The Religious Conspiracy Against Women

reply to post by Dock6


Dock 6,

Wow!!!! I catch so much flack in threads like this I am somewhat taken back by your post. Totally unexpected and also appreciated. For your post and support in this I thank you.

I am also encouraged by your lengthy new thought process.

I should tell you that in years past..I too was heavy into the women's movement and bought into the standard mantras. Somewhere along the line I began to see that not all was as advertised.

What I began to realize was how insidious was the inner workings behind this movement and its hijacking into what it has become today.

What these issues are today has become about is votes. They are not about issues per se..but about votes for the political parties...in particular ..one political party which has made a career out of catering to women and others in high electoral vote states. For they have determined that women and the effeminate are very influential economically and therefore influential for votes. A system of issues must needs be created to get the women and the effeminate males on the emotional treadmill such that their votes can be, malleable, controlled, guaranteed, and predictable when stepping into the voting booth.
What these issues for votes have become is a substitute security blanket ..government provided and funded surrounding the issues of sexualty and security. In otherwords the government as a substitute male without risks. All this and more in order to cultivate votes. It has been disasterous on the family unit. In this effect on the family unit/children you are quite correct.

Back beginning with Phil Donahue ..years ago..the power of emotional puppet strings was not lost on the body politic. The audience was mostly women..and easily emotional women. Hence the "Victim Dictum " as a standard format was brought onto the scene/born and then carried over to the body politic.
I have seen enough of this emotional puppet technique string done to see it easily on these threads and spot it for what it is. Be very careful when watching television or listening to the radio when someone tries to put you on the emotional puppet strings. I am not saying emotions are bad..but just be very careful about them. Emotions can often mislead and confuse us when clarity is instead needed.

I don't have a problem with women working and earning moneys. I just know that with most women ...social functions and beliefs/values are very different from men. This is not equality. I don't care who is singing the mantra.

However...you make a good point in your post about children being raised by those not their parents. I will expand on this a bit more.

Children are indeed paying the price for this affluence...in leaps and bounds.
I see a lot of males today who are raised in front of a television or peer group and have as high or higher maintenance conditions than do many females. And they often justify their entitlements in similar manner to females. They have female pattern thinking and values/consumption levels. This does not bode well for them if they have to function in an environment with real men. It also does not bode well for the women who must count on them. This shows up clearly in marriage statistics.
Sad but true.
We are also seeing a noticable increase in the women/females of this country beginning to bear the fruit of a television/peer group education. It is showing up more and more in the nightly news.

Oh..another thing I am in agreement with you on ..I have noticed that there seem to be as many if not more women smoking out here than men. Have you noticed this trend?? At least around here I notice it.

There are however ..also what is noticable to me is a group of women who have not bought into the mantra of their mothers and grandmothers times. The femminist movement. They have opted to be stay at home moms. I think this is comimg back. Slowly but coming back. Or perhapsed they are taking longer to rejoin the work force. Spending more of time with thier children before going back to work.
I am thinking that some of these women are realizing that the movement did not make thier mothers and grandmothers lives happy,fulfilled and content..especially in thier autum years.

Nonetheless..I am grateful for your post and encouraged that at least one person out here gets it.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



[edit on 6-10-2008 by orangetom1999]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, while the oppression of women in Islamic society is now talked about at length, why don't we take the same tone with Christian oppression of women?

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread. I agree with the entire OP. S & F

Christians who claim the entire Bible is the "inerrant word of God" cannot deny the words of Paul and Peter deem women lesser than men.

They just can't explain why "God" didn't make "wives, obey your husbands" one of the Commandments if he DID encourage Paul and Peter's opinion.

I know why, though, it's because it makes no sense.

If it were a command, wives could get away with ANYTHING, so long as their husband told them to do it(at least, as far as God was concerned). But since it makes no sense, it wasn't added to the top ten. Period.

Now, I believe women do enjoy, by nature, letting the husband take the lead. But to say that it's a command goes against the very nature of God, who is supposed to have given us a "free will". That being the case, it isn't a "sin" to go against your husband's command, or even consider yourself his equal in the home, as far as decision making goes, and everything else.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Name any society in the entire history of this planet that was both 1) A matriarcy, and 2) rose above the level of grass huts.

Not a village. Not a single woman. A SOCIETY that was run by women that rose above a third-world condition.

You can talk about "equality" all you want. But riddle me this, Batman: Have women, as a whole, been responsible with their new found freedoms? Or have they demanded "equality" without equal responsibility?

Here's the command that God gives to women: "Obey your husbands". You see that? Women aren't even commanded to love their husbands, merely "obey". Now compare that to the command given to husbands in regards to their wives. See who has the harder job.

lol.....
ya, sure....
which do you think is harder...staying home trying to take care of the needs of your hungry children...or sitting on a bar stool, drinking away the grocery money that should of been used to feed those children...
all the "obey you husband" bit does is attempts to force the women to just accept it without an alternative. it makes the husband the automatic default in every decision....no matter how stupid, how harmful, how deadly it might be for the rest of the family. everyone makes mistakes....at least if the man and the women have the freedom to mesh out their differences, some of these mistakes might be avoided. neither should have a default, and both should have the option to say to the other, I just ain't gonna go along with this, if you want to go ahead, but you will go it alone.

reply to post by orangetom1999

The truth about these so called matriarchial societys is that they were femminine...not female per se..but femminine..meaning ...of this world and the power of this world. Another word for this pattern is Feudal.

Matriarchal means a family,society,community,or state governed by women.It doesn't mean there was just some female influence,it means they made the rules etc.Matrifocality is a society where women occupy a central position.And feudalism is a political and military system,not social.

In most of occult writings ....the power is in the males...even in the fertility principles.

The oldest known religious cult is that of the Earth Mother/Mother Goddess,it can be traced back to the Paleolithic era.(24,000–22,000 BC) She may have been the dominant figure but the fertility rites and principles were equal because,in the case of humans,its all to do with the reproductive processes.Which is 2 halves coming together to make 1 whole.

reply to post by sir_chancealot

Have women, as a whole, been responsible with their new found freedoms? Or have they demanded "equality" without equal responsibility?

Yes and no.
Not all women act the same,just as all men don't.You get a sense that the answer is just no,but that goes from all the things mentioned in the press.Responsible women just don't get as many headlines.

And I think that after being oppressed for so long women have a right to go a 'lil wild and experience life to the full.That doesn't mean they should be totally irresponsible though.

Originally posted by jakyll
...in the case of humans, its all to do with the reproductive processes.Which is 2 halves coming together to make 1 whole.

~Applauds~

Yes, two halves, not 60/40. In two halves you cannot have a greater value.

For anyone fool enough to think that the past was all rosy for women because they could be married with children without having to work,make choices,take risks etc,i recommend reading this;
www.hastingspress.co.uk...


Oh,and thank you mmariebored

[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


jakyll,

Matriarchal means a family,society,community,or state governed by women.It doesn't mean there was just some female influence,it means they made the rules etc.Matrifocality is a society where women occupy a central position.And feudalism is a political and military system,not social.

I am with Sir Chancelot on this one...

Name any society in the entire history of this planet that was both 1) A matriarcy, and 2) rose above the level of grass huts.

Not a village. Not a single woman. A SOCIETY that was run by women that rose above a third-world condition.

This matriarchal society stuff has great appeal..but no matter how you catalogue it ...it produces the same fruit as feudal structures. By feudal I mean where the main classes of influence are the Royalty and the priesthood class who live well off the labor and fruits of everyone else.
It is the same with most military juntas. or dictatorships. This is also the fingerprint of Communist structures...or workers paradises.

Any system you want to name has a social structure. The key ..no matter what our educational systems try to tell us...is what is the fruit that they bear...not what is the name of the system... or how they are catalogued.

mmariebored,

Yes, two halves, not 60/40. In two halves you cannot have a greater value.

You do realize that this is nonsense..yes??

The concept of 50/50% among women ..and even among men is like stupid. Its 100/100%. As a general rule...women can count faster than do most men. Especially moneys.
No woman I know is interested in a man giving only 50%. They are smarter than that. They will quickly wonder and maneuver to get control over the other 50%..especially moneys. Most men of whom I know will be dumb enough to plod along and think they are getting a good deal at 50%.

50/50% looks and sounds good on paper...and in the classrooms. It is 100/100% This nonsense is where most men sell themselves way short.
They are happy and content,good for another 100,000 miles, because they have sports, the swimsuit edition, television, and can strike oil once in awhile.

The greater value is in 100/100%..in two. You can have a greater value indeed.

jakyll,

For anyone fool enough to think that the past was all rosey for women because they could be married with children without having to work,make choices,take risks etc,i recommend reading this;

What on earth possesses you to think that life in the past was all rosey for men as well?? I cannot imagine what you are thinking here. I suggest here that your education or thinking are skewed..both about the past and also today. Skewed by a political education.
Most men did not live social lives of affluence...and also were not educated in the past...could not read or write.

Some of the stuff you post comes across precisely like our body politic here skimming for votes. You are not telling the whole story.
The men did not have it all that great in the past..anywhere you went on this earth...they perished at a higher rate than did the women. Still do today.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom