Why Feminism is Wrong

a reply to: dawnstar

Ok thank you.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: 3n19m470

I think humanity would do well to learn some forgiveness. That's the real core of the issue here. People are not forgiving men for what has happened in the past. That is why the continued, sustained anger subsists for all these decades. Their inability to forgive, to empathize and come to the logical truth that they would have done the same in that situation.

^^^^^^^

Point being its not in the past yet!!

It is still happening Harvey Weinstein et. al? .....Salary inequalities?

In top places and not simply a support?

It may be getting there

But its not there yet

Bravo. The truth be told.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Destroying the family unit is just another way of dividing the people so they can be conquered!!

And what family unit would that be???

Two men married together, in a church too?

Two women married together, also in a church with all the trimmings?

Any mixture of transgenders you can conger up?

A divorced man or woman with children from other relationships?


There is no longer anything that resembles what was a family 100 years

ago!!!!

I suppose you put that down to *feminism* too.

The introduction of feminism could be just one tool in the search of reducing the population.
Most people believe that it was women who wanted 'feminism' but 'women's lib' was funded by the Rockefeller family.

When women work - children generally go to school younger so they can be indoctrinated at an earlier age. And after women started working, there was twice as much tax to be made.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
The introduction of feminism could be just one tool in the search of reducing the population.

How does that work?

Feminism doesnt stop women from having children.

Most people believe that it was women who wanted 'feminism' but 'women's lib' was funded by the Rockefeller family.

As a woman I'm all for 'equality' whatever you want to call it.

When women work - children generally go to school younger so they can be indoctrinated at an earlier age.

As far as I know children have always started school at the age of 5yrs

I went to school eons ago and I started at 5yrs.

And after women started working, there was twice as much tax to be made.

As before feminism/equality women worked for less money in more menial

jobs they rarely paid much if any tax.

originally posted by: eletheia
Feminism doesnt stop women from having children.

It has broken the normal family unit - which was about 100 years ago. Children growing up in a broken family will find it hard if not impossible to maintain a relationship that will produce well balanced children. More and more people are not having children - birth rates are going down in western societies.

As a woman I'm all for 'equality' whatever you want to call it.

Equality is fine - but call it 'feminism and then there is division - which is the cause of conflict

As far as I know children have always started school at the age of 5yrs

I went to school eons ago and I started at 5yrs.

I know children who leave home to go to some type of 'schooling' (pre-school or nursery) at 2 and a half.

[

As before feminism/equality women worked for less money in more menial

jobs they rarely paid much if any tax.

Yes - more tax for tptb when women were encouraged to work full time.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The introduction of feminism could be just one tool in the search of reducing the population.

actually, I think that improvements in birth control methods played a bigger role in that one. but women having more ability to control their reproduction rates have given them the ability to control how much, and how quickly their families grows. the ability to space children apart a few years in between births leads to healthier women and healthier babies. as well as giving those women, who, for whatever reason choose not to want children more ability to avoid pregnancies..

Most people believe that it was women who wanted 'feminism' but 'women's lib' was funded by the Rockefeller family.

may I suggest that you do a little research into just what rights the colonial women had compared to today's women....
and ask yourself, would you be happy? really do some research, and some deep thinking about it.

When women work - children generally go to school younger so they can be indoctrinated at an earlier age. And after women started working, there was twice as much tax to be made.

think about the early pioneer life... ya know back in the time when women had to bake their own bread, make their own candles, sew the family's clothing, maybe even weave the cloth to used to sew those clothing, haul the water inside, tend the garden, feed the cows, and on and on... sure, the men did plenty of work also, even the kids did....
but, well there's very little that a two year old can help with when it comes to alot of these things.... so who watched over the kids? more than likely it was an older sister, maybe a grandparent, and well, it could very well explain some of the kids who drowned in the local streams... but, you got to admit, those men and women did more work in their routine day than most of us do!!! and, weather working with the kids at home or working at a factory.... the fact still remains, you aren't really giving the proper attention to the kids when you are that involved in the work!!!
but, oh ya, those poor kids of today, spending their time in day care centers where they are supervised and kept busy with various activities in a structured environment....
heck, I grew up in the 60s and 70s and had a working mom... guess where I spent plenty nights at...
why I went to work with my mom, unless my dad knew that he would be alone at the water plant and took me with him....
she was a flipping bar tender!!! so give me a break, okay? god, to this day, even the smell of alcohol makes me sick and I can't drink it!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
actually, I think that improvements in birth control methods played a bigger role in that one. but women having more ability to control their reproduction rates have given them the ability to control how much, and how quickly their families grows. the ability to space children apart a few years in between births leads to healthier women and healthier babies. as well as giving those women, who, for whatever reason choose not to want children more ability to avoid pregnancies..

Indeed, birth control gives more control.
On the other hand - birth control means sometimes not having children at all because there is a seeking for the right man - and sometimes the 'right man' does not appear - there are more and more single people.

may I suggest that you do a little research into just what rights the colonial women had compared to today's women....
and ask yourself, would you be happy? really do some research, and some deep thinking about it.

Are women happy now???
And again it is not feminism that puts that right - it is equality. And 'equality' will never be promoted because it is more fun to set people against each other. Divide and rule. Feminism was funded by the Rockefeller family.
If there was equality then everyone should be paid the same hourly rate no matter what job they do imo - with everyone contributing instead of competing.
But humans seem to love to compete - but who really wins?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John, "In the new code of laws, remember the ladies and do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands." [1] John Adams replied, "I cannot but laugh. Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems." [2]

The new Constitution's promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.

www.equalrightsamendment.org...

for some reason, I don't believe there were any Rockefellers around in Abigail's time to tell her how unhappy women were.

On the other hand - birth control means sometimes not having children at all because there is a seeking for the right man - and sometimes the 'right man' does not appear - there are more and more single people.

ya know, you almost sound like you think that women should have an obligation to marry, have kids, and spend their lives raising and nurturing them. we don't... we can if we like, and if we are real lucky, we may be able to even become stay at home moms... or we can choose a different path for ourselves. it's called self determination I believe... it was that desire that motivated men to remove their yokes, from the priests, from the kings and queens, from their slave masters...
and map out their own destinies... believe we call that freedom. now why on earth do you think that women are so different than men that they wouldn't want that same freedom, or that one man alone, her husband, or her father, should have so much control over all that only he can decide just how much freedom and comfort is provided to her?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

UK, it says on my profile. I'm guessing identity politics is big in New York?

Not so much here, I used to work in a hotel/bar, practically met 100's of people a week, conversated with many. Politics seldom ever came up, feminism pretty much never.

I mean even the feminists I know seldom ever make a big deal out of their beliefs.

Yes, from my global travels and work both In the US and abroad, identity politics and social justice are in their most extreme form here. Also, I always counsel people that it depends on what fields one is in. My field, which is on the NGO and gov sphere working on community and poverty issues, is far more flooded. Same would be true for academia.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Hmm.

Given your field of expertise what would you say is the catalyst for such beliefs?

The way women are treated within the reality they found themselves in? Or literally a form of escapism?

Something else?

I know militant feminists exist, I won't deny that but extremism tends to come from bitter past experience. There's always a driving force.

That's a big question. First, there are legitimate issues women and minorities have faced historically. So many great people get drawn to social justice or feminism for those reasons.

I did for that reason, ie legitimate action around justice, helping others, and so on. This is why social impact orgs as I mentioned have higher numbers of such people. The moderate ones and the extreme version too.

The problem is there are a number of ideological strains that used to be a minority that are more extremist and even counterproductive. Recently these have become more prevalent due to academic circles embracing them AND even more powerfully, mainstream left political parties and groups doing so. This has increased their reach and influence. That is why you see the rise of the "sjw."

In feminism this is referred to as third wave feminism. With racial justice usually something like critical race theory. Conservatives sometimes refer to it as cultural Marxism.

I for one am disturbed by that trend.

The point here is that yes while some traumatized or unstable people embrace these philosophies, many more do so because they are growing up in an academic and org culture that proselytizes such ideas and expects compliance now.

a reply to: RAY1990

There is nothing wrong with equality but creating a movement called 'Feminism' just causes conflict. Imagine if there was a movement created called 'Blackism' or 'Whiteism'.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rickymouse

I think it's a good thing that nowadays we can decide who stays at home and who works. Some men make "better moms" than some women.

That is true. The problem is that people were conditioned years ago into gender roles. The most responsible parent and moral teacher should be staying at home with the kids. If there is kids. Don't have kids if all you want them for is a tax break. The most valuable thing I have is my daughters and grandkids. I do not believe in lots of kids, two or maybe three is plenty. One is good too.

People were not 'conditioned' years ago. The role of a man and woman in society dates back to the earliest times we have on record and developed completely naturally.
The conditioning you speak of is happening now, in our age.
I am all for letting people be who they want to be, but ANY movement that claims to speak for entire groups of millions of people is fraudulent.
I do absolutely agree with you that it doesn't really matter which parent stays at home with the kids, but I do believe that we have so messed up our society by making it impossible one parent to be at home - courtesy of feminism, the biggest con in modern history and the greatest oppression of women in all of known history.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
There is nothing wrong with equality but creating a movement called 'Feminism' just causes conflict. Imagine if there was a movement created called 'Blackism' or 'Whiteism'.

There are.
I would place white supremacists, black lives matter, muslim brotherhood, ISIS etc.. right alongside feminism.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rickymouse

I think it's a good thing that nowadays we can decide who stays at home and who works. Some men make "better moms" than some women.

That is true. The problem is that people were conditioned years ago into gender roles. The most responsible parent and moral teacher should be staying at home with the kids. If there is kids. Don't have kids if all you want them for is a tax break. The most valuable thing I have is my daughters and grandkids. I do not believe in lots of kids, two or maybe three is plenty. One is good too.

People were not 'conditioned' years ago. The role of a man and woman in society dates back to the earliest times we have on record and developed completely naturally.
The conditioning you speak of is happening now, in our age.
I am all for letting people be who they want to be, but ANY movement that claims to speak for entire groups of millions of people is fraudulent.
I do absolutely agree with you that it doesn't really matter which parent stays at home with the kids, but I do believe that we have so messed up our society by making it impossible one parent to be at home - courtesy of feminism, the biggest con in modern history and the greatest oppression of women in all of known history.

The societal changes are courtesy of inflation and many other factors. Women had/have no choice but to go out and work and it's only getting worse as now our children can't afford to leave home and be self-sufficient.

www.mybudget360.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rickymouse

I think it's a good thing that nowadays we can decide who stays at home and who works. Some men make "better moms" than some women.

That is true. The problem is that people were conditioned years ago into gender roles. The most responsible parent and moral teacher should be staying at home with the kids. If there is kids. Don't have kids if all you want them for is a tax break. The most valuable thing I have is my daughters and grandkids. I do not believe in lots of kids, two or maybe three is plenty. One is good too.

People were not 'conditioned' years ago. The role of a man and woman in society dates back to the earliest times we have on record and developed completely naturally.
The conditioning you speak of is happening now, in our age.
I am all for letting people be who they want to be, but ANY movement that claims to speak for entire groups of millions of people is fraudulent.
I do absolutely agree with you that it doesn't really matter which parent stays at home with the kids, but I do believe that we have so messed up our society by making it impossible one parent to be at home - courtesy of feminism, the biggest con in modern history and the greatest oppression of women in all of known history.

The societal changes are courtesy of inflation and many other factors. Women had/have no choice but to go out and work and it's only getting worse as now our children can't afford to leave home and be self-sufficient.

www.mybudget360.com...

Inflation was not the cause of women having to go to work.
More likely, it was women going to work that drove consistent and compounding inflation the likes of which had not been seen prior to WW2 in the US. I have a view that feminism was nothing more than an elitist funded movement to drive higher productivity, to create more wealth for the few.

US inflation rate 1600s-2000.
www.officialdata.org...

Note prior to WW2 the years of inflation and deflation balancing out and wiping out any compounding effect on prices... then women go to work and its inflation year after year - which makes perfect sense as more money circulates from two income households across the country. Prices rise higher, compounding each year. Households are not really any better off, but both have to work. Elitists get a huge win from the productivity gains and massive margins outpacing inflation.
It's an elitists game and we're all playing it - we're the suckers.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rickymouse

I think it's a good thing that nowadays we can decide who stays at home and who works. Some men make "better moms" than some women.

That is true. The problem is that people were conditioned years ago into gender roles. The most responsible parent and moral teacher should be staying at home with the kids. If there is kids. Don't have kids if all you want them for is a tax break. The most valuable thing I have is my daughters and grandkids. I do not believe in lots of kids, two or maybe three is plenty. One is good too.

People were not 'conditioned' years ago. The role of a man and woman in society dates back to the earliest times we have on record and developed completely naturally.
The conditioning you speak of is happening now, in our age.
I am all for letting people be who they want to be, but ANY movement that claims to speak for entire groups of millions of people is fraudulent.
I do absolutely agree with you that it doesn't really matter which parent stays at home with the kids, but I do believe that we have so messed up our society by making it impossible one parent to be at home - courtesy of feminism, the biggest con in modern history and the greatest oppression of women in all of known history.

Parents conditioned their kids in societies and even not in societies to follow basic behaviors. The mothers were assigned a job to bring up their kids a certain way, one that matched the local society. This was not appropriate to the government, they wanted more control and they wanted more control over a more stable society so they started schools. That was good, but in the last ten to twenty years the teachers changed partially because of new changes in the education governing bodies, they wanted to BS kids into believing in a reality that is far from real. Kids can see there is something wrong with this, they actually have less conditioning than adults who have lived in society for a long time.

I saw improvements in social conditioning for years of my life, but within the last ten to fifteen years it is falling apart, chaos is becoming more of the norm. Remember, to contaminate a society only about ten percent or less can cause lots of problems. To compare it with something else, in a community of ten thousand, four people who rob places or do vandalism can effect a lot of people, also they can put many more on edge and desire to boost security of their properties, draining money out of the community to buy burgler systems.

The people they put running our education system over the last twenty years are not able to comprehend the consequences of their changes they are implementing, this is coming from the top, teachers are being forced to do specially designed practices that are not well thought out. We need to examine the people implementing these changes, they are doing it to look important, and the kids are suffering. So are the parents.

I could go on with how predominant people are screwing things up, people who are book smart but lack common sense are running things in our education system.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: rickymouse

I think it's a good thing that nowadays we can decide who stays at home and who works. Some men make "better moms" than some women.

That is true. The problem is that people were conditioned years ago into gender roles. The most responsible parent and moral teacher should be staying at home with the kids. If there is kids. Don't have kids if all you want them for is a tax break. The most valuable thing I have is my daughters and grandkids. I do not believe in lots of kids, two or maybe three is plenty. One is good too.

People were not 'conditioned' years ago. The role of a man and woman in society dates back to the earliest times we have on record and developed completely naturally.
The conditioning you speak of is happening now, in our age.
I am all for letting people be who they want to be, but ANY movement that claims to speak for entire groups of millions of people is fraudulent.
I do absolutely agree with you that it doesn't really matter which parent stays at home with the kids, but I do believe that we have so messed up our society by making it impossible one parent to be at home - courtesy of feminism, the biggest con in modern history and the greatest oppression of women in all of known history.

The societal changes are courtesy of inflation and many other factors. Women had/have no choice but to go out and work and it's only getting worse as now our children can't afford to leave home and be self-sufficient.

www.mybudget360.com...

Inflation was not the cause of women having to go to work.
More likely, it was women going to work that drove consistent and compounding inflation the likes of which had not been seen prior to WW2 in the US. I have a view that feminism was nothing more than an elitist funded movement to drive higher productivity, to create more wealth for the few.

US inflation rate 1600s-2000.
www.officialdata.org...

Note prior to WW2 the years of inflation and deflation balancing out and wiping out any compounding effect on prices... then women go to work and its inflation year after year - which makes perfect sense as more money circulates from two income households across the country. Prices rise higher, compounding each year. Households are not really any better off, but both have to work. Elitists get a huge win from the productivity gains and massive margins outpacing inflation.
It's an elitists game and we're all playing it - we're the suckers.

There are many reasons for inflation, see the reasons under the column titled 'Events Affecting Inflation' in the link I provided.

www.thebalance.com...

As well, economists are saying the exact opposite of what you are posting here.

The United States could be yet stronger if more women worked, the authors of the Center for American Progress paper say. But there remain structural reasons that so many women stay home. Right now, about a third of all women and one quarter of all mothers do not work, they said. Policies that would help women include regulations to foster greater flexibility in hours, mandatory paid family and medical leave and mandatory paid sick days that could be used to care for a child, they argue. “Even as mothers and women are making significant contributions to the U.S. economy, they continue to do so within a set of institutions that too often do not provide them with the kind of support that they need to do this successfully both at work and at home,” the authors write.

economix.blogs.nytimes.com...