Originally posted by dontreally
Did you know that Womans Lib was a design to destroy the family?
As opposed to what, exactly?
In the letters between two famous illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and the Lawyer Zwack, Zwack said:
"It should consist of two classes: the virtuous and the freerhearted (i.e., those who fly out of the common tract of prudish manners) ... Proper
books must be put into their hands, and such as are flattering to their passions."
Read Platos Republic if youre curious where such behavior will lead us; and why the illuminati thought 'divide and conquer' would be most effective
between a man and his wife. There is no deeper riff to overcome then that.
Weishaupt and Zwack? Oh... man. You're talking about the Bavarian Illuminati?
realize that the Bavarian Illuminati (or
Perfectibilists) are pretty far removed from the modern concept of "Illuminati" don't you? Basically the Bavarian Illuminati were only a "secret
society" because they were a social club that continued to operate "underground" after the ruler of Bavaria declared all organizations of any sort
Plato's Republic is a paean to Plato, by Plato. Hell, all this garbage about Atlantis? Cooked up by Plato, to win an argument against a straw man
opponent of Plato, to prove the superiority if Plato's ideas in Plato's paean to Plato.
This is why we cant watch a single sitcom on TV roday where the man isnt presented as a total moron. Name a show, and i can name 5 more where
the man is dumb, and the woman is smart or smarter.
And several of these shows are also quite misogynistic. Here, let me show you.
Simpsons. Bart and Homer = Dumb, Marge and Lisa = smarter
To be fair to Bart and homer, they started out pretty normal - Homer was "average guy", a working dad who had it hard at times. As the show went on
(and on... and on... and on...) he got dumber and dumber. This is a trope known, oddly, as Flandersization (after Ned Flanders, another character in
the show, who went from being the Christian neighbor to being THE CHRISTIAN neighbor). Flandersization is demonstrated in most of these examples, in
Anyway, how is The Simpsons misogynistic? First, you have two speaking females - Marge and Lisa. There are some cameos and one-shots, but these are
the two regulars. On the other hand we have Bart, Homer, Moe, Barney, Mr. Burns, Smithers, Krusty the Klown, Chief Wiggums, Ralph Wiggums, Milhouse,
and Ned Flanders as regular speaking males, and certainly no shortage of extras and cameos. The plots are, almost one and all, male-driven. Marge and
Lisa had their shining moments early in the dseries, but now mostly revolve around the actions of bart and homer (Marge and Lisa have been
Flandersized as well, note)
The Simpsons is not deeply
misogynistic, I'll grant; but it is still heavily dominated by a male perspective.
Everybody loves Raymond. Raymond = moron, and Debra = long sufferring, sensible wife who understands the insanity around her.
This was totally not what I got out of that show. I took it that, yes, Raymond is a typical "below average" sitcom dad, but he actually has his heart
in the right place and has doing good for his family first and foremost. His wife, however, came across as a spiteful, haranguing bitch who strives to
hold her husband back, and punishes him for anything less than surpassing her standards for perfection.
According To Jim. Jim = dumb , his wife = smart
Never actually saw this one. Watching the Episode titled "Foul Ball" on youtube, though, I don't think I missed much. Yeah, Jim's a dumbass. However,
Cheryl seems to be "stock sitcom housewife" herself - everything revolves around Jim, and Jim's children, and she doesn't take any definitive stands,
because, hey, the title of the show is According to Jim
, and not According to Cheryl
. Jim is himself rather misogynist, and Cheryl puts
up with it for no really good reason. His misogyny is played up for laughs, in a sort of "you tell it!" way, rather than a "what a dumbass!" way
Family Guy. Peter = Dumb , Lois = smarter
Oh my god. Are you seriously citing Family guy
as "women's lib in TV? Family Guy. Have you ever WATCHED Family guy? Oh... wow. we could go
on for days about how Family Guy is the least feminist thing since pimpslaps. Let's take Meg. From the perspective of the art itself, Meg looks pretty
much just like her mother, except with brown hair and glasses. However, every person in the show treats her as if she looked like something from the
back of the refrigerator. Even her own FAMILY is apparently absolutely repulsed by her. She engages in desperate schemes to try to get in bed with the
who also happens to find her repulsive in the extreme. And this is a main character in the show, and is absolutely played for
laughs. It's FUNNY to completely tear down the self-esteem of a teenage girl, HAHAHAHA! It's perfectly valid to judge her on her appearance, isn't it?
And if those appearances don't mesh with the huge-breasted, blonde Farah Fawcett-lookalikes the show often also features, then we MUST treat her like
some blob of inhuman flesh-putty. The female characters in Family guy are frankly brutalized
by the show's writers.
Futurama. fry = dumb, leela = smarter, or smarter
is smarter than Fry - even Bender, the show's homer-bot, is smarter than Fry. That's kind of the gag of the show - modern people are
dumb. And while Leela is portrayed as a competent and intelligent woman, Amy is a blundering, ditzy airhead obsessed with shopping and pink clothing.
The show also runs into the same problem as The Simpsons; You have Leela and Amy... and then it's a sausage festival.
Modern Family. Father = idiot, Mother = smarter
I've never seen it, and can't find any decent clips from it. However, I do have this review
the show from a feminist blogger.
The king of queens. Man = dumb, Woman = smarter
Arthur is portrayed as an old crank. He's not "dumb" becuase he's a guy, but rather because he's old. Which is pretty questionable on its own. Doug
and Carrie, however, seem pretty much on par with one another. Doug's not dumb, nor is Carrie a genius. for that matter, Doug's not a lazy ass, and
she's not a neurotic control freak. i might have to watch more of this one.
Home Improvement. Man = dumb, Wife = smarter
Al was smarter than Tim. All three kids were smarter than Tim. Wilson is smarter than Tim. We're back to the situation with Fry in "Futurama" - it's
not that Jill is much smarter than Tim, it's just that Tim is dumber than EVERYONE. Tim is also, like Jim in "All About Jim" very disdainful of women.
He usually disregards everything Jill tells him, not because he's unintelligent (which he is) but rather because she is a woman
. Same thing
with any of the Tool Time girls speak up about anything; Tim brushes them off because they're women and he's a man, and men always know better. He
does the same thing to Al - he dismisses everything Al says because Al doesn't fit Tim's image of what makes a man "A Man." This usually leads to
things blowing up in Tim's face... Except when it doesn't. Jill is often wrong about things, too... and then Tim grinds her face into how wrong she
is.... and we're supposed to identify with and sympathize with him for doing so
South Park = Randy = nutjob moron, Shaton = smarter and more stable
Shelly is a violent moron. need I mention "Aunt Flo"? How do you care for the "Jewish mother" stereotype of Sheila Broflovski? How about Cartman's
mom, Liane, who is portrayed as being a complete and utter slut at all points she shows up in the show? Carol McCormick, a positive female role
Malcolm in the Middle = Dad is a passive, pathetic push over, Mom = a bit crazy, yet the 'active' masculine decision maker. Gender roles are
So what, you think a woman's role is to be a pathetic pushover?
Never saw much of this show, either, to be honest.
Two and a Half men = this show all around #s on men and their maturity
Indeed it does. But look at how it portrays women. There are two kinds of women in this show; sexual conquests and utter bitches. Females in this
series serve only to either gratify the men, or act as antagonists. There is no middle ground there. you are either an accessory for the men on the
show, or you are an adversary to them. There are no "female friends" at all. If a woman in Two and a Half men has a speaking role, either she's a
bitch or a romantic interest, period. The show's gender themes amount to nothing other than "women are a pain in the neck, use them then lose them"
Cleveland Show = cleveland = dumb, donna = more sensible
Take everything I said about Family Guy. Repackage it as a vastly less-successful show. There you go.
Now I want you to have a look at these shows.
Show. All About Jim
. Everybody Loves Raymond.
of Queens. Two and a half Men
. Notice a trend here? Even the ones that aren't titled with the male lead or an allusion to them, make no mention of the female characters;
The Simpsons doesn't mention Marge or Lisa, Home improvement makes no mention of Jill (and certainly not Heidi).
Also, as an aside? With the exception of Cleveland, every single man in these examples is white. And in Cleveland's case, his ethnicity is played as a
source of jokes and hindrances, so even THAT enforces the "white is better, black is a tragedy" themes.
Even if the men are bumbling buffoons, they are the headliner. They're the stars of the show. The audience is encouraged to find them endearing,
whether they're simply a bit dim like poor old Homer, or actively malicious like Peter. While the women in these shows are excoriated for their bad
behavior (if they're alloted even THAT much character) the men are forgiven with "aw shucks, guys will be guys."
My point with all this? Theyre trying to ingrain in us stereotypes; very pathetic and backwards stereotypes that propel men to act with an
animal sensibility; to just do what he "naturally" is supposed to do; which is, to be a sport loving, immature, careless, thoughtless, automaton,
while the woman has a greater sense of the 'values' that the family needs to establish.
While I can cede your points that "they" are playing a meme towards us, I have to make a few points.
1) "They" are Hollywood writers who are essentially told that if they don't write these stereotypes - that the lead must be a white, nominally
christian heterosexual male with an interest in "male" things, they will never sell a script. "They" are certainly not the Illuminati, much less the
Bavarian Illuminati. odds are it's no particular agenda, rather it's simply writers writing what they are told sells. It's a self-reinforcing thing.
2) While the men are generally portrayed as being moderately dim and stereotypical, the treatment of women in these shows is worse
. The wife is
usually portrayed as an antagonist who buckles every time the "man" asserts any authority. She might had a "told you so" moment, but in every show,
she ultimately bows to the whim of the man of the house. And that's in the shows that is trying to show the man and woman as partners. In shows like
Family Guy and Two and a Half Men, women are objectified and often bestialized. No matter the specific treatment in a given show though, in every
case, the women in the show orbit around the men. There are no female-driven shows.
3) You're perfectly capable of looking at these memes and going "Well, that's stupid" and turning off the TV. No one is actually holding you down
here. They still make books.
While i Agree that a woman has this as her natural strength; the caricature of the man, as this complete and pathetic idiot without an ounce of
intellectual knowledge or wisdom - as men have historically had (up until the age of popular culture) debases men, and this is clearly
Actually I don't think you DO agree that women have any sort of natural strength. or at least if you do, you seem to think it should never be put in
contrast to and found superior to that of a man. The idea of a female being the more dominant partner in "Malcom in the Middle" seemed to offend you,
and the fact that Lois is (sometimes) smarter than Peter seems to make you think that "Family Guy" is somehow part of "women's lib" despite the gross
debasement of women in it. I could be misreading you but between that stuff and the next part, you seem to be pretty clearly of the opinion that women
should be "below" men.
The illuminati was and is a mystical society. These men were philosophers first; and then political conspirators second.
Actually they were librarians first, philosophers second, and were never really political conspirators. They read philosophy books, sometimes talked
about them, and defied Karl Theodore's ban on all social organizations. They were about as "mystical" as a kennel club.
They understood that the dynamic of a 'patriarchial' society is Morality, responsibility, and development of Reason and Intellect. Conversely,
the major flux of a 'feminine' society, of a 'feminine, earth based, pagan society, is the emotions. To just "be" to act 'freely' and liberally, and
do what thou wilt without regard for the law. The feminine dynamic is thus in complete opposition to the masculine.
If this is what they "understood" then they, like you, were completely ignorant of reality and fully wrong in their conclusions about the way the
Thus, we see in even popular fiction, this feminine dynamic between man and woman is recreated. With the man as being a oaf ie; passive,
whereas the woman is more 'sensible' ie; active.
Popular fiction? have you ever read the Twilight series? If you haven't, I don't blame you and wouldn't encourage you to start. Nevertheless it's
about as "popular" as it gets, and is, well, pretty much the opposite of what you're opining here (The female lead is also about the most
self-denigrating female character ever; and to think, the whole mess was penned by a woman.)
This is how the unconscious works, and this is how people can be influenced. There are natural principles, male and female, and the social
architects, mystics as they are, are always acting with this knowledge in mind.
Except there are no such "natural principles." Gender essentialism is garbage.
edit on 18/6/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason