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

a reply to: Gaussq

Yeaaaa,I don't really see how Feminism accounts for ALL of this.


Sure some of these kids have a bully feminist mother who left or forced the man to leave, but tons of fatherless guys I know their dad was just a piece of sh!t.


Furthermore, lots of fathers I know make a large effort to be in their kids lives after divorce.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

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

and a good PERSON doesn't hit, call their spouse names, do whatever they want, try to control their spouse, allows their spouse to decide just how they want to spend their money, and they listen to their complaints and actually tries to make they happier if possible.

the problems I see with your statement is....
first not all people are that good of people, some aren't that good at all! and even the good people aren't perfect all the time. I mean, what the heck, if everyone was all that good, we wouldn't need laws to send the rapists and murderers away, would we???

and, if I were to take a guess, most of those whining about feminism here are probably very much pro-gun... they realize that if the murderers and the thieves target them, the chances of the legal system doing anything about it before they lose their stuff or end up lying in a ditch somewhere dead isn't 100%, and choose to take some measures of self preservation, don't they? they buy a gun, and well, the murdered ends up lying in a ditch dead somewhere instead of themselves, right?

well, I realize that it's hard to accept the fact that women have that same instinct of self preservation as men do, but they do and it turns into something I would call mama bear syndrome when the threat is aimed at their children. there can be no equality if only one side of the equation holds the purse strings can there? and by all right and common sense, the person who is holding those purse strings is the one who is earning the money and receiving the check. if a man is finding his wife is spending all his money, well it is only because he is allowing her to! and, I know for a fact that not all wives are being allowed free access to their husband's paycheck... and it's quite possible that the husband's paycheck isn't even meeting all the needs of the family.
so, let me ask you...
if the husband either isn't earning enough, or is being so controlling over the money that the kids are going without the necessities of life, which do you considering more damaging to a child... having her demanding that dad get a second jobs so he makes more money and thus ends up never seeing the children, her getting a job, and the child maybe having to be in a child care center for a time, or the kid maybe going to bed hungry a few nights a week, maybe having to miss school a little more because their is no money for doctors or medicine, or something else.

I husband has passed recently, and our last years were much better than most of our marriage life... but let me assure you that his overly controlling, sometimes abusive ways have had a detrimental effect on my children that I can see affecting them even now in their adult lives.

I am over 50 years old, and I have no idea just what the younger feminists think really... I can just tell them that going backwards to the times when daddy supposedly earned the paycheck and mommy supposedly stayed home with the little ones keeping house, well, it never really existed for many women to begin with... and if you are gonna have to be working, you probably should be putting some thought into what kind of work will make you happy and build yourself a career that gives you a decent paycheck before you think about building yourself a family... life isn't a prince charming fairy tale.

a reply to: Gaussq

Society evolved in a way that was working until the 60´s of the last century, after that the degeneration started. Its not that everything was right but changing the whole system without having a new tested and working system to replace it will obviously not work.

Minor social changes in a democratic society have the potential to erode the whole society because there are no brakes for social change on a democracy/free society, one thing leads to another and suddenly we are allowing trangender kids to use any bathroom they like. WTF is a trangender kid anyway??!

We have two options now, we take a step backwards or we walk into the abyss.

This to say that if we were really a free society, a society based on positive values the kind of freedom we experienced in the last 50 years could have actually worked but we are not a really free society, we are slaves of money, we are controlled by advertisers, we are bred to consume. So the so called freedom we´ve been sold comes actually at a price.

Why do you think the contraceptive pill is associated with freedom?
Why do you think abortion is associated with freedom of choice?
Why do you think gun possession is associated with security?
Why do you thing war is associated with peace?

The forces that bred us to consume also pay airtime in the media, some even own the media and some even own the politicians making the laws that allow these so called freedom changes to take place.

Equality between genders is fair to say the least but never judge the idea just by itself, always think whos going to profit from it, there you will often find the reason for an idea to be spread.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

1976 The first marital rape law is enacted in Nebraska, making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife.

www.infoplease.com...

working for whom?? men???

a reply to: dawnstar

I wouldn´t mind to live in a matriarcal society if that´s what you mean. The problem is that many ideas thrown at us as freedom of something are not free at all. And some institutions that make us what we are are degenerating and that is dangerous to the society as a whole.

a reply to: CrapAsUsual

what the heck is wrong with people, men and women, having the freedom to make decisions as to what they might do, how they will use the resources that they can come up with in this utterly corrupt, have always been corrupt, only, it seems much more corrupt when we eliminate half of our members from having that freedom! pre 1960 was kind of like a buy on get one free sale to satan, because all he had to do was corrupt the man, the head of the household, the one who everyone in the household was bond to obey, to accept as the final word, by not only society but also in many ways, the laws, the employment policies, in the society, which gave the husband the power to corrupt everyone in his family.

In “Population Policy in Transition in the Developing World,” also published in the population issue of Science, authors John Bongaarts and Steven Sinding explain why there has been renewed interest on family planning in developing countries. Since rapid population growth in the poorest countries is hampering development, “economists, once notably skeptical, increasingly acknowledge that fertility decline has beneficial economic effects for nations and families,” they write. Moving forward, Bongaarts and Sinding suggest family planning needs to be at the forefront of population and development discussions. Not only is family planning “cost effective,” they write, but it is responsible for “relieving population pressures, stimulating economic development, improving health, and enhancing human freedom.”

www.newsecuritybeat.org...

originally posted by: dawnstar

what the heck is wrong with people, men and women, having the freedom to make decisions as to what they might do, how they will use the resources that they can come up with in this utterly corrupt, have always been corrupt, only, it seems much more corrupt when we eliminate half of our members from having that freedom! pre 1960 was kind of like a buy on get one free sale to satan, because all he had to do was corrupt the man, the head of the household, the one who everyone in the household was bond to obey, to accept as the final word, by not only society but also in many ways, the laws, the employment policies, in the society, which gave the husband the power to corrupt everyone in his family.

I'm not sure that the articles talks about either gender not having the freedom to make decisions. The way I see it, it's about family planning.

There is nothing wrong with people having the freedom to make decisions. People have been doing it for years.

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Years ago being indoctrinated and brainwashed I would most likely have never entertained a poly type lifestyle, but from what I see people that are in one seem to work really well together, so maybe in my near future i'll give it a try.

If someone wants out the group has no issues with it and allows the person to leave. People might think it's bad for the kids, but think about it, if someone wants out there's still plenty of others to care for them.

When a marriage is dissolved today and one parent bails many times, one person is left doing everything.

I'm hoping that our society starts to see trying to control, contract, or dominated a life partner/spouse is fruitless, and miserable for anyone to endure.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual

This to say that if we were really a free society, a society based on positive values the kind of freedom we experienced in the last 50 years could have actually worked but we are not a really free society, we are slaves of money, we are controlled by advertisers, we are bred to consume. So the so called freedom we´ve been sold comes actually at a price.

Why do you think the contraceptive pill is associated with freedom?
Why do you think abortion is associated with freedom of choice?
Why do you think gun possession is associated with security?
Why do you thing war is associated with peace?

The forces that bred us to consume also pay airtime in the media, some even own the media and some even own the politicians making the laws that allow these so called freedom changes to take place.

I'd agree with most of this, that profits drive the economy and people's mindset towards things, there's a reason why advertisement is such a huge industry. This is the reason we have been learning so well, perhaps too well to ignore anything we don't want to see.

I don't think it's fair to point at feminists for these issues of societal degradation. They are seeking happiness, whatever that means to them.

I don't think it is fair to blame men either. I see a lot of threads, perhaps not intentionally but on some levels pointing fingers at men for leaving their wives/wives leaving, usually to make a point, but offense can be taken.

Both of these show one very important thing. We in male or female bodies do not necessarily know what it is like to be the other body, we may not have been in the bodies of male and female children where they are told by people close to them and other children how a boy/girl is "supposed to act" from such a young age and felt the pressure to fit into their peer group where normally male groups do not welcome females and female groups do not welcome males. The thing is all we know is our own struggles and if the struggles of one group is not screamed to the heavens, we do not know about it, or we "do not know about it". This is perhaps why both groups see that they have less than the other, because both see the benefits of being on the other (grass is greener) side.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First, I agree with you. Second, I've only recently started to realize the lack of intelligence on this web site. There are huge numbers of American rednecks here. The whole gun rack in the pickup truck types. At first, I started to lose my # and my karma score reflects it but recently, I realized that I'm arguing with a bunch of #ing idiots. Why? Now, I've just decided to laugh at them because it just isn't worth the frustration of arguing with people who have an IQ below 50.

a reply to: ColdChillin

Yes. You have to pick your battles. Learning the fine art of satire helps too. Then you can make fun of them to their faces and they don't realize it.

originally posted by: Realtruth

If someone wants out the group has no issues with it and allows the person to leave. People might think it's bad for the kids, but think about it, if someone wants out there's still plenty of others to care for them.

IMO - the single family unit we have today is very detrimental to kids and is a main contributor to the ME generation. Few parents can truly devote themselves to their children. And in my experience the ages 9 through 13 are the most critical - - but, this is often a time where the caregiver feels the child is independent enough they can go back to work.

In the past, where extended families lived together, kids learned to share, learned to adapt to different personalities and ages, it was a necessity.

So, to me a group family is more beneficial then just 2 parents. And even if its transient and the group changes, that's how real life is today.

Of course it can be done right or wrong. I think a lot of respect is a requirement of a group family.

I hope polyamory continues to increase and they form groups where others can get together and discuss the "do's and don'ts", etc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ColdChillin

Yes. You have to pick your battles. Learning the fine art of satire helps too. Then you can make fun of them to their faces and they don't realize it.

I'm doing a lot of scrolling lately.

a reply to: Annee

I've decided to star the opinions I agree with and comment only when necessary. Satire heard, btw. Lol

For those who have been using the idea that all of these issues are because of men being violent toward women. What of women that are violent toward men? I believe that studies show that about 2 out of 5 cases of domestic violence are men on the receiving end of that violence.

Why is this always the go to for this issue?

Why are women considered faultless?

Why is it if you ask just about anyone who was more fair or nice to them as a child the majority will answer "my father"?

The problem here isn't feminism in itself, the problem is that the so called "leadership" of feminism are radical and they see everything in terms of black and white and have made the law see things in the same ridiculous terms that they do. Men are always bad (although white men are worse) and women are always the victim. It is dangerous to think in such general terms and the OP is correct in stating that our cultural decline is at the very least accelerated by such terrible mentality.

originally posted by: Fools
For those who have been using the idea that all of these issues are because of men being violent toward women. What of women that are violent toward men? I believe that studies show that about 2 out of 5 cases of domestic violence are men on the receiving end of that violence.

Why is this always the go to for this issue?

Why are women considered faultless?

Why is it if you ask just about anyone who was more fair or nice to them as a child the majority will answer "my father"?

The problem here isn't feminism in itself, the problem is that the so called "leadership" of feminism are radical and they see everything in terms of black and white and have made the law see things in the same ridiculous terms that they do. Men are always bad (although white men are worse) and women are always the victim. It is dangerous to think in such general terms and the OP is correct in stating that our cultural decline is at the very least accelerated by such terrible mentality.

Did you ever wonder how radical or non-radical feminists, or women and men who do not define themselves as activists were able to convince the male-dominated realm of the law to adopt their ideologies and enact new laws and throw out the old laws? One thought comes to mind, that being, for justice and fairness.

a reply to: InTheLight

Is justice always faulting men for all issues that cause problems? Real feminism recognizes that there is a balance between the sexes and that we both have a role in a healthy family life. It does not automatically assume that the woman is the victim purely because she is a woman.

a reply to: Gaussq

I figured most sane and rational people already concluded this?

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First, I agree with you. Second, I've only recently started to realize the lack of intelligence on this web site. There are huge numbers of American rednecks here. The whole gun rack in the pickup truck types. At first, I started to lose my # and my karma score reflects it but recently, I realized that I'm arguing with a bunch of #ing idiots. Why? Now, I've just decided to laugh at them because it just isn't worth the frustration of arguing with people who have an IQ below 50.

I have a gun rack, a pick up truck and a tested IQ around 150. I'm also a feminist. You can take your narrow minded, ignorant stereotype and shove it up your a$$. I'm just as sick of "#ing idiots" like you as I am of these MRA's and MGTOW's and the rest in between. You drag down humanity as much as they do. You have no idea what you are talking about. Get a clue.

a reply to: redhorse

Perhaps but you are not representative of 98% of your bretheran