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.

 

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 


Lol, not only am I waiting until my life is in order, I am waiting until the god damn world is in order. No way I am bringing a kid into this world, it is spiraling into hell every day. I have some friends with benefits sure, but they all know from the getgo the deal. I always use rubbers, hasn't failed me in 18 years yet. I wish there was more I could do, like some kind of contract similar to a prenup, know what I mean?




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRealTruth84
 


An excellent post. As you said, your mother was a great mother and was able to pull it off on her own. And that is to be commended. But as I am sure you will agree, that is not the ideal to strive for. Can a single woman be a good mother? Absolutely. And there are many out there. But for every good single mother there are probably ten or twenty who are not. Especially those women who choose to have children by a man, or several men they were never married to.

Even those mothers who are not exactly "bad" mothers, may not actually be good mothers either. Let me share a personal little story to that point.

I stood best man for a good friend of mine at his wedding a number of years ago now. He took this woman into his home, along with a baby girl she had by an abusive thug. It was a few years after he took them in that my friend married her. A little more than a year after that, their son was born. Before he was a year old, she suddenly started staying out nights, leaving my friend home alone with the kids. Before the boy was two years old, she had left, moved in with another man, and my friend had lost his house in the divorce. (She didn't get the house, but the divorce bankrupted him.) The man she moved in with is a convicted rapist, with two violent young boys. He is father to her third baby.

Now in that case, people see her as a "good" mother because the kids are clean and fed. But she is so cold toward those kids. She meets her basic responsibility, but that's it. When her son is being beat up on by one of the step sons, she does little to intervene or to stop the problem. The only time you will see her hug or kiss one of those kids, is when she is posing for a picture to post on Facebook and brag about what a good mother she is.

She is not a good mother. She is not downright abusive, borderline neglectful, but not exactly a "bad" mother either. She treats her kids as product, like she is running an orphanage. Not like a real mother. Not like a caring, loving mother. And what is that doing to the kids? Turning them into zombies. The little girl has become a self-centered pop-culture junkie. The little boy, I feel bad for him. He's a kind-hearted boy, but already he is showing signs of serious lashing out violently. It's really little wonder the way he is bullied all the time by his step -brothers.

Anyway, I am rambling. Next post.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by StigShen
 


You're kidding, right? Relationships, particularily with young people are rife with manipulation. Men will tell women anything to have sex with them. That they love them, that they want to be with them forever, anything. Now a woman is supposed to what, be able to read their mind, even if she is in love with them and absolutely know that the man is really not interested in anything long term? To suggest that a woman who becomes pregnant can with certainty predict the behavior of the man who fathered her child is nonsense. What about a woman who has a child with a terrific guy who turns into a drunk, drug addict or abuser? Is she a low-life as you suggest? Does she "deserve what she gets"?


More often than not, women ASSUME these things of a man, more than men make promises they have no intention of fulfilling. Do you seriously think that a man wants to get hitched into child-support payments for the next 18-21 years for a lay? Come on now. But can a man lie just to get laid? Sure. All the more reason for a woman to take responsibility for herself.

If you are woman, who is not married, USE BIRTH CONTROL. That is not the man's responsibility, that is YOUR responsibility. It is YOUR body that will get pregnant, not his. Don't have sex with men who aren't committed or who are known thugs. Don't have sex when you are ovulating. Don''t have sex unless you are on the pill, or are using any one of the many many BC options available to women. Don't have sex with a man who won't wear a condom.


Originally posted by dolphinfan
Women, not often, get pregnant on purpose. Now should the man be able to predict that? Should a man who is victimized in that fashion be required to stay and raise the child? Not too sure on that score, but I think not as it is better for a kid not to have a father than to have a father that does not want him and will resent him (or potentially will resent him).


We are totally agreed on that point. A man should not be obligated to pay support unless he was married to the woman, or he claims parental right to the child.

Another personal anecdote here. When I was 19, I was living with a girl. I paid for her birth control pills and either practiced withdrawl, or used a condom. I began using condoms more often as she would try to hold me inside her or would entice me to stay inside. I rolled over for a nap one afternoon, and she went to the bathroom. I rolled back over, and caught her pulling my used condom from the wastebasket in the bathroom. It caused a huge fight of course. But we stayed together, until she turned up pregnant. She hid it from me for over four months.

I knew I had been had. I told her, in no uncertain terms, that she would never get a single dime from me in child support. She had her second abortion after I left.



What about a man who marries a woman who turns into a drunk, drug addict or abuser? Should he have been able to predict how she would have evolved as a human being and should he not do every thing in his power to remove her from having contact with her child? Of course he should cut her loose and if that means the child grows up without a mother in his life, well that is unfortunate, but it is a better solution.


A better solution, agreed. But sadly, in most such cases, the woman still winds up with custody, and the man is labeled as the abuser.



Human relationships are complicated and are not black and white matters. You are attempting to apply absolute criteria to what makes a well functioning family with respect to raising a child and in my opinion that is foolish.


I never said that a single parent can't raise a child well. But that is a far cry from deliberately having bastard children. I am absolute in my view that it is better to have both parents, and that not even striving for that ideal is socially destructive. Moreover, I find that heralding single-parent households as the new norm, or even as preferable, is reprehensible.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by StigShen
 


Good counter argument. I hope that is his last tour too, and not because he came home in a box draped in a flag.


Indeed. And double thank you.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by StigShen
 


You just keeping digging a bigger hole with some of your posts.

Feminism was created to destabilize society? Christianity has contributed more to that over the years than feminism ever will!
edit on 19-3-2011 by The Sword because: (no reason given)


W\hy do you keep bringing up religion? This has nothing to do wi9th religion.

And yes, feminism, as a socio-policial movement is funded by the Rockefellers and the CIA to destabilize society so that it can be molded to their agenda.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by StigShen
 


Suppose the Rothschilds had never funded it? Would it still happen?

I think so. Women didn't need Rothschild money back then to know that they were getting a raw deal.


So being a mother and taking care of a family is a "raw deal?"



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whiffer Nippets
I really don't even know where to start with all this.

First of all - there is no Feminist plot to gain more tax money - that makes no sense. If one person earns enough to "support a family" - say 100K, and if two people together make 100K - the same amount of tax is collected.


This is more about corporate profits not government tax revenues. What we are seeing is the debasement of the Dollar value and labor bargaining leverage. But your rebuttal there is flawed logic. If one person is making 100k, why would they suddenly be only making 50k? You're trying to make an apples and oranges comparison. If one person makes 100k, then the other person will make 100k, and 200k will be taxed. Not 100k.



And any kind of "Greedy Big Biz" agenda is going to *promote breeding*, not working women. This produces not only exponentially more tax payers - but also more consumers.


Breeding IS being promoted. Are you kidding me here? What do you think this whole article is about? Irresponsible and reckless breeding.



Families tend to spend more money than singles also. And they have ever increasing and perpetual needs. A single person can live on next to nothing, if they want to.


Not true. Cohabitation actually costs less. Which is why you have families being driven apart. Encourage men to not be part of the family household, encourage women to drive men out of the house, and now you have twice the rent, twice the utilities, two cars instead of maybe getting by with one if you had to, etc. Even food costs are higher per unit for a single person.



And why in the hell would the wealthy and/ or those in control want to destabilize society? For war profits, maybe, in other countries, but outside of that - you have to figure that they want people calm, consuming, and breeding more consumers.


You misunderstand the meaning of the word "destablizing" in the context of this discussion. Not de-stabilizing as in anarchy. De-stabilizing as in mission creep.



Another angle we have to consider is - just because things might be the way someone perceives they ought to be - this is NO guarantee of a "happy life".

If Feminism was erased right now - you're not automatically going to become an Executive like the Dad on Leave It To Beaver and live in a nice house with a good looking wife and easy to manage children.

Just like for me - if people suddenly stopped making Dumb Blonde jokes - that does not mean I'm going to win a Nobel Prize next Tuesday.


Well, ya got me there. Can't un-boil that frog.



Another idea that strikes me as crazy: Various people who think that - for whatever reason - if society was no longer "modern" - everything from nuclear war, loss of government, an electromagnetic pulse event - anyway - many of these men who bring up these "doom" scenarios seem to think that if 'whatever' happens - we will automatically revert to a "cave man" society and women will be forced to have "a protector".

This is ridiculous. And the pathetic part is that you can clearly tell that such people who bring up these ideas *want* such a thing to happen, they are salivating at the thought of it and not thinking at all.

No, we won't revert to 'caveman days'. Do you think Japan is going to revert to such a culture after all their numerous disasters? Of course not. Because so many of us still remember *now*. And recent things.

Some guy said in some other thread once, something like - oh there will be an EMP event and we'll see what the women will do then when they have to go dig ditches with a pick axe, like the men will have to.

Something along those lines. It was so ridiculously stupid, I don't even want to try to find it to quote it. And - I have seen many, many thoughts like this.

These people are essentially forgetting the ENTIRETY of human history! We'd not revert back to Neanderthals, those people died out anyway. We might go back a few notches - but um - DUH - people are going to think to use other manual tools to 'dig a ditch' besides a pickaxe.

Even during the Middle Ages - and even Dark Ages - there was commerce, they had fairly sophisticated trade and banking networks, women *and* children often worked, had shops, etc - these people went through the Dark Ages, various plagues, wars, widespread exploitation of the under classes - did they fall back to a caveman society? NO.

And neither will we. We have too much intelligence now. And we have, for thousands of years. We were not "cave people" yesterday.



Well, nice caveman rant there, but this doesn't have anything to do with doom apocalypse.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
While I'll agree that narcissism is epidemic in our culture. Why are you targeting the feminist movement? I mean, come on, it's everywhere. It's not as if the movement began with a bunch of self-serving, self-aggrandizing, me me me'rs. It began from a genuine need for change and equality. Narcissism has plagued every facet of society. Just look at kids today, they're all self entitled little wieners.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 


Read it again.

Women were expected to be nurturers and to take care of children. The husband could beat/rape/drag them and get away with it. They had no real freedoms.

Yes, that is a raw deal. And you know what? It continues to this day when there are female workers that make less than their male counterparts, despite the fact that they are skilled laborers!



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by StigShen
 


Lol, not only am I waiting until my life is in order, I am waiting until the god damn world is in order. No way I am bringing a kid into this world, it is spiraling into hell every day. I have some friends with benefits sure, but they all know from the getgo the deal. I always use rubbers, hasn't failed me in 18 years yet. I wish there was more I could do, like some kind of contract similar to a prenup, know what I mean?


I almost said something along those lines in one of my posts here. Except I think that the onus should be on the woman to provide the contract. By default, men should not be held accountable for a woman's failure to manage her own body. I don't know when a woman is ovulating, she does. The way I figure it, if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she should take her own precautions or tell me to wear a rubber.

Anyway, contract. If a woman is expecting you as the man to stick around and be a father and/or provider, she should get it in writing, simple as that. I am traditional, but I can be progressive too. I'm not the sort to say that women should not have sex out of wedlock. But they certainly shouldn't assume that the man is going to stick around either. So put it on the line.


Okay stud, so you want to hit this bareback. You are hereby notified that I am not using any form of birth control of my own. If I become pregnant, I have no intention of getting an abortion. By agreeing to the terms of this contract and in order to hit this bareback, you agree to any or all of these terms:

A) Provide financial support for the child either in full, or partial. (Circle choice and initial.)

B) Provide financial support to me as the mother, so that I may properly care for this child on a regular basis.

C) Provide direct care for the child on an as needed, or regular basis. (Circle choice and initial.)

D) Provide a positive influence as a male role model, and to act as a father figure in a social capacity.

E) Provide directly, all basic necessities for the child and mother so long as I am willing to reside in the household with the child.

List any and all items agreed to, sign, and date.



Or something like that anyway.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 


No, you are not understanding what I am saying.

In fact, you said so yourself about "twice the taxpayers at half the salary".

Either way the same tax money is collected. Whether one person makes it or two.

Do you not understand simple arithmetic?

I must've confounded you greatly since the best you could come up with is the same old conservative rhetoric.

I'm -out- after this one as I have a date with an architect.

I guess you will be going back to arguing with motel workers and various other skid row bums or whatever and pointing the finger at whomever you can think of because of course nothing is *your fault*.
Yeah, it's all *everyone else's fault.* And if women would just OBEY! your life would be roses. Uh huh. Just keep telling yourself that.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by backpage
While I'll agree that narcissism is epidemic in our culture. Why are you targeting the feminist movement? I mean, come on, it's everywhere. It's not as if the movement began with a bunch of self-serving, self-aggrandizing, me me me'rs. It began from a genuine need for change and equality. Narcissism has plagued every facet of society. Just look at kids today, they're all self entitled little wieners.


And most of the kids today are raised by single women. This is the social destruction brought to us by the Feminist agenda.

There is nothing wrong with equality, but the feminist agenda is not about equality.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by StigShen
 


Read it again.

Women were expected to be nurturers and to take care of children. The husband could beat/rape/drag them and get away with it. They had no real freedoms.

Yes, that is a raw deal. And you know what? It continues to this day when there are female workers that make less than their male counterparts, despite the fact that they are skilled laborers!


So you're telling me that before the feminist movement all men were wife-beating rapists? Get real. And you want to talk about getting away with stuff, women get away with attacking men every day. No one takes it seriously when it's the man who is abused.

Yes, women were expected to be nurturers and mothers. Men were expected to be providers and protectors. So stop with the rhetoric and propaganda, it's weak and is not an accurate depiction of history.

As far as wages go, that is also a load of garbage. Women are often given preference and first choice when it comes to being hired or being retained during cutbacks, because they bat their eyelashes and play the sympathy card over the little bastard child they have at home who needs milk and peanut butter. Not only that, women are given free legal representation any time they claim to have been discriminated against. If a white middle aged man is discriminated against, he has no recourse. You show me one single job where a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same job.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Whiffer Nippets
 


What a completely ignorant post. I am not even going to bother with a serious reply.

EDIT to add: Take note readers. Look at the spitting venom a man is exposed to when he dare to challenge the progression of the feminist agenda.
edit on 3/19/11 by StigShen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I'm just going to chime in here to state that StigShen is absolutely right when it comes to his observations on current culture.

For all the women here who think he is attacking you or your gender, grow up. This world is not about you and never was about you. The movement set women back many years. Home economics used to teach women about what it takes to take care of a family and home. Costing for food, cooking, laundry, time management, everything that is missing from the majority of today's families.

If you choose to have children, it is your responsibility to ensure that that child receives the very best in stability and a working family unit. A healthy child has to have influences from both males and females. Taking one out of the equation will most likely retard a part of his development that might not show up for many years. They might become what you believe to be a 'success' (Usually measured by money or job), but it will usually manifest itself sexually or psychologically in the form of addiction.

Keep fighting the good fight, StigShen.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by StigShen
 


There is no point in continuing to argue with you. You are dead-set on blaming women for the ills of society, and refuse to place the blame on men who are equally responsible. No amount of evidence or argument is ever going to persuade you to think differently, because it is obvious that you resent women.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by metro
 


I thank you Metro, and you actually bring up one very important point as well. The fact that raising a child who goes on to get a good job is not necessarily the measure of good parenting.

I had a similar debate with a woman I know who insists that she has done everything right by her son, despite the fact that he has had NO important male role models. She even went so far as to take over his boy scout troop. I said to her, in a bit of a tongue-in-cheek manner, "Yeah, you think you've raised that boy up to be a good man, but wait until you open up his closet one day and find a few pairs of women's shoes... with the feet still in them."


An extreme notion of course, but nonetheless, we can clearly see what damage single parenting has already done to society, while other damage may not be so apparent at first glance. Especially to an egomaniacal woman who thinks she can do no wrong and that her kid is absolutely perfect because she is the most awesome parent on the planet.

EDIT to add: Just to be clear, I am not saying that all single mothers are egomaniacs, but most are venomously defensive. when it comes to the single-parenting topic.
edit on 3/19/11 by StigShen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
reply to post by StigShen
 


There is no point in continuing to argue with you. You are dead-set on blaming women for the ills of society, and refuse to place the blame on men who are equally responsible. No amount of evidence or argument is ever going to persuade you to think differently, because it is obvious that you resent women.



Has nothing to do with resenting women. Has everything to do with resenting the destruction of the family unit. Women are being used. It's no wonder why women are so jaded, bitter, lonely, afraid, and confused. They are being convinced that it's a-ok to make bad choices.
edit on 3/19/11 by StigShen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Don't let the trolls get to you Stig, you're doing a great job.

I, for one, agree with you. Completely. Feminism is a militant, liberal Marxist agenda designed to destroy the Family and throw our society into chaos. It's already showing its effects. In 1940's America, when we were an "EVIL Christian", God fearing nation, our society was thriving. Women WERE NOT beaten like feminists make us to believe. They DID have rights. It wasn't what's akin to the Middle East, as they say. For God's sake, WOMEN kept the war effort rolling during WW2. On top of this, women had *respect*. THEY kept the family going, not the man. They were expected to love and care for the kids, her husband, and to take care of the castle. And they did. They looked classy and *acted* classy and had a firm and well-earned place in society.

What do we have today now? Women whore themselves around, believing it's "liberation" from the "evil oppressing men", purposely getting pregnant so they can milk the man for all his money and raise the child alone. Women now cheat as much, and sometimes more than men. It is ironic, too. Women act like men and whore around, then cry when they don't receive true love or respect from a man. Funny enough, they got all the love and respect they could want before feminism took its hold over America. As I once read; "Women are beginning to realize that Feminism has betrayed them and taken away their guaranteed place in society".

Human Beings are animals ourselves in a way. Women have a natural instinct to seek out a man and to be protected. They have the maternal instincts and are loving and caring by default. Men have the instinct to provide for their woman (which is why it feels good when you do, for the actual man out there anyways). Now, in the 21st Century, we're more animal than Human. We put pleasure and ourselves before everything else, since this is all we've been taught since the 1960's by liberalism. Kids have sex at 12 and father the kids, or abort them (51 million unborn children murdered and counting). We have no morals. We have no values. We have no family. This is why society is folding in on itself and why we are hated. We are decadent.

Now, by no means do I hate women. I have a girlfriend, and thankfully enough, she's a relic of 1950's America than she is a 21st Century "woman". She has dreams of becoming a nurse, and I want to see her achieve that dream. She is my equal by all means; the Queen by the side of her King. However, she and I both know and expect her to put our family ahead of work and "liberation". This is how it should be, because a functional home requires both parents to be attentive (don't give me this garbage that single parent homes work, if it did then our society wouldn't be on a downward spiral).

If "liberation" means what is basically gender role reversal and a dying society, then I'd rather have the evil Christian values, please. Now, proceed to call me ignorant or intolerant or whatever's been bashed into your brains for the last 4 decades.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Skogg
 


Thanks Skogg.

We're really just about on the same page about this obviously. But there's a few things here I can comment about.

For one thing, I am not a devout Christian at all. I hold a lot of traditional values, but at the same time, I can be progressive as well. Take the idea of the bread-winner and the home-maker for example. Personally, I would really have no problem letting my wife be the bread winner, and I the administrator of the household. I know how to do dishes, do laundry, sew, and I'm a really good cook among other household skills. To keep my sanity I would still have to go out and get some work in the public sector part-time anyhow, but I would not be offended to let my wife earn the primary funding of the household.

Having said that though, I would still expect my wife to play a feminine role in the social dynamics of the house. It would still fall to her, for example, to be the primary emotional caretaker of the children, and to offer to our home those things that only a real woman can offer through her true feminine qualities.

But even going that far, I do still believe that generally speaking, women are more suited to running a home. Not because I am a bigot, but because I recognize that women are better at multi-tasking, and running a home requires just that, a LOT of multi-tasking. Men on the other hand, are more hard-wired to set their mind to a single task, and stay focused on that task diligently to see it through to the end.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join