It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
[edit on 3-3-2009 by ofhumandescent]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I dont think women have anything to worry about. Its easy to keep a people down, (like women in cultures like the mid-east) where its all most women have ever known. But it would be very hard to put women in the west down after having had a generation or two of freedom.

Besides, the argument in here even about the economic proposal from the first post is pretty lame. If this is the best reasoning these guys can do, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

They will never make it past that cooler full of sixpacks we will set outside their little "Men Unite" rally.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
After the U.S. economy melts down and restarts, prices and incomes
will be back at 1940 levels. Then, only one breadwinner will be
needed per household. The family unit will be stronger and people
will actually enjoy their life once again. That's my prediction & hope.
-cwm



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

You apparently haven't kept up with history books.

It was only the wealthy women who could stay home before the 1950's. The rest of the women had to get out and work. My grandmother worked in a pottery factory, as did her sister. My husband's grandmother was a health care assistant. My dad's mother worked in a munitions plant and before that worked in a department store... all before the rise of feminism. And so on and so forth back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome, when we see women running businesses and involved in trade. Fathers and mothers and grandparents (all living in the same 3 room house) all were responsible for chores and for raising kids. Many of them lived on farms and also had unmarried uncles and aunts in the same family household.

The only ones who got to sit at home and coo over babies were the wealthy.

And yes, I remember Life Before Feminism... when people made jokes about women coming to work with black eyes because their husbands beat them. I remember being slapped around by my husband because I played guitar better than he did (I have a talent for guitar.) I remember when we couldn't own bank accounts.

But, we can try your solution. Let's put all the women out of work and make them stay home (including the older ones and the infertile ones.) The ones who aren't married... gosh. I guess they just starve. The ones who have kids but no husbands, well, they starve too and live out of their cars - (just as they did in the 1950's). To fill all those jobs, we can invite immigrant men over so that men can hold all the jobs that the women have had to vacate so they can go back to the family.

That will leave their women at home, uneducated and destitute. American women, freed of a mandate to educate themselves and become involved in complex issues (like science) can be encouraged to think only about diets and makeup and how to get a guy and the proper soccer lessons to have. You can look forward to long evenings talking about the kids' clothes, what to have for dinner, the price of food at the supermarket, what the ladies at the beauty salon said, and whether or not Rush Limbaugh's hair looks to fake.

...and (as happened historically) the women who rebel will become prostitutes. Those prostitutes who are well educated will simply hold salons and soirees where men who want intellectual companionship can come and drink and spend money on gambling and sexual favors that their uneducated wives (who shouldn't open any sex instruction manuals because that was another new thing put out by us Evil Feminists) aren't capable of handling.

So money will flow, prostitution will flourish, mistresses will once again be back in fashion (to the point that you can (as was done historically) take them out places where you would never take a Proper Woman), and best of all men won't be put out of work by women. All our problems will be solved!

(except what to do with old people, but the older women who survive won't be able to work so unless kids and others take care of them, they'll go starve or beg. Maybe you could bring back the practice of suttee -- where widows commit suicide because they are not allowed to work and nobody will support them.)

All our problems are solved by eliminating those things brought about by feminism!!! Huzzah!!!!



Byrd!

I am delighted.



[wrong smilie]




[edit on 3-3-2009 by soficrow]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


June Cleaver is a myth. It was only like that on TV.

Many of the women at that time had the same situation women now have. Dead beat or abusive husbands, who spent the family money in bars with the boys. Or ran off and left. Or stayed and beat their families. People were still people back then. You had good one income families, and you had bad one income families. You had single mothers. Everything we have now, they had back then too. The only difference was women couldnt get good jobs if they had to or wanted to. Now they can.

Men havent been ruined by womens rights. The guys that are jerks now, would have been jerks back then too. And the guys that were fine men then would be fine men now. If you want a June Cleaver lifestyle now, have one. Find yourself a Ward. Get a volunteer from this thread, there seem to be lots of guys here that want a June.

The only real difference between now and then is if Ward turns out to be a zero instead of a hero, you have a better chance of making it on your own. And, you dont have to listen to this type of insulting crap in the workplace.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Wow!! This really is a fast moving thread. It has gone a couple of pages in a few hours.

Mistiq,

I know exactly what you mean here..


Men have never been, nor ever will be superior to any woman anywhere in this universe and back again. In fact, many a time I've considered them to be from separate planets, and much prefer the female energy way of doing things, in. Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. Its called cooperation as opposed to the dog eat dog style.


The woman I am seeing is in the apartment business and often runs both sides of the office..renting/leasing and also the maintenance side.

I like the way she cooperates and "flashdances" me through my maintenance problems at home while I drink beer and sometimes go to Hooters or the County Bar and Grill up the road from me. While she is "flash dancing" me through my problems I can be watching sports and cheerleaders on the big screen television. Life is good Mistiq!!
Now don't take offense here ..because I can most certainly get my own beer and don't call on her to get if for me. I am perfectly capable of getting my own.
However I am very glad she "flashdances" me through my maintenance problems here at home ...gratis. She is a "good provider." After all...I deserve it the other guys don't!!
She certainly is superior to me in this facet.. you are absolutely correct, so therefore I can expect more from her than I would someone else.

She draws the line however at fixing my cars and truck. I am trying to get her to work on her mechanics certification for this so she can "flashdance" me through my vehicle problems as well... gratis!!

To those who are superior..more can be expected. No problem with superiority...you are correct. She is superior. Much better at computers as well. Do you think I can get her to "flashdance" me through computer problems as well?? Gratis???

Undo,

You really need to think this through.


whole segments? try 50 percent of the population in places where they haven't killed off most of their women.


I see this kind of thing all the time and it passes or plays through without most even thinking it through.

I ask myself if you know the ratio of male mortality in most places in the world next to female mortality rates in most places in the world?? From all reasons...not just the select ones most of the women's groups like to quote by statistics.

What I detect is that male mortality from all reasons is much higher than female mortality. But the crime is female mortality of any and all types..not male mortality. This is not equality.

Now we can do this here in the USA since this country is more economically developed than most. How do the male vs female mortality rates stack up in equality?? Near as I can understand and see happening ..the males die off at a faster rate than the females even here. This too is not equality. But the crime inferred is that female mortality is not to be tolerated...male mortality is ok. This is the message that one gets when one sees posts on this topic line.

Unfortunately ...most males/men cannot seem to think this through about their inherent disposability and expendability in such a social structure striving for "equality." Why would an American male even want to think it through...they have Hooters, NASCAR, and the swimsuit edition going for them. What a dumb bunch of creatures males can be to let this stuff pass without even an intelligent thought.


White Wave,

Yes...I am saying that even the males here exhibit a strong feminine tendency to subtilty..in a type of investment in chaos. Feminine ..in and of this world and all that implies. Subservient to a master is also correct.
And to do this they must bring all into the circle by counterfeit means...involving seduction/subtilty...which is also a very feminine trait.
Also correct in that they are tending to their own hearth...as in a Feudal Fiefdom which indeed does not include the majority of us.


Having acknowledged and conceded your general point (as I understand it), may I also suggest that TPTB controlling the supply of money are males who refuse to be MEN; who refuse to submit to their Headship and have gone whoring after other masters.


Exactly correct...and well stated. We are on the same page here.
What is not known by the bulk of peoples is that the males can use the feminine principle if they are trained in it. It requires certain trainings and does not come naturally to most men. But I digress here.

Thanks for your post White Wave.


Johnny R,


My question now is: Why are so many men becoming lazy and loosing their sense of responsibility? You made me think Oracle....ty


Who is raising what is attempting to pass for men now days?? From where do they get their value systems?? Do these males think from a position of responsibility or from a sense of "Options??" Even from a sense of entitlement??

Are not many males today becoming more and more "high maintenance??"
Why do you suppose this is?? From whence would a male learn such a fingerprint to use or misuse in their daily lives??

Reasoner,


Yep. Men are really hard to emotionally manipulate. Say something about flag burners, and most men respond calmly and rationally, while women get all emotional.


Think this through a bit more...reason it out. Men' emotions in most of the socially engineered political/economic drama played out today..doesn't count. Hardly gets a passing mention. THe drama is directed to the "Victimized groups." THe men are hardly considered or factored in among this type of emotional stroking going on. THe men are engineered and positioned to remain neutral while others default through under the banner of emotional "Victimization."

Flag burning is hardly social engineering and Victimization of which I am speaking in the context of social engineering and such "Victimization Politics." You can see this clearly on this thread if you are awake.

Do I need to take a DNA/Lie detector test on this one???


Come on, let's be real. Men are at least as easily stroked and stoked emotionally - it's just different cues. Say "primary school education" and statistically more women respond emotionally; say "terrorism" and statistically more men respond. This has been well studied.

Democrats are on average a bit better at reaching women emotionally, Republicans are on average a bit better at reaching men emotionally.


It is indeed different cues...more like the men are responding to cues from the women and now the children. The women and children are not getting their cues from the men..but other outside sources. This is not part of the "well studied." This is not equality but consumption.

As to democrats and republicans ..I find little difference in either of the parties as they will both barter, sell, and trade the souls of the public for power while not delivering the promises...both parties. Any business which did not deliver the goods would soon be out of business. The political process can fail to deliver and continually remain in power???
What is amazing to me is that the public is so stupid and conditioned to not think this way ..they are actually so stupid as to think their is nothing wrong with this...it is perfectly normal .... while rooting for their respective "teams." One has to be educated to be this naturally stupid and not get it. Ordinary people left to reason it out on their own are not that stupid.

Think this through more closely ..your logic and reason are failing you here.


For example, one of the largest trends in advertising in the past half century is a huge increase in the amount of female anatomy showing. Is all that flesh there mainly to entice lesbians to buy products?

Yeah, make up ads are aimed at women - and car ads are often aimed at men.


Sex sells products to the unwary. I can assure you that women are acutely aware of the "other " woman more than are the men...by miles and miles. This is called the competition. Sex is power, is sales. Beauty and access to beauty means female power over males and the production of males. Especially among males with little thinking and mostly an oil shortage/sports mentality.

As to car ads...lol lol lol...you need to talk to a car dealer or salesperson as to who is the determiner of the bulk of what kinds of cars are purchased in this country..it is not the males...they mostly make the payments and keep up the maintenance. I should not have to tell you this.
How man women do you know who buy cars for men and maintain them??
Only the male can be this naturally stupid and not notice it or think it through. I can assure you that women are far superior in this category of thought than are the men. Way ahead of the man. Equality is not happening here as well.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
After the U.S. economy melts down and restarts, prices and incomes
will be back at 1940 levels. Then, only one breadwinner will be
needed per household. The family unit will be stronger and people
will actually enjoy their life once again. That's my prediction & hope.
-cwm


It was possible to lead a happy life with that level of consumption.

But do look at the distribution of income then and now. The top 1% and 10% take a much larger slice of the pie now. That might need to be adjusted back to 1940s or 1950s levels too.

reasoner



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

I said something like that too, I agree. This would be an enormous help to the both the family unit and the job market, as well prices would be forced to drop, and wages forced up.



Dream on. We would just import more people (immigrants) to keep the wages low. Surely you guys cannot really be that naive? Why do you think jobs are outsourced? Why do you think so many businesses want to allow illegal immigrants into the country to work? Or make them legal?

Throwing women out of the workforce, or dictating that only one member of a family be allowed to work isnt going to help families. Because you are blaming the wrong thing. If you cut American women out of the workplace you arent going to create higher wages. You are going to increase immigration and/or speed the export of jobs. Study some economics.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Flag burning is hardly social engineering and Victimization of which I am speaking in the context of social engineering and such "Victimization Politics." You can see this clearly on this thread if you are awake.


You got this one right. There sure is a victimization mentality on this thread. Let me summarize it,

"Sure, we have been in control of most societies in the world the last several thousand years, but its not OUR fault that things are/have been bad. WOMEN did it! Its all their fault! And if we arent manly anymore (whatever that means) thats their fault too! Why did they ever eat that apple? They made us do that too! And, and, and.....Wah Waahhh Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!"



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

You don't understand the concepts we are talking about here. Nobody is saying that women shouldn't work, that is ridiculous. The point is, the Rockefellers used their influence to ensure that Americans (and the remainder of the Western world for that matter) in general become dependent on two incomes to survive simply due to the lessening in purchasing power and increasing reliance on credit and government support, thanks to our good friends at the Federal Reserve. Somebody explained this perfectly, further up this page.


As I need to reiterate from my previous post, Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo that Women's Lib functioned as a catalyst for 2 things: 1) to tax the remaining 50% of the population, and 2) to divide the average family and the government becomes the 'father figure' instead - controlling and stretching your purchasing power and allocation of credit and / or welfare dependency. The simple concept of divide and conquer; it's all too simple none of us ever noticed it. Now, if you are a female and you have children and you want to work, then by all means do so. It's a decision we all need to make at some point in our lives, something we have to work out with our partners and provide the best future for our kids. Nobody is suggesting that you should be chained to the kitchen table. Just be aware that the shift in culture from those old-fashioned values was in fact planned and engineered and not for your benefit as an independent woman. It was to (as a whole) further enslave all of us, to dilute what little wealth and income we have.

Somebody just mentioned outsourcing and employment of immigrant labour, and this also aids in further diluting our collective purchasing power. It's all part of the soup!

Nobody I know in my town (myself included), can survive on a single income when caring for more than one person. It's impossible. If you have another adult in the house, plus a child, then you have no alternative than for the other partner to be in work and pay for daycare, or rely on the welfare system (and it has also engendered a culture where people can safely pop out babies and live off the welfare state for the rest of their lives). None of this is by accident, it is by subtle design that we live this way in our western world.

So can we please for crying out loud, drop the talk of misogyny here and engage our brains, not our emotions.. these conspiracies have been carried out in plain sight in the cold light of day, and sometimes this is the best way to condition a society and get us used to it. Just like they are microchipping our pets, it will be us next. None of this is hidden if you are attuned to it all.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by RiotComing]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Rockpuck
 



In part of this video Aaron Russo claims he was informed By Rockefeller that women were only given the right to vote as someone realised it would double taxes overnight if they went to work.

Make you wonder




Good on you! I mentioned Rockefeller earlier and I was ignored as my post wasn't long enough to be considered worthy by some. I suppose this will just be one of my other 1-2 line posts.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OrangeTom1999
What I detect is that male mortality from all reasons is much higher than female mortality. But the crime is female mortality of any and all types..not male mortality. This is not equality.

The mortality rate for males is higher but have you ever read a Darwin Awards book? The majority (I'd venture 99%) of the recipients are male. It's one thing to take risks for earning a living but to take risks unnecessarily or worse, to show how "cool" you are leads to a shortened life span.

Women don't want to be as equally foolhardy and reckless as men. We don't need or want that kind of equality. Men can remain superior in the dumb stunts department.

We want equal protection under the law, equal opportunities to improve our lot in life and equal recognition of our worth. I'm not afraid of the equal responsibilities or risks that come with equal "rights". I am, however, concerned about what will become of women when society collapses.

It's my belief that 150 years of suffrage will go out the window in about 5 minutes if anarchy hits. The over feminization of society has had its drawbacks but, overall, has been a safeguard for women. When people are rioting in the streets (the majority will be men), women will predictably catch the brunt of it and seek the protection of a man (from other men).

Women in the workplace are not the cause of economic collapse but I doubt that tidbit of information will serve as any barrier from the harm that men will inflict on us when it all comes crashing down.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

Women don't want to be as equally foolhardy and reckless as men. We don't need or want that kind of equality. Men can remain superior in the dumb stunts department.


Isnt that the truth. Lots videos of young males trying to kill themselves or their friends on YouTube just "having fun." ( I particularly love the simian use of the stick to bash the ice and the grunting noises also lend an air of sophistication )



Not to mention that their aggression gets them into more violent conflict, which sometimes ends in death. (gang warfare and drunken bar brawls anyone?)

Add to that poor driving, (yes there is a REASON males pay more for insurance than females under the age of 25) and you can see many reasons for males having a higher mortality rate than females.

None of which seem to be the fault of women.


Originally posted by whitewave
It's my belief that 150 years of suffrage will go out the window in about 5 minutes if anarchy hits.


Naw. God may (or may not depending on your belief) have made all people. But Smith and Wesson made them equal. You dont have to give up any right you are willing to defend to the death. Not to mention that these guys may be vocal, but they dont speak for all men. I know my grandfather, father, and foster father, all of whom are dead now, grew up in the "day" and not one of them was a chauvanist. Not all men are are so insecure they have to scapegoat others (be they the opposite gender or some ethnicity) for the problems of the world.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I do my part.. I'm a stay at home mom with zero debt and no credit cards of any sort. LOL

However you can bet your behind that if I had not gotten married and had children then I would happily be a career woman with no spousal or other family ties.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
i am a man and i think someone should stay at home and raise the children i would do it in a second i cant stand having to work for someone else all day long

i dont know why women dont want to raise there own children
daycares are weird
im single so i do all the chores around home no offense but it would never take me a full 8 hours to run my house more like 3 hours max and that includes meals

i would much rather be at home raising the children than working for 8 hours a day for nothing but money i never get much satisfaction from working

but i think nothing would be more rewarding than being an active part of your children's life

i dont think the original article was meant as an insult but its funny how allot of people take it so personally



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IllusionsAreGrander
 


IllusionsAreGrander,

You are quite correct here in this..


Dream on. We would just import more people (immigrants) to keep the wages low. Surely you guys cannot really be that naive? Why do you think jobs are outsourced? Why do you think so many businesses want to allow illegal immigrants into the country to work? Or make them legal?


I too think this will be the pattern of things to come. The competition here is in labor costs.

As to this..


"Sure, we have been in control of most societies in the world the last several thousand years, but its not OUR fault that things are/have been bad. WOMEN did it! Its all their fault! And if we are manly anymore (whatever that means) that's their fault too! Why did they ever eat that apple? They made us do that too! And, and, and.....Wah Wah Aaaaaaahhhhhhh!"


I won't buy into this one either because of the time warp technique as explained in an earlier post concerning Aeon's and Nikiano's posts. They have more than sufficiently covered the time warp technique as well as the Victimization technique.

Also I don't buy into the standard M1A issue rhetoric about the apple and the Garden of Eden. It does not work on me as well. It does however make for good drama as I tried to explain to Nikanno...if one cannot think it through.

You are however...illustrating that the Victim dictum is a one way paradigm in social engineering. Only one version allowed.

White Wave,

While I agree about the Darwin Awards...that is not the point I was making. Men perish as a group at a higher rate than women..Darwin Awards or not.


Women don't want to be as equally foolhardy and reckless as men.


I agree with this statement of yours quoted. I attribute this to women not willing to take many of the risks men take in putting their physical assets on the line where they can be damaged or lowered/decreased in value in the marketplace. Their physical calling card...at risk..beauty and sexuality value systems. They may be willing to do this for children ..but as a whole they are not willing to do this for a man....especially as a career opportunity.


I'm not afraid of the equal responsibilities or risks that come with equal "rights". I am, however, concerned about what will become of women when society collapses.


I do not believe you as an individual are afraid of the risks and responsibilities White Wave. I would not make this claim about the bulk of the women I know.

I too am concerned about what will happen when society collapses. Not just to women..but to the men as well. I am not interested in being approached by a lot of wildlife..male and female ..with no real skills and talents outside of their consumption rates and entitlement beliefs...especially via ...victimization programming.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Loved the video. Men are more inclined than women to take risks, even stupid risks, and society has generally benefited from from their daring escapades. And women are more inclined to clean up the mess men leave from such risk taking adventures. Yin and yang. Balance.

Chauvinist means "traditionalist" and I rather like male traditionalists. What I don't tolerate are sexist swine who view women as inferior. We are equal in life if not in function. And what I lack in physical brawn, I more than make up for in marksmanship.

Anyone expecting American women of this day and age to return to a time when we keep our biscuits in the oven and our buns in bed is going to be sorely disappointed.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Yeah, you read right. And while I laughed, and poured myself a whiskey at the thought of the onslaught for posting this Irish op/ed .. I have to admit. I agree. 100% actually, I have stated so before on ATS much of what is said:


NEWTON'S OPTIC: THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.

So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.

Does the woman in your life really need a job?


Now believe it or not.. there is historical evidence to back this up. In America for instance, after WWII it was far more acceptable for women to work out of the house, and as we can see the income of families jumps significantly, as two incomes compared to one just a generation before. Subsequently with a second income, prices will rise to meet inflation.. if one person looses their job, the economy will essentially cripple the income and livelihood of the household. Especially with twice as many looking for the same jobs.

In Ireland and much of the Western World, it is the same tale, some Nations it became the norm for women to work instead of caring for the family (which by the way I view as an even more demanding and stressful job than sitting in a cubicle, or being a receptionist, or what ever other job.) much longer after America did, and as it became the norm you will see two trends:

Income increases leading to increased consumer prices
Increase of property values
Increase in unemployment
Increase in crime
A complete breakdown of family values, moral integrity and sense of community.


It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.

Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. They account for two-thirds of the Civil Service and three- quarters of all public employees.

Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. Encouraging women to leave the workforce would go a long way towards addressing the budget deficit without any downside whatsoever.


And, for the American's who don't read sources.. this is an Irish article from the Irish Times, in reference to the Celtic Tiger economic boom of the 90's-00's.

Now please, express your opinions!


Irish Times


I got to thinking about this more and was thinking maybe it is the men to blame. Now granted there are plenty of women who want to work outside the home and for them I say all the more power to you! However since becoming a mom I have come across MANY women who would love nothing more than to be a stay at home mom. To be the primary care giver to their child. I worked once and my kiddo was only 2 years old and it killed me. My best friend had no choice but to work because her dh didn't make enough money and insisted she get a job. It absolutely tore her heart out to leave her baby with a babysitter. Even though that babysitter was me, her best friend of 16 years, it was heart wrenching for her to have to leave her baby behind. All to go to a job she didn't really like, even though she was good at it and was paid well. She longed to be at home with her child, to be a stay at home mom. Just not possible as her dh didn't earn enough money. Not to mention with her income her dh and her were able to have a higher standard of living. They had more credit, more bills to pay, ect.. Where as when she didn't work her husband wasn't as spendy so to speak. He took on extra shifts and worked longer hours so that he could make up that extra money.

So really it goes deeper than just stating the stats after women started working more. Go deeper than that and find out where the need for women to work came from. I know many women who would love nothing more than to be able to be a stay at home mom.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999


You are however...illustrating that the Victim dictum is a one way paradigm in social engineering. Only one version allowed.



Why cant their be NO versions allowed? I dont support women or other minority groups who are currently not being victimized holding onto a victim mentality.

I think it demeans them as humans to do so, and I think it ends up victimizing others. (Those who have to be accused over historical wrongs they did not commit)

However, if someone is CURRENTLY being victimized, it is not a "victim mentality" that makes them complain. It is the fact that they are currently being victimized that makes them complain. These are two very different things.

There are currently some people of every stripe imaginable that are being victimized. And they have every right to complain about it. But the topic of this thread is that women have caused the economic collapse, which is ridiculous. And whiny. And a bit snively to boot. Your argument boils down to "if so and so does it, why cant we?"

I will simply repeat what I was told as a child when using that argument. "If so and so jumped off a bridge would you feel the need to?" The whining is made even more ironic when, as in your argument, you point out how women play the victimization card. Hard to look righteously indignant while saying that when ones lip is quivering.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Since I had my little girl I have been staying at home raising her and my husband goes to work, we make plenty of money off of one income, but it doesn't always work that way. different strokes for different folks, I think that in today's society there are so many things people buy that they don't need which makes them not be able to live off of one income, I mean honestly does anyone need a 400 dollar cell phone? no!! does anyone need a 2,000 dollar couch? no!! I could go on and on but I wont, We have nice things but we do not pay a fortune to keep up with the jones's



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join