It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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!!!!
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.
whole segments? try 50 percent of the population in places where they haven't killed off most of their women.
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.
My question now is: Why are so many men becoming lazy and loosing their sense of responsibility? You made me think Oracle....ty
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
"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!"
Women don't want to be as equally foolhardy and reckless as men.
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.
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!
Originally posted by orangetom1999
You are however...illustrating that the Victim dictum is a one way paradigm in social engineering. Only one version allowed.