Feminism Causes Ruin Of Countless Families And Tens Of Millions Of US Children...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gaussq
. . . with some human beings having extremely low moral standards and bad intentions. Sorry to say that but its the truth.

Really? Morals?

Who's morals would that be?

When it comes to morals I believe in Truth-Compassion-Tolerance(including patience etc) as a good moral standard to strive for. That´s the principles of Falun Dafa Qi Gong from China too that so many Chinese people practice although they are still persecuted by the chinese communists. If all people tried to follow those principles in their daily life and we all tried to improve ourselves rather than trying to change others, I believe that would be a great progress for our human world. Just my two cents.

When it comes to feminism it targets women but how about men?

How is society attacking men? Society is bashing them and always labeling them evil, violent, rapists and women-haters.

Whenever do we hear about a kind man who is good to his family? Men with true beliefs and high moral standards who do good things for others?

What we hear about is the bad news about men. This results in men(especially young men) becoming very fearful(especially of women) and passive and many become depressed without any goals in life. Men these days dont perform well in school and girls dominate in universities. Young men tend to become addicted to games and other bad stuff.

So feminism urges the women to aggress while man-bashing pushes down the men and make them lose confidence. End result: men become fearful and weak and effeminate with low self esteem while women take over the old role of men.


So this subversion is done in two steps: raise the women and lower the men. The final question: who will defend the nation when all the real men are gone?....... Thats something unexpected - didnt the gvmt and MSM create this culture to "help" us?.... Marxism is about grasping power, absolute power by revolution.

originally posted by: Gaussq
a reply to: dawnstar

Of course I dont blame everything on the feminism but its so obvious that its just a warfare strategy to cheat women and make them forget about their family and children. Women should be able to stay at home and take care of the babies and she should have economic compensation for it from the gvmt. As studies show women are bosses of the house today and they spend much more money than the men...

The article states it clearly: this is a gvmt warfare strategy against women and men and especially against children who are destroyed mentally and physically in many cases.

Let´s look at the results of this.

1) Feminist temptation for women: Go out and work in society and become equals of men. Earn more money. Be independent. Be strong. Forget about being a soft and loving mother.

2) End result: Families are shattered because men and women become equals- Equals repel each other just like in physics. Man and woman start to hate each other. Children suffer and might even lose their whole future because of this. The whole country gradually becomes weaker when the next generation grows up and have this traumatic childhood and destroyed mental and physical health.

Actual fact is that most men look for soft and traditional women just like little children do..... It´s simple but true.

Inside her bones mos women want their man to be strong and yet many fight with him all the time to take all his power away and change him. If he changes many will leave him because he is so "boring".. Cant have the cake and eat it...

"Forget about being a soft and loving mother"?

OK. DONE.

Easily done because not all are interested in that lifestyle. For those who wish to do that - have at it then. Find your counter part. Why you try to make us all into Stepford Wives?

Yeah, I know, it's $ - breed more consumers. And men fall for it quick because they want a woman to sex AND a mommy.

What about those (F or M) who are not interested in this lifestyle? And or who are not suited for it? People should be allowed to seek their own path. I thought this was a free country?

I'm drinking with my friend here right now, we are both the same (and we know many more like us) - we're the unmarried, unchilded, Feminists, and or general weirdos - that you have been scared to death with. And hard core libs and HIPSTERS! even! Live on the w side of Chi and everything! o_0

And people like us CHOSE this lifestyle because we did NOT WANT to get married and have kids and move to Suburbia! So what? I thought this was a free country? And there are plenty of our comrades in NYC, London, Sydney, - Boise -
We are EVERYWHERE.

The world has way more than enough people and we ought to cut down on breeding. The Capitalists wish it to continue because that's how they profit. Isn't this obvious?

But we weirdos are the ones who invent the new things. So we have to exist too.

And all people should have free choice of what path they want to follow.

a reply to: dawnstar

Aside from the other stories you told;

A good man doesn't leave his wife - period.

About the stories you told, and not to diminish the pain, but what about men who get emotionally and physically destroyed? A man can take a physical beating, usually, sure. But constant venom from the mouth of an angry female is just as destructive.

But it would be politically incorrect to start a virism movement.

Allow me to point out to you that my feminist mother has destroyed everyone close to her, no matter how much anyone served her - it was never enough. She's queen, men are beasts of burden, and though she demands everyone to work when she is working, she did it all by herself.

No.

I will never respect the idea of feminism. Equality is appropriate and enough.

Feminism isn't about equality - it's patricide.

Someone needs to tell the father that thinks his little girl is a princess that his style of raising produces the same result as if he was a deadbeat dad.

This isn't about life problems to which everyone can relate. This is a movement based on hypocrisy.

"I can hit, but you can't hit back."

"I can call you names, but don't dare call me that."

"I can do what I want, but you have to be a man and do what's right."

"I have the right to be in charge, so don't you argue with me."

"I work for my money, but I will tell you how to spend your money."

"Be a man. Get over it. But I can complain about whatever I want."

Feminism is all about getting their perceived ideas of rewards from authority, but having to take very little responsibility for consequences of that authority.

If you're fair and good with authority, by all means, it's yours. But the feminist movement entertains the false notion that men have some secret power.

It's childish beyond belief.

There are tons of scenarios, but those are individual and require individual solutions.

The collective whine of a million narcissists will only prove to be antithetical to any solutions.

indeed a father is needed but mothers are needed too just as much if not more, what the problem is in modern times is the whole "me" thought process where adults think their feelings, their desires and "rights" are what matters most, they think "oh, i'm right, i've done nothing wrong" and act like their selfish decisions have no consequences, as if they are alone when they are not.

people don't take the feelings of others into consideration and create a bubble around themselves to make it harder to form attachments and they never get close enough to truly love, trust and understand others, they live in delusions of being more "understanding", of being a "good person", etc, when in reality they are just as bad with relationships as the rest of humanity.

in short most humans are selfish, stupid and short sighted creatures who only care for themselves.

a reply to: FalseMove


I dont mind whatever you wish to do, its a free world.

I dont think we discussed people without kids here.

We discussed that kids were destroyed because their mothers wanted to do other things than taking care of their babies, ie go out and make a career. And many women think that men are useless in raising kids so they get full custody. And feminism was one reason for all this, laws of split finances was another reason, fatherless homes another, effeminate men another etc etc.

Some women tend to think feminism is great(for them) but they fail to see what happens to their kids(others). You could boil it down to the issue of "me first" or "babies first". If we dont want to raise kids, why do we have them in the first place?

I know a woman who left her months old baby in a hospital for several weeks in the 70s and went back home while the baby almost died there. Her reply was: "everyone did like that in those times".... Yeah, if everyone did that - does it mean its right or a good thing to do that?.. Dont you think the baby needs its mother to care for it when its dying?...

I'll agree with the fact a two healthy parent home is better than single parenparent and I dont know any LGBT people myself but I have graduate degrees in child psych/education and the gender of those two parents, according to countless experiments and decades of research, just does not matter. I'm fact I remember many many studies which came to the conclusion that children of same sex couples actually show more confidence, are more tolerant, are less judgemental, are more likely not to bully others and stand up to bullying, and have a strong developed sense of identity and individuality at a younger age and no, not one child seems to have been "turned" one way or another by being raised by same or hetero- gender parents. Of course, the negative is they do seem to be much more incapacitated by high levels of stress for some reason some say...Again no agenda here I'm just so sick of this it's been what 16 years? I don't wanna hear about it any more. After this long nobody's mind is gonna be changed you have reasoreasomable, loving, intrlligent, god- fearing people on one side and on the other, people who just can't live without somewhere to direct their hate and who are so bass- ackwards when it comes to reason or the true bible (which the English translations make a mockery of- I can say living in a Greek speaking home and knowing ancient Greek as well) oh yea, or they are the guys who get tingles in the pants thinking of being with other guys themselves that they think posting non-stop online about it and freaking out about it when it comes up will ensure those around them that they couldn't possibly be...

If only the truth about conspiracies going on left and right right under everyone's noses and who really is in chargcharge of the world and the terrible things they now have th e ability to control would catch on and be discussed every friggin' day like constantly talking LGBT, the world would be fixed complety after 15 darn years. Boy, what a distraction did they put out there in the whole lgbt thing...

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
I'll agree with the fact a two healthy parent home is better than single parenparent and I dont know any LGBT people myself but I have graduate degrees in child psych/education and the gender of those two parents, according to countless experiments and decades of research, just does not matter.

So here's a question. If two parents are better than one, and 10,000 parents are probably worse than one, then there must be a graph with the optimal number of parents. Is it 2? 4? 27? At what point does adding an additional parent start producing worse results?

originally posted by: Gaussq

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gaussq
. . . with some human beings having extremely low moral standards and bad intentions. Sorry to say that but its the truth.

Really? Morals?

Who's morals would that be?

When it comes to morals I believe in Truth-Compassion-Tolerance(including patience etc) as a good moral standard to strive for.

Mine is far simpler.

"Every thought is an action"

It prevents lying to yourself.

a reply to: Gaussq

You are seriously caught up in your own drama.

Maybe you should just stop perceiving how something is supposed to be.

Also -

How are you supposed to be "soft and loving" when no one is soft and loving towards YOU? (Any Woman).

Women are constantly critiqued, picked over, and told we are wrong. As others have said - we are ALWAYS wrong.

Oh but you expect us to be "soft and loving"?

When no one does anything for us.

This is why we have to do for ourselves.

originally posted by: Gaussq
a reply to: FalseMove


I dont mind whatever you wish to do, its a free world.

I dont think we discussed people without kids here.

We discussed that kids were destroyed because their mothers wanted to do other things than taking care of their babies, ie go out and make a career. And many women think that men are useless in raising kids so they get full custody. And feminism was one reason for all this, laws of split finances was another reason, fatherless homes another, effeminate men another etc etc.

Some women tend to think feminism is great(for them) but they fail to see what happens to their kids(others). You could boil it down to the issue of "me first" or "babies first". If we dont want to raise kids, why do we have them in the first place?

I know a woman who left her months old baby in a hospital for several weeks in the 70s and went back home while the baby almost died there. Her reply was: "everyone did like that in those times".... Yeah, if everyone did that - does it mean its right or a good thing to do that?.. Dont you think the baby needs its mother to care for it when its dying?...

EXCUSE ME -

YOU said women ought to be "Soft and Loving Mothers" AND you applied it in general to ALL women. It is, in fact, the premise of your entire rant here.

originally posted by: GaussqI believe that everything is predestined here just like a theatre play and there must be a climax in the play.

If that's the case, then why are you arguing over your perception of feminism? If everything is predestined then whatever will happen will happen regardless of your thoughts and actions on the matter.

originally posted by: Annee

Honestly, polyamory marriage makes more sense in our progressive world.

Another agreement here Annee what is going on you are scaring me.

I would say maybe not a marriage, but a polyamory union this way we would have more people's input on family decisions, in case one person has gone off the deep end.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

Honestly, polyamory marriage makes more sense in our progressive world.

Another agreement here Annee what is going on you are scaring me.

I would say maybe not a marriage, but a polyamory union this way we would have more people's input on family decisions, in case one person has gone off the deep end.

LOL

I agree, perhaps a new kind of legal agreement.

But, if they want to call it marriage - - I'm OK with that too.

I think its so much more realistic in today's transient world.

If you have someone in a group who wants to stay home and watch the kids, that's great. Give her/him an allowance (paycheck).

If you have someone in the group that loves to cook and shop - - pool your resources and let her/him do that.

As I understand it, polyamory is on the rise.

a reply to: dawnstar

one could say, there would have probably never been a commuinist movement if the rich and powerful weren't so horribly abusing their power.

And then the "rich" created the Hegelian Dialetic by financing the Marxist revolution. What better way to control the opposition; give them hope in a revolution where a man's labour went into a collective.

www.wildboar.net...

One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars. As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United States.
Furthermore we shall see, that the Rothschild Formula played a major role in shaping these events. This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that campaign.

transmissionsmedia.com...

Wall Street Funded Both Communists and Nazis October 2, 2012 - Wall Street funded Communists Professor Sutton stated, “Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western Firms and banks.” “In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world’s richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth,” declared Allen.

“[M]en like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners.” Perloff agreed, “Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the [Communist] revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsine de Goulevitch in his book Czarism and the Revolution.” “According to his grandson John,” described Allen, “Jacob Schiff … long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million.”

He continued, “According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn Loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin,” and added, “Schiff’s descendents are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today.” Referring to the emergence of a communist dictatorship which resulted from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Professor Marrs wrote that they were funded by “Germany and America. … Their repugnant campaign to purify and cleanse Mother Russia and to seek world domination resulted in … [millions of] human beings wiped out and brutally purged

a reply to: Gaussq

You think Trump gives a #?

5:25-6:19
www.youtube.com...


You're so proud of your nuclear family, when the real issue is Republicans are taking trophy wives for $30,000 and treating them like dirt, leading to the divorce. Meanwhile, their previous wives with kids now suffer because nothing is 'deductible'.

Republicans have triple the divorce rate of Democrats in their own states. There needs to be a list going of things they are not allowed to talk about. Marriage, Children, Women, the list honestly goes on forever.

a reply to: Abysha

I'm dating a writer now who used to do a lot of journalism so what do I do? I'm reading books about journalism. Meanwhile, I got him watching Walking Dead so it's give-and-take.

So you got him watching zombie movies. Wow...thats going to do wonders in expanding his "mind/worldview"

Could we just say that the people that you, yes all of you hate is a small minority of the situation. There are selfish women, are there also selfish men. Here, there is huge generalizations that gives rise to hurt feelings. When one talks about a group of people without specifying, the entire group feels bad. And they will have something to say about it because it misrepresents them.

It seems like such a huge topic, but I would like to say that perhaps it would be best if everyone began to listen to their intuition. Perhaps then we would find it easier to find good people around us, and avoid the takers of society.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Abysha

I'm dating a writer now who used to do a lot of journalism so what do I do? I'm reading books about journalism. Meanwhile, I got him watching Walking Dead so it's give-and-take.

So you got him watching zombie movies. Wow...thats going to do wonders in expanding his "mind/worldview"

That was a joke; he's definitely taken an interest in the kind of self improvement that is dynamic to being partnered with me. But finally getting him to watch Walking Dead was certainly a point-maker for me.

My point was that it is give-and-take. If you are not willing to put in the work, then all of your relationships will have the same pitfalls.