?

Gender roles or not, legal inequality or not, the working women of centuries past were generally valued because -even if this was all they did, and it usually wasn't!- house work back then really was a full-time job. Hard work. Kids were the thing that you took care of in a free moment in between. Men and women both.

House-wife and stay-at-home-mom of the electric home appliances age is a life-style that mirrors what only the super-super rich of centuries past could afford. It is by no means a natural lifestyle.

In an age where we spend a lot of time physically removed from our home and our children - if we do work - however, we need to think up an unnatural lifestyle, either way. We may as well be creative and flexible about it, though, instead of declaring one thing to be the solution and maligning all other options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:02 AM

Quote:
Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?

Rouka

Not arguing the topic, but on the writings of early feminists, and the status of women before and after. Sanger says explicitly that the new tasks and limitations on women must be sold to them as "rights" that they have won, otherwise, they would never accept it. They like to retroactively take credit for things like the right to vote, but actually, they have no connection to those movements.

[rant]
These new rights are the right to a job, the right to not have children, etc. These are not things that women wanted for themselves or that benefit them from an evolutionary standpoint. They benefit the govt. and people run our society.

I know lots of professional women who have zero children, thus, the intelligent women are weeded out, and do so willingly, to defend their new "rights" they also slave away at some desk job as men do, earning wages below the level of subsistence. (our labor system is screwed up, but by design, a whole other side issue.)

Anyway, contrast that with Communist China and the population control: The one child policy is a restriction, not sold as a "right." Hence, though it has the same end, it meets incredible resistance from Chinese women, and a major reason they flee China if they can. Not only is it a personal assault, it's a deep down interference in their animal evolutionary nature.

This whole idea of rights and pride is far from unique to the women's movement. Take a man and sentence him to spend half his days slaving, obeying orders, working hard, and locked in a small cube while being yelled at by overlords, and he'll revolt. Take more than that from him and pay him with a reward that he never sees, because it goes to the bills on his credit card, expenses just to live, and he will fight to keep that job, as his right, and to work it as his responsibility.

As for gender roles, they do occur in nature. But whether you have division of labor or not, it takes your typical hunter gatherer 20 hours of work to survive. Our society asks as much as it can, and its increasing.

Recently I broke this down in 3 classes of worker:

McJob, which pays minimum wage, minus entitlement tax, almost pays for you to live in squalor, and run up debt. You are bound to it, because of your debt. It usually takes 30 hours

Job, which requires a college degree. You get the degree along with debt, and now pay more taxes, and can live in an apt., but still not ever escape. It usually takes 50 hours (40+commute and prep time)

SuperJob, which requires an advanced degree, which usually means a lot of debt. You start deep in the hole, and now pay lots of taxes on your supposed high salary. This allows the employer to abandon the conventional rules of labor, so can take up to 80 hours a week, or more, when everything is included. You can live in a house, and fight endlessly against your debt.

I know people who make 100,000 a year and have no free time, and no free money, double mortgage, car payments, insurance of multiple kinds, and student loans, job related expenses, and oh yeah, pay top level federal income and entitlement taxes, state taxes, local taxes, and bills. They might have to borrow.

A couple with two workers now has earned the right to have children, but not to really ever see those children. Fortunately, there is are state run services such as school, and the illusion of an independent media (what I jokingly call the media run state.)

Oh, here's another right that we all fight and pay for: The right to an education. Really, this is the right to mingle with other humans. Informationally, there was never anything in a class really that wasn't already better said in a book. Most classes just make you read a book, then have a teacher read the book to you, and you take a test. Now of course there's the internet. The book has become free, the "education" which is just like the book, except it takes more time, costs $100,000 total on average, and comes with a built in biased filter to train you, and program your perspective.

Feminism is just one of many ideas that is now built into that system of education and labor to control our society.

Here's another one: Why do you pay taxes at all? Half of your labor is just earning money for you govt. which protects you? from what? another govt? Even if so, that's no boast. But in reality, that protection is being carried out in Afghanistan. Or where-ever. They're protecting their own interests, That's always been where every penny of your federal income taxes go. To protect their interests overseas. This is called "freedom." If it didn't have a catchy name, and were call "slavery" or "oppression" instead, it would never sell for the trillion dollars a year it sells for.

So, what about schools and roads, etc? All of those are state, or local, but lately I've also begun to feel they are also unnecessary.

Obama's new stimulus package, like Bush's, anoth 800 billion, that's not the tax payer's money, it's borrowed money, on the new infinite credit card. It will be paid in eternal interest by borrowing from the infinite credit card. What they does is increase the number of dollars in circulation, while not increase the value of America, Inc. So, a dollar, as a share of America, is now more common, America is divided among more shares, the dollar declines. Beneficent govt. is "spreading the wealth around." Mostly to corporations. But how did that wealth become so uneven? Beneficent govt. took it away.

Just another pillar of our great society.

Feminism isn't unique: The heroes that liberate you are always selling you a product, your obedience to their mandate. That mandate, your "rights." Proud, with feathers fluffed, you are now primed to defend your new rights, they were won for you by people who claimed to be you. "the group of you" back to my post on recruitment. Now that "they," disguising themselves by calling themselves "you" have "won," the actual you defends the mandate of "rights" and eagerly not only slaves away, but become the mouthpiece for the propaganda that others may too be "liberated."

Here's another right. First, it was the "duty" of all men. Then it became the "right" of blacks, then gays, and now women: The right to die for the chance of some elite powermonger to oppress some random nation and exploit it for military strategy or raw wealth. Yes, many teenage girls have now been killed in Iraq to feed Cheney's thirst for power and oil, and the neocon agenda to keep the Islamic world in chaos, and thus, they have been saved from the "oppression" of having and raising children. Ironically of course, this "right" was executed under orders that they were bound to obey or be imprisoned or even shot for disobeying, while that oppression would have been a matter of open choice, to use their free time. No one would have pre-empted their time and made them take those actions, unless they had the "right" to "pay" for their ability to live on their own land. (another pillar of our society: real estate) But, instead, they chose to sign up and do their duty, for whatever reason, they gave to the pressure, or were lured in by the teases the recruiters offer. the right to die in combat, given to them by Bill Clinton. The new democratic administration has offered up the right for them to be drafted, to fight an die, without choice, on foreign soil trying to oppress someone or other: The new draft will contain conscription for "women" as well as "men" <-- more flattery, terms of adulthood for the children who will actually be sent to kill other children, sent by someone else, or possibly by the same powerful overlords, so that they to may kill and so that all have the chance to die.

[/rant]

Sorry, the whole thing is a sham.

[more rant]
Little side note of the inglorious beginning to my ultraskepticism: The "quiet easy start" lawnmower. Now I now that the concept of lawnmower is inherently oppressive and destuctive, but at the time, I just noticed that the thing was neither quiet, nor easy to start. I then started on the look out to see how many other products were the exact opposite of what they claimed to be. Turned out to be damn near everything. Then it started to unravel, that almost all of society was built on selling bad junk as good treasure. This reaches to the core of our democracy <-- another one: The rule of the people = The rule of "you." You were convinced that you had voted for Barack Obama, as your leader, whether you voted for him or not, but even if you did, you and did so in the primary, and not because someone in the media told you too, it wasn't really a choice, but even if it was, it didn't allow you to choose secretary of state or defense or any position of power, and even if it had, it would not give you that power, on the right to select between a handful of oligarch as to which overlord would weild supreme power over you, as you return to your slave wage job, and dig yourself further into debt, supporting corporate handouts, and a completely unnecessary war, to kill random people and cause chaos, which was offered to you by both parties, there was no real choice there.
[/rant]

Another side note: Barack Obama is not a product of the Civil Rights movement. He is not a victory for anyone but himself, but the civil rights leaders fought him all the way up. Jesse Jackson threatened to castrate him.

Neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton were the products of Women's lib. The former is a housewife, and the latter was already a sleep and kill your way to the top bright eyes young republican turned democratic socialist (yes, groups she was really in) by the time women's lib hit the campus. She fought it, just as Condi Rice fought integration.

[rant]Colin Powell, a name that gets bandied about sometimes for more power made his career as the defense and cover up of the My Lai massacre. Hillary Clinton made her leap in as part of the bipartisan team that removed the "elected govt" if there is such a thing that had brought nuclear disarmament, international peace talks, the EPA, and a host of other things that we generally tend to think govt "should be doing," for a fraud which they themselves had most likely committed. Watergate revolutionaries, check them out, they're all neocons, on one side or another. And they've been in power ever since. Regardless of who they put up as a frontman.[/rant]

Okay so that was a lot of rant. I'd now 5:48, I'm still sick, and I still can't sleep.

[rant]
Ah well. I suspect if the people had their say, the military would be run by soldiers, the ones who had to fight. Someone from the front lines in Iraq would be Sec. of Def. Treasury, someone who knows how to make money, and how to put it to worthy noble causes, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, secretary of state, someone who had a modicum of diplomacy, Richard Lugar or Jimmy Carter, or a non-politician, or a non-American, maybe Bono. I think most Americans would support that idea. And perhaps the president would still be Barack Obama, but he would preside, and not dictate. And he would be surrounded by us, not a tight knit cabal of gangsters and neocons. And all of those cabinet people who made the decisions would then put those decisions to us, for a vote, with various neutral agents giving us the pros and cons, in simple language, languages actually. Then, we would be closer to ruling. But since we have the "right" to vote, we never question the fact that our hobson's choice itself really has little or no impact on our overlords.
[/rant]

So, that was a long rant. I should probably hit delete. The point is, beware of advertising. Beware of rights. I could start another argument by calling the 2nd amendment the right to kill each other :)

You get why I say off of these topics

I'm going to try to get some sleep now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:27 AM

AGENTROUKA

DT -

Not going to respond to the content of your rant for now, except to say.. you didn't REALLY answer my question, did you?

It was a question about your self-defined terms of "old school" and "new school", and why you consider female supremacist "feminism" old school and equality-based feminism "new school", mainly. Was the original intent to oppress men and the equality thing came later? When do you place the origin of female supremacy feminism and when does the "new school" start?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT

There's what we tell ourselves and what really happens.

In Fiji, children are raised by grandparents, b/c an able-bodied woman is too valuable to lose as a food-producer.

In 1600 - 1800's France (and other European countries), wealthy women pawned off the care of their children onto wet-nurses, nursemaids, governesses, tutors and boarding schools b/c frankly, childcare is not all that rewarding and they had the means to do something more enjoyable. And children were considered the husband's property to be disposed of at will.

In Sparta, deficient babies were set aside to die, and young boys (6 years old) were left to roam in packs and survive the best they could by stealing and hunting - without clothes, without food, without water, without shelter.

Many, many types of societies tell themselves 'we do this b/c this is what people do and anything else is risky to life' - but it turns out there are as many ways of dividing up the labor and resources as there are societies. And this is all despite the fact that ALL people tell themselves what THEY do is 'human nature' and 'the only natural way to be'.

There are many, many, MANY forms of society that are good enough to keep children alive long enough to have children of their own. And that's the only thing that counts, because THAT is the sieve of evolution.

Everything beyond that is just a fable.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:25 AM

Rouka

1. I'm sick, and I missed part of it
2. I'm dodging the issue as a landmine.'

I see feminism as a 20th c. post wwii movement that essentially invented a history that tied it to the suffragettes and a history of male dominance and oppression that spanned thousands of years. These people created a new ideology that was specifically targeted for simple goals:

1. Control the population. This is the first stuff published by the early feminists: Teach them that not reproducing is a right, and we can stop these women from cranking out babies before western europeans become a minority in America. It was pretty blatant. Read back, the whole "sell it as a right" thing. I ranted on because i was sick and had insomnia, but all of that is relevent to the strategy.

2. get women back to work. Women had been filling factories and sweatshops, and in the financial high of the 50s, they'd all gone home. This was viewed by feminists as some sort of conspiracy, but actually, everyone would go home if they could. At the time, there was so much cash that there was no need for a second income. The US was the producer and exporter of the goods of the world.

3. Break up the family. Make sure that children have no parenting. This is necessary for the state and media to take over the job of child raising.

4. Disempower women. Take away their sexuality, their exemption from duty, and their role as mothers, teachers, guideposts as our society. The state is mother the state is father.

The new guard are the female empowerment people. They are into the "girls can do anything" which includes being sexy, something the old guard hated, they always called it "exploitation."

I remember once someone saying to me "Playboy is just written for men to exploit women" I responded, no "Playboy is just written for women to exploit men" Who pays, who gets paid, whose careers are advanced, and who is masturbating in the bathroom, which has more power? If you look at playboy, it's carefully designed to target a female audience, to attract models, so that Hef can have a dating pool. But the men, fuck 'em. They can spank it, but they'll have to pay. Ever been to a strip bar? Who has the power.

The original feminism was about supremacy, not just female supremacy, these people were genetic supremacists, christian and jewish alike, they both share this tendency, and they're not alone (check out asia and africa in these attitudes.) The goal was to oppress women, not men.

A woman who cannot be free to live the life of choice, who must work some pitiful job just to put food on the table, who cannot raise her children, should she have any, or who rejects sex appeal and men, so she won't have any children: This was all about removing the feminine.

The hand that rocks the cradle is mocked by feminists, but it's true, that's the real power. Women had that power, they determined the future generations, what they would be like. The powers that be wanted that power for themselves, hence, women must work, kids must go to school, kids must watch television, and not listen to their parents. Best of all if there are no kids, then the woman has no power. Finally, just chain her to the desk like the men, and have another ant for your ant farm.

Man-hating lesbians were just a side effect. They came in somewhere in the middle as opportunists. They also served the agenda, because each sworn in lesbian was less likely to have children. The goal here wasn't zero children, so much as fewer children, and those that were, to have an attachment to the beliefs of school and television, and not from the family. I think we call this "liberalism" another false advertising misnormer (that's a half snark, it's also true.)

The new guard of "girl power" is not anything like the old guard. It's unfortunate that they have anchored themselves to the term. I don't think this was a re-invention by the feminists, but something that happened naturally, and the old school feminists co-opted it, and through academia told people that this is what feminism was always about.

I'd say the old school starts around the 1920s, along with the rest of the eugenics movement, but doesn't catch on until post-wwii, because there's no need for it. It's a hard sell to a female population with plenty of rights.. New "rights" had to be invented. This is stated pretty directly as well. It really came into its own in the 60s. Girl power is really more of a 80s-90s thing, after the other had gotten a stereotype of man-hating lesbians, which I don't think the original founders were, but which the movement attracted.

Man hating is really just as simple as any other hate, it removes competition. That's the real basis of racism: If blacks are believed to be inferior, they aren't competition. (and you better believe this one cuts both ways) Hell, every group does it. Israel is terrified of muslims overrunning them with sheer numbers. They'd like to see population control, they've said this. That mean a radical reconstruction of Islam by Jewish leaders. Mulsims are terrified of this idea. They see themselves as been oppressed and restricted, and made second class deviants under jewish law. That's what that conflict is really about, not the land. It's as old as the hills, and shows up all over the planet.

I'm really not into arguing the topic. I'll write it up some day. But the overall is it's part of PC, and PC is part of a greater plan to control the population. So, people buy in to being controlled. This is nothing new either. How many druggies out there who want to stick it to the man, but will never admit that the product they are buying, that money, it's ultimately going to the man. They are in fact his principle powerbase. Drug money was the main financial force behind creating the Bush and Clinton dynasties. But they toke, snort and shoot up, thinking that they are sticking it to the man, and the man is laughing at them, all the way to the bank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:31 AM

Rue,

Sure, there are many ways to do it, but these are the societies you want to emulate?

I'm just stating the state's motive in taking over child rearing: To create zombies. And now I see them everywhere. They don't think for themselves, they just spout what they were told. They can't see the threat because they believe that it is good for them, saving them, and they become it.

There's not a lick of difference between the left who hugs its self-genocide policies and the right who hugs nukes and bombs and guns and our great protector.

People just can't see what's right in front of them. They've been programmed otherwise. I don't want to argue these, I think the above is obvious. That's what reality is, and people who don't see that it's because they choose not to see it, not because it isn't there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Dream,

Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion...

cuz you're pretty...

AND you make the most damn sense on this topic (feminism) that I've ever heard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Infanticide is a common practice in primtive cultures.

In monarchial France, peasant women would hang their babies up in papoose-like contraptions in the hut from dawn till dusk while they toiled away in the fields under the watchful eye of the overseer, leaving their babies without food or water or cleaning, just as they did ten years ago in NE Brazilian plantations. (Babies were not really considered viable until they were two years old. A child who died before then was simply "not meant" to live.)

And birthing from the distaff's side? It is THE greatest cause of female adult mortality, bar none. In my granparent's generation, stepmothers were common. Men had two or three wives in succession because the women died in repeated childbirth.

So, yeah, if a woman had a choice, which do YOU suppose she might choose?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Sure, there are many ways to do it, but these are the societies you want to emulate?"

Since you are clear that we are talking about CHOICES - who gets to make those choices ?

Women, when given the choice and more options (due to a rising standard of living and urbanization) have fewer - or no - children. It's called the demographic transition, and it happens all over the globe. It happens in India, in Pakistan, in South and Central America, in Russia, in Africa ... It's one reason China is struggling to raise the standard of living, so that that thing they imposed on society - reduced birth rates - will happen naturally. It's the thing the old Soviet Union was struggling against with it's ultra-supportive pro-child policies, as women with more options and a better standard of living had fewer babies.

You seem to want to make that choice for women, and to choose differently for women than they choose for themselves. All hail DT, dictator of women, eh ?

BTW - when it comes to China as an example, you seem to have slid over the reason many people want more than 1 child - it generally happens when the first one is a girl and they're trying for a boy instead.

***************************************************************

Oh, and speaking of 'self-genocide' - in rural subsistence communities, large family size is a blessing and a curse. You want chldren to take care of you. OTOH there's only so much land to go around. There's good reason to believe part of the cause of the Rwandan genocide was the fact that most people had not enough land to farm. The genocide turned into a major land-grab as families were wiped out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:02 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Uh Oh, now Dream has gotten on the nerves of Rue and Sigy...

FLAME ON!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, BTW Wulf - DT is a guy. I hope he's not too offended when you rescind your desire to take him in a manly fashion. Unless, of course ... you know ...

But, that goes into the over-stuffed bin of incidents when Wulf aimed squarely at his own foot.

***************************************************************

Hate much, lately ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:14 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Oh Rue,

You misinterpret my rage as "hate".

Now stop flirting with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And rage = fear. What a coward.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:18 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue, sweetie, every time I come on here you MUST make a comment.

Now, you know I'm married.

STOP.

FLIRTING.

WITH.

ME.

We clear?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If you stop coming on to DT.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

S'wenyways, DT

Despite Wulf's attempt to stoke hate, I believe we could have a productive discussion.

I hope you would reply to either SignyM, or me, or both.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:49 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Lol

Stoke hate...so amusing.

Anytime someone argues back with the same venom YOU use, its "hate".

How typically PC, how typically Liberal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:53 AM

Kathy,

No, it's because they are human. Do you know any actual chinese?

On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide."

Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless. They have just selected themselves out for extinction. You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them.

If apes could have learned this subtle discreet reasoning, there would be more apes. Oh yeah, they eat their kids. That doesn't ever help. Welcome to evolution.

Quote:
Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion

Wulf,

Sorry, I don't swing that way. Actually I took this avatar because it was what's left, and I wanted an avatar. I like Saffron though, she's perty. And she embodies everything the ideal female should be. A dangerous deceitful sex object :)

Sig,

no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

the real reason women hated so much on Sarah Palin: 44, beautiful, fertile, and oh yeah, running for vice president. I'm knew I sensed a certain greenish tinge.

Sorry, just serving the can of venom you just ordered

Yeah, I think Faith is a role model ;)

So, girls,

So, we play it this way, you guys get your society that discourages children in favor of pride and a feeling of superiority, and I'll take my society with the people who want to have kids, and then we can set our students against each other in 20 years and see who wins, oh, that would be mine, because they would exist.

Ever looked at the growth of the right to life movement over time and wondered why it's growing? Because they're having children, that's why.

Now, as a society, we can either decided to reverse our self genocide rockefeller policy, or all convert to islam, because if you look at the world, that's what's happening, and that's why it's happening.

So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton. If you want empowerment, when we're all muslims, and nothing against Islam, because I have to respect anything that's *that* evolutionarily successful, (hat's off to the krill) but from a female empowerment point of view, well, good luck with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:56 AM

BYTEMITE

Do the women who go to work, did they want children in the first place, and were convinced otherwise? I suppose it's possible, if they're appealed to with rational about establishing themselves financially before attempting children (who are expensive).

I always thought that young adults aren't really thinking about having children. It tends to just happen as a consequence of their environment and relationships. Teens get pregnant because their parents aren't paying attention. With married young adults it happens as a natural consequence of their union. With single dating young adults, pregnancy occurs as the result of a mistake, because their relationship is not advanced enough for them to make a choice whether or not to have children.

Do married couples who decide not to have children usually stick to it? I'd be interested in knowing.

Now, I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work. Would that be the case if there were no such thing as feminism? I think yes, a family makes whatever sacrifices it has to to pay the bills. So I'm trying to determine if that's seperate from the higher wage earning women, college educated, who choose to wait to get married and have families. One is socially caused necessity, the other is feminism. According to you, DT, it's not seperate, the two are the result of the same issue, but here under different names.

Government control. I do believe there are fascist elements of the government who would like to control everything we do. It's a belief that comes from my desire to err on the side of safety; government could be a threat, so I would like to be a watchdog.

Is feminism a result of government control, has the movement been manipulated throughout it's existence? Considering the Margaret Sanger character he mentioned who started writting about population control and then later about feminism, it's a question I'd like to answer. I'm not yet sure, some of the arguments are convincing, but it's... disturbing for me to believe the full extent of this just yet.

However, I also think that the modern, more moderate "female empowerment" movement is not so sinister. It considers motherhood a difficult but rewarding job, among many potential choices of difficult but rewarding jobs.

The men still get flambe'd by political correctness, though, poor guys. Everyone is very sensitive about issues, the whole country is on eggshells. Sometimes there is a genuine lack of respect, but sometimes the backlash is really a stretch. If people in a movement want to be taken seriously, they must be able to discern between innocent, accidental comments and actual offensive ones. Otherwise, women will not be seen as rational, and this is one of the issues that has chaffed at womenkind since the medieval ages.

But I have to say, I do really think the women in Afghanistan are oppressed. They're basically kept in the dark, separate from the world, as breeding machines. That's no life for a thinking creature. But I also can't justify invading Middle East countries to bring enlightment (more likely death, either by us or by their religious leaders) to those women. It's judging their culture from the outside, and who are we to interfere?

It's true in the 50s, women weren't sure that they wanted what the feminism movement offered, because they and their children were supported well enough by the status quo. That's changed now. Single women had it rough in those times though, they weren't taken seriously as professionals, despite the performance in the manufacturing sector during WW2.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, Dream, my mistake. It sort of threw me, with the whole chick pic and name of "dream"..

A manly handshake then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig, no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

Eh, how about the examples of your mother, aunt, and sister dying in childbirth? Real life isn't terribly pretty.

BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic. I have a boatload of arguments pointing in the other direction but will have to leave that for later. Duty calls.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:03 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic."

WTF? Where/when did I EVER say that?

Ideas are passed to you from a combination of experience and "teachers" (or those who raise you. Not necessarily you blood family ).

Genetics only play a role in intelligence in terms or retardation.

Jesus, Eugenics went out with the Nazis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

M'kay. Thought I got that from one of your past posts. Sorry!

Okay, now duty REALLY calls!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Do you know any actual chinese ?"

Many. About half the people I work with are from Mainland China, a few are from Taiwan.

"On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide.""

And here is the UN definition:

Quote:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Considering that China is doing this to its entire population and not to a select subgroup, and that it had (as of three years ago) 1.3 BILLION people, I don't see China genociding itself any time soon. http://www.chinability.com/Population.htm
In sum, it doesn't meet the definition of genocide.

"Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless."

As I tried to point out, the demographic transition is a natural process that's happened through history, and is happening now all over the globe - no matter what the government's policies, no matter what the economic systems, no matter what the culture, no matter what the religion. This may not be logical in your view (and people are not logic machines, so there's no surprize there), but it happens nevertheless.
Also, please note that evolution doesn't result in an ultimate optima, it only results in that which is good enough at the moment. The natural survival mechanisms to avoid pain, avoid expending energy, amass resources and maximize pleasure factor into the demographic transition.

"You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them."

As much as you say you hate Margaret Sanger, you sure have bought in to her ideals.

"So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton."

I'll pit my well educated, productive, healthy and well educated young against your starving AIDS-ridden hordes any day.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work."

Yes, but that is a problem of capitalism, not of equality between the sexes or between groups.

BTW - to reframe this in another context - how would you respond if DT had posted this: The reason people have to work ilke dogs is b/c we no longer have slaves.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:48 AM