It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Feminism, and Secret Societies

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:17 PM
And the Illuminati quote is from 1785, what is your point?

I am talking about stable relationships, not abusive ones male or female.

The problem is, our society has an abundance of them. The question we are getting at is, Why?

Shouldn't the economy serve society, allowing families to develop, be it under a male or female parent? Isn't that what feminism's noblest aim should be?

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:34 AM
Dawnstar after reading many of your "men are unholy demons who opress all women" thread I can only conclde that you are a sad embittered woman who hates all men. Unfortunately Most feminists are exactly like you.
Men are evil, men are devils grrrrrrrrrrrrr

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:58 AM
Sorry, but the further back in time I go, the uglier the picture seems to get....

"This denial of equality was the essential cornerstone of men's violence against women and ultimately operated to deny women a fair trial when they were successful in fighting back against the violence.

From the beginning of time women were seen as inferior to men. Examination of the history of western civilization reveals laws authorizing men's use of violence against women to chastise and control them. In Roman times a husband was permitted to use reasonable physical force, including blackening her eyes or breaking her nose, in disciplining his wife. The English principle of coverture established that a married woman could not own property free from her husband's claim or control. In fact, women themselves were seen as property. English rape laws considered rape a crime against the husband, father or fianci of the victim. Rape cases were considered properly disposed of if the male "owner" of the victim was compensated for the damage to his "property". Marital rape was inconceivable, as wives could not legally refuse their husbands' conjugal rights. A sixteenth century Russian code wisely cautioned husbands not to strike their wives on the face or ear since they would be sorely disadvantaged should the wife become blind, deaf, or otherwise incapacitated. In many parts of Europe a man could kill his wife without penalty well into the 1600's. By contrast, a wife who killed her husband was penalized as if she had committed treason, because her act of homicide was considered analogous to murdering the king.

English common law sanctioned wife beating under the infamous "rule of thumb," which decreed that a man might use a "rod not thicker than his thumb" with which to chastise his wife. Oddly enough, this restriction was meant to be a means of protecting wives from over zealous husbands. American states adopted this rule in the early nineteenth century in formal recognition of a husband's right to beat his wife. By 1910, only 35 out of 46 states had passed reform legislation classifying wife-beating as assault.

These legalized injustices documented a societal state of mind not easily erased after being in place for centuries. It is only in the last fifteen years that most states have made it a crime for a man to rape his wife. Some states require physical injury to accompany the rape. The real legacy of these laws and practices remains in our perceptions of women and their position in respect to men. In many parts of our society a woman's wifely duties include sexual submissiveness.

It is no surprise that a man authorized to abuse his wife would be the king of the castle and the breadwinner. Women were relegated to traditional supporting roles of housewife and mother. A generation ago, national magazines featured stories on the corporate wife and her importance in supporting her husband's career. Careers for women were expected to be in teaching and nursing. It was not long ago that a woman could not be found in the boardroom, a police department or construction site. Few women could aspire to be doctors or lawyers or any occupation that might be overly time consuming and interfere with the duties of being mothers and wives. Also, These professions did not fit the image of a "good woman" who was passive and submissive. "

hey, I know, since we all just love our neighbors so much, surely we would never hurt them, let's just wipe out the laws against murder...
and well, since we are so honest and truthful, let's wipe out those laws that address the issues involved with theft.

this is the type of logic I think you are using.....since they love their wives as themselves.............

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:13 AM
"John Calvin (1500's) commenting on the folly of women reigning over men:

“Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highlyesteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men's side. So God is wellpleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands.” This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women.”

John Calvin commenting, in regard to 1 Corinthians 11:10, on the superiority of the male sex:

“It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this to God's eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex.”

John Calvin commenting, in regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34, about the impropriety of feminine rule:

“If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public. And unquestionably, whenever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly.”"

seems like the "feminist movement" goes back a pretty long ways.....
are you sure it took a secret society tricking them to believe they weren't happy with the position MAN appointed them in the world?

hmmm....maybe you should back to YOUR STATION IN LIFE, and bow down to the Noble Kings and Queens, Priests and Clergy, lords and master?


"It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women"........

so, let's see, one could assume here, that if the man decides that the women isn't deserving of God's graces...well, he could turn off the faucet?

Do I have the freedom of religion or no?

[edit on 7-3-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:08 PM
See, this is your problem.

What do you have in common with women from the 1500s?

Nothing, your situation has drastically improved, and still you bitch incessantly.

You talk about me bowing down to a King, are you delusional? There is no King that I would bow down to, and you put this down to 'women conquering royalty, cuz men couldn't.

I am telling you this, a relationship built on de-masculating a man will be full of resent and spite, much like you.

I heard someone use the argument, well, if a man and woman use the same words, a woman isn't taken AS seriously (for eg. in the business world). Well, hmmm, why is that? Imagine a female police officer : "Get down on the ground." And you are arguing because a man does not capitulate to women then he is automatically an abuser, hm? That something is wrong with our society when men don't "listen" to women?

Sorry, but aggression and intensity (male characteristics) cannot be faked by a woman, and when she does, men DO NOT respond as they would to another man telling them the same thing. Its natural, men are built to respond to a woman's subtleties, not her commands.

Not everything comes down to men hitting women, only women acting like men does.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by akilles

Sorry, but aggression and intensity (male characteristics) cannot be faked by a woman, and when she does, men DO NOT respond as they would to another man telling them the same thing.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I really wish you would've been a patron at one of the clubs I used to bounce at. You would've seen how a woman can be frighteningly intense.

And aggression?
I don't need to fake that at work.
Ask the last guy I gave a concussion to if I was faking it.

Really, you need to get a clue.

I do console myself with the fact that, with your attitude, you'll likely never reproduce.
Darwin & all, y'know.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:51 PM

In a healthy relationship, the man and the woman discuss the issue, and then the MAN decides!

I dont know how old you are Akilles but i am willing to bet i have cloths older than you.
As to your idea of a healthy relationship the only thing i can say( and not circumvent the censors) is you are daed wrong. My Wife and I have always made decisions together. Of course we do have a very special and unusual relationship. We share almost all the same interests and activities.

As for the healthy part I would think that Our being married close to 25 years
would be answer enough for that.
Here is another thought, I never wanted a partner to follow me but one that could and would walk BESIDE me.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:59 PM
"Not everything comes down to men hitting women, only women acting like men does. " now you are telling me that way back in the 1600 and 1700's, there were women acting as men, and this is why there were laws regulating just how badly the man could beat her......
but, the feminist movement began with a communist plot to convince women that they weren't happy with the role that Man assigned her with......
would you be happy if you worked all week and was given a check made out to another person?
would you be happy if someone had the right to beat you, at their whim?
would you be happy if you couldn't own property, enter into contracts, ect.
would you be happy if solely at the decision of another, your children could be wisked away from you, to be put under someone's else's guardianship? or maybe put to work in some brothel?

if you have said no to any of these, well, then don't think women are that much different than you, they aren't!

[edit on 7-3-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:43 AM
Dawnstar what the # does the 1500's have to do with today?
WTF does it have to do with the fact that female police officers and firefghters are not held to the same standars as men?
WTF does it have to do with the fact that god forbid should My wif and I divorce I have to prove her "unfit for motherhood" to gain custody and all she has to do s show up?
WTF does it have to do with domestic violence laws that put a friend of mine in jail for attempting to take away from his girlfreind a knife she had already stabbed him with twice?
WTF does it have to do with the fact that you, at any corporation in America have the legal right to maternity leave and I will get laughed out of the bulding fo asking for paternity leave?
You want #ing equality Dawnstar? Stop bitching and act equal.
Want to stop being viewed as "suzy homemakers"? Fight for a mans right to equal parental rights. Want to stop being viewed as the weaker sex? Protest against female firefghters not having to meet the same standards as thier male counterparts. Want to start being taken seriously in the boardroom? Stop showing cleavage in meetings.
You want equality? Fine take it, but dont try to ram this "benfcal discrimination" crap down my throat while screaming equal rights.
You want true equality, act like it.

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:46 AM
The proof that we were never really considered "equal" are those things that many men are complaining about now... they separate, usually the kids are given to the mom, and the child-support payments are given to the men. Then, a whole slew of benefit programs kick into effect, thus elimating the responsibility the women really has to at least be providing half of the finances needed while the men might get off with hey, a few hours with the kids a week, maybe, but then he can always cancel!! The system is so screwed up, that even in the cases where the men do get custody, they find that the same programs that are there to help the moms are extended to them...since well, there is still a pretty big gap when it comes to wages in this usually the men do make more money than the women...and well, their pay is well above the guidelines involved for the programs... But well, considering the cost of childcare, he'd have to be making a heck of alot to be able to cover it, and still feed, house and cloth his kids....and how often do you hear about dead-beat moms....not often...because no one actually expects her to make enough to support herself and make a major difference in the finances of her kids....
wtf.....can't you read?

I mentioned the important issues awhile back.....but you's just thought it better to pick apart my words on other issues....

so, to answer the questions you just posed.......
as far as the physical requirements involved with some jobs, well, these requirements should be a far standard for the job that is to be performed, it there is anything (like, I believe sit-ups), where adaptations are necessary to offeset the actually physical differences of the sexes, they should be adapted, then they should be meeting basically the same requirements for the job.

as far as the way we handle divorce and the break up of the family in, well, there's alot of room for improvement. But, don't you think that the first step of the process would be make husbands equally responsible for the care and nurturing of the kids, and wives equally responsible for financial aspects? How is you insisting that your wife remaining a stay at home mom, and you devouting so much time at work, and so little time with the kids gonna lead to anything but the decision that you are complaining about.

as far as the abuse issue goes, well, I am at the other side of that coin, a friend of mine refused to give money from her paycheck to her husband, so, he pushed her down the stairs, took the money he wanted, and walked out the door and headed for the bar! Leaving her to miscarry on the bottom of the stairs.

We should be able to protect the safety of women like her, while at the same time, preventing men from being convicted of bogus charges. If we can't, well, we shouldn't be sentencing people to death for anything, since we obviously can't be positive as far as the guilt or innocence of anyone.

But, don't go pointing at those good ole days, thinking we will be going back to them.....
all that is telling me is that ya, you want to have a family, but it's got to be your way, or just forget it...

which, if I was a young unmarried women, I would just say forget it, I don't need to be a mom that bad. And, well, if enough women did the same thing, hey, after a few generations, being artificially inseminated and carrying a child to full term would probably be federally funded.....and the women would probably be paid good money for the service...

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:54 AM
"actually physical differences"

Can you please tell us all the 'actual' differences between the sexes, or is it only on a physical plane, you believe, and men and women's behavioral science is identical.

You were a young unmarried woman? What are you now? An old unmarried woman?

Feminism told women that working set them free, and it makes you happy. So then, aren't you a betrayer of your sex if you are happy raising a family? If you find that to be ultimately fulfilling?

Shouldn't YOU WANT MORE if you are such a woman? I say no. Is 15 too young to have a kid? Maybe intentionally, but is it the lifelong burden that some describe, devoid of any redeeming qualities whatsoever?

Who's to say a woman can't have kids, and then decide what she wants to do in the workplace?

I really believe this is only for women who are afraid of commitment, or a woman that believes man doesn't 'need' them (most men don't need women, they co-depend on them), so by appealling to young girls individualism, they have scared them off from stable relationships, believe me, most girls under 20 are not interested in something even semi-permanent.

So yes, I probably won't be reproducing with an 'unfit' mother, I don't see how I am missing anything in this case.

Did your story about a personal friend being pushed down the stairs, you sure those weren't the castle stairs, and it was the king pushing his wife down them, and it was the future King who miscarried on her floor? Its sad, is this another story from the 1500s?

And back to the 'intense' mod, did you actually pick a fight with a guy? Told him to meet you outside, and the whole shebang, hey?

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:31 PM
ya know, you should really really should.

I am a married women....I have stayed married for the past three years of so (since I hurt myself and can't work) by simply informing my husband that if he leaves, he will not come back, and he will not have any say in the near future as to just what decisions I make, so if he wants a say in his kid's life, well, he had either better take the kids with him, or keep the family intact. My position is that hey, I can't even promise that I will be able to walk and get around in a few years, and couldn't earn enough to meet half their needs when I could....
his position is that hey, if he moves, the great god the government will step in and take care of us.....

yes, the women I mentioned, I grew up with her, we were best freinds at one time. What, are you trying to imply that such things don't go on in our world? ohh, ya.....that's because we are acting like men!!!
HEY, ALL FRIEND WAS BEING WAS A MOTHER, the kids needed food, the husband spent his money elsewhere, so she got a job so they would have the food, then refused to give him her money....

And, I wasn' t happy raising my kids, wtf!!! The kids next door to us had a swingset out in their back yards, oogles and oogles of toys for their amusements, nice brand new cloths, his and her nice sportscars for mommy and daddy, and gee, one day I overheard a really good conversation as dad loaded his car up with his possessions as he usually did on monday morning......

"Well, I shouldn't have to work, who will take little billy here to his baseball practice, and such..."....mommy.
"Well, I shouldn't have to work....I can't, I'm going to college!!!.

Blah, Blah, Blah!!!

My husband worked, I was willing to, even willing to go without the car and just walk to the place, just couldn't find a job that would be willing to pay what the childcare costs, let alone pay anything additional to help out the family. So, I didn't. My kid stayed home some days from school, his asthma would kick in and we would have to wait for payday for the medicine he needed to be able to function properly in school... I overheard my best friend's daughter telling one of the neighborhood kids (another poor child who's parent was being supported by the government) who was her friend...

"Oh ya, they're so poor, my mom has to give them my hand me downs." thus making my kids the subject of jeers and jokes for many years to come. Oh yes, my kids were so poor, BUT NOT POOR ENOUGH THAT THEIR PARENTS COULDN'T CLOTH AND FEED THEM!!!

Well, my husband felt that he worked all day, why should he have to come home and have to mess with kids, so, he didn't, why, the check was made out to him, and he made sure he got what was important to him, nothing else mattered.
As soon as I could be comfortable with the childcare arrangements (the kids got old enough to be left alone if needed, at least somewhat), you bet your danged ars I went to work and moved out of that hellhole. And, gee, ya know what, if my contribution to my employer would have been just a few more dollars an hour, maybe I would have been at least able to go on long enough to have a diagnosis.....and gotten the treatment I needed.
But, well, so much for that one, huh....I bet even when I am old and grey, social security will be gone, and they will still be trying to take money out of us, to give to others......I can just crawl around on the floor to just get around.....
That is who I am....
Now, just who the hell are you?

[edit on 8-3-2005 by dawnstar]

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:15 PM
You have only further highlighted my point that society is littered with abusive relationships.

My point has been to believe all effects of extreme Feminism have been positive is to merely delude onself.

I am not saying women can't be independent, these are only the words PUT into my mouth! I didn't say a woman can't be happy however she choses!

All I said is when a relationship becomes merely a power struggle, it has become less than what it was, when it was based on love and trust. What is your counterclaim, that men want no such thing? Or that men can only show they trust a woman by conceding to their position?

It is co-dependent love, and co-dependent honesty/trust, and this has been my point, not 'man in charge', just that feminism has resulted in women being distrustful of men, resentful of raising children, and less likely to look for a long term relationship (esp. with men their own age, as men their own age MUST be immature). Can we not recognize negative effects for what they are, and stop trying to pretend what happened in the last few hundred years is the DEFINITE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND, it isn't. It was male biased, but that doesn't mean things were never balanced in the past!

There is just no argument in the world to make me believe Feminism couldn't have done better, for example telling woman NOT to flood the workplace, and only take a job when it is the right pay for the right work (ie. equal), even if it meant living at home with their parents! Point being that it deserves its due criticism (in its extreme forms, again).

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by akilles
And back to the 'intense' mod, did you actually pick a fight with a guy? Told him to meet you outside, and the whole shebang, hey?

Akilles, take my advice, you don't want to go there. Ban's intense, Ban's a woman and Ban could kick your ass. Profesional wrestler. Cyberspace, a lovely place to hide.

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 08:01 PM
There is just no argument in the world to make me believe Feminism couldn't have done better, for example telling woman NOT to flood the workplace, and only take a job when it is the right pay for the right work (ie. equal), even if it meant living at home with their parents! Point being that it deserves its due criticism (in its extreme forms, again).

gee I hope you weren't suggesting that I should have moved in with my parents, with three kids, instead of taking that job that really should have paid more but didn't....
because well, my mother was physically incapable of even watching my kids while I worked a part time job, let alone financially capable of supporting us all.

and well, come to think of it, my grandmother worked after her husband died...for a more unequal pay than I, and lived with her parents....
as did her mother. that was way before the feminist movement kicked in too.

ya know, we most of us are honest working people, we wouldn't steal....
but yet, we still have laws on the books and employers still do what they can to protect themselves from theft.

and yet, well, here there were laws, not only not protecting women, but giving guidelines as to how to better beat your wife...
and yet, oh, ya, the feminists were wrong?

and, you are still insisting that the women should really still be dependent on someone, even if it means moving back in with her parents....

sorry, but nope!!

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:03 PM
I'm sorry to hear your mother is blind, and your children require 24 hour supervision under your guidance, but you must understand that is hardly the norm.

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:14 AM

Originally posted by akilles
I'm sorry to hear your mother is blind, and your children require 24 hour supervision under your guidance, but you must understand that is hardly the norm.

gee, where did I say that my mother was blind?? actually dear, MY MOTHER IS NOW DEAD!!!
and, my children are grown now....for the most part.
but, well, you can't really leave three very young children alone for long now can you....
when they were young, she was incapable of helping much. that was my point, make of it what you wish.
not the norm??
you have families hopscotching across the danged nation chasing the jobs!! It quite well could be the norm!!

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:48 AM
Revelation 18:7, "In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'"

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 07:46 AM
and it referring to "Babyon....and it's fall." A city, or a nation....a group of people, no A WOMEN!!!
A city that has become the den of demons, a nation that has made all other nations drink of her rotton wine. .....rulers and businessment have grown rich rfrom all her luxuries!! She has seven heads, and ten horns and wears purple (color of royalty) and scarlet clothing, jewlels of gold and precious gems. and gee, it is a creature, that raises out of the sea....

what does it have to do with me?
ask me it is talking about the rich businessmen and politicians, and the nation that they lead, who have spread out across the world spreading their goods and services, forcing it down the natives throats if need be!!

not the feminists....sorry, try again!!!

when Jesus went into the wildernes to fast, he became very hungry and thirsty. Satan came to him tempting him...."Turn this stone into bread, if you be the son of God... bribes women with the idea of them providing with all their needs also, don't they....
what was his answer....
there are more important things than the needs of this earth?
then Satan shows him all the kingdoms of the world.....all this I will give to you, if you will bow down and worship me....
the man want women to accept the fact that to get into that one important kingdom, she must accept him as her high priest, intercessor to God on her behalf....thus bowing down and worshipping him.
But, well, Jesus justs reminds him, God said that he was his God, and he should obey no one else....
So, he then takes him to roof of the Temple, "jump from here, if you are the son of God, surely he will save you.....
just like some christians will insist that the wife follow the husband anywhere, regardless of the consequenses....surely, God is looking our for you!!
Jesus just reminds them that we shouldn't be foolish and test the Lord....

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:03 PM
Yeah, because God knows that has been my argument all along, is that my wife should pray to me....

Are you delusional?

Do you bend the argument to suit your whims. discussing the 1500s, your personal life, and now your take on the Bible, rather than address what the NEGATIVE effects and outcomes of Feminism have been.

I wonder why you didn't "Praise the Phrase", as it is quite evident it portrays a 'strong' woman, does it not?

America is the woman that makes nations drunk with her trade, btw.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in