The Hidden Knowledge of Heterosexuality

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Like i said, prostitution the worlds oldest profession, men have been cheating since the dawn of time! Married or not!

I'm detecting a strong degree of emotionalism, here.

I know you've mentioned being bisexual. If there's one thing I've tended to notice non-heterosexual people in particular doing, it is basing their attempts at creating a rational basis for their choices, primarily on the basis of their emotions. In other words, you feel a certain way emotionally first, and then you try and come up with a rational argument in order to justify it second, rather than the other way around. Given the level of correlation I've also tended to observe between homo/bisexuality and atheism, there's a fair degree of irony, there.

I would strongly advise caution, in using that as a method of decision making.

Originally posted by petrus4
I'm detecting a strong degree of emotionalism, here.

I know you've mentioned being bisexual. If there's one thing I've tended to notice non-heterosexual people in particular doing, it is basing their attempts at creating a rational basis for their choices, primarily on the basis of their emotions. In other words, you feel a certain way emotionally first, and then you try and come up with a rational argument in order to justify it second, rather than the other way around. Given the level of correlation I've also tended to observe between homo/bisexuality and atheism, there's a fair degree of irony, there.

I would strongly advise caution, in using that as a method of decision making.

edit on 2-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Emotional? Little bit, but it is a fact that prostitution has thrived for century's purely for the use of men, married or not. I think its just ignorant to state that men no longer have a reason to commit to women when the past has clearly shown commitment was not high up on their list of priorities.

And those that complain about feminism dont ask themselves one simple question: "If the female gender was as content as you claim them to be before the first wave of feminism, then why would it even have reason to exist in the first place?"

I have to yet to have anyone answer that question and i fully welcome any member in this discussion to help me understand.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
And those that complain about feminism dont ask themselves one simple question: "If the female gender was as content as you claim them to be before the first wave of feminism, then why would it even have reason to exist in the first place?"

I don't know; although I am aware that the stated objective of a number of Marxists, historically, has been to induce discontent and conflict in a target population, even where none previously existed, as a first stage of revolution.

I also actually don't believe that women historically were necessarily content. I know there have been educational restrictions; although I generally consider claims of electoral disadvantage to be somewhat spurious, from the point of view that in a lot of former societies, voting rights tended to be restricted to a particular group, even among men. So it isn't just women who've suffered from that.

I've also read responses to the belief in a "Women's Holocaust," held by people like Starhawk, that imply that apparently said claim was largely drawn out of thin air. Yes, the Inquisitions happened, and yes, some women died, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it was primarily or exclusively women who were targetted. Male heretics were killed just as readily, if they belonged to the wrong Christian denomination, or were Jewish.

I don't support the concept of male chauvanism, largely because my own father genuinely was an asshole, but the more I read about a lot of the claims that both homosexual advocates and feminists make, the more I discover that they generally seem to be outright lies, for the most part; which said individuals use, as I mentioned in my previous post with you, as a means of attempting to rationalise the emotional stance of the individuals in question, after the fact.

reply to post by petrus4



I recognize your right to disagree with social movements such as feminism but i feel i can fairy say that not all opposers of feminism have been as objective as yourself. Many who oppose simply lack any logical reasoning as to why and this, i believe that is why the "discussion" goes around in circles.

Anyway, i just wanted to say that i understand why we don't see eye to eye but that i am perfectly fine with the difference of opinion.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by petrus4

 

I recognize your right to disagree with social movements such as feminism but i feel i can fairy say that not all opposers of feminism have been as objective as yourself. Many who oppose simply lack any logical reasoning as to why and this, i believe that is why the "discussion" goes around in circles.

Anyway, i just wanted to say that i understand why we don't see eye to eye but that i am perfectly fine with the difference of opinion.

I appreciate that. I was reading the article, "The Misandrony Bubble," which was quoted earlier in this thread, but ended up closing the tab, because the further I got into the article, the more I started to feel that it was excessively exaggerated, misogynistic rubbish.

I am not Left or Right. I am not male chauvanist, or pro-feminist. Both at times have valid points of view, and both often have perspectives which are entirely irrational. As something of a former magician, there were times when I made use of a particular ritual, called the Middle Pillar; and I'm inclined to believe that as well as fortifying me energetically, it enabled me to literally realise that Left and Right thought each correspond to a particular sephiroth.

What this means, is that both elements of political and economic thought are necessary, and that neither of them can exist in exclusion, nor were they meant to do so. It is the same with men and women.

Realisation of this fact, is the only thing I have found in life, which has brought me even a semblance of peace.

I see myself as outside of various 'systems' so these things don't really apply to me. But yet, they do - and they apply to all.

You have to see this for what it is - Breeding Propaganda. Consider who pushes that and why. All current economic systems depend upon an ever increasing population.

What you should do is - read *actual books* about Eugenics. This BS about Feminism, Communists, etc - the Rockefellers is incorrect.

There *is* a slight bit of truth in there - in that one stray party boy Rockefeller was marginally involved in Eugenics as he had nothing to do and was being pushed to do charitable work. And early Feminists were sometimes *in league with* Eugenicists - for the study and availability of birth control, and that's about it.

It is not any type of "Communist Plot". And there's one big issue that the Right Wing who comes up with these crazy ideas leave out - the Eugenicists wanted the *poor and colored* to breed less; And they also very much wanted white people - to breed more.

Read any book on Eugenics.

If anything - these things are a Capitalist plot - and Pro Breeding is very much a part of it. They need more consumers.

It's only common sense too - that 'they' would want people making more people - they'll reap exponentially larger profits that way.

Don't be fooled. Its all about Breeding. For whites. Some who are racist will flat out state this. They also flat out state that there aren't enough young people to work for the aging. Same with gays - some will flat out state that why they don't want them is that they don't make babies.

Feminism is a *good thing*. ANYTHING that goes against The Overlords and their money systems is a good thing.

MEN should consider Feminism too. Read and see how it can relate to you. You want a 'traditional' stay at home wife and kids? Guess what happens when you do that - THEY now OWN YOU! You are forced to work to support those kids - it's an excellent debt load, you can't quit your job or smart off - because of the kids - there are reasons *why* 'family men' are preferred by corporations. Because they already have shackles on them and are more easily controlled.

Consider these issues from these angles. Women too. Notice in the link the OP had that the guy there (who's widely regarded as an inflammatory idiot out for ratings btw) - see how often women are told to 'sacrifice'. Yeah?
For who? Ask yourself that. Your family? If it was *for them * - why you need these people preaching it? What's in it for them? Oh right - the Corporate Overlords got you Moms birthin and training the next wave of consumers and Corporate Stooges - for FREE. In the biz world this is known as an externality, or shoving off your work onto someone else - unpaid.

As far as looking down upon the 'stay at home Mom'. - yeah, I don't care what you do. What I do care about is people telling ME what to do!

It's my nature to sacrifice for others? Um, no, it isn't. I only care about myself. So?

And why would *anyone* care - unless - they were looking to get something off of me. See? That's the dead giveaway right there. WHY they preach all this 'Family Values' BS at you - because they need you to *make more consumers*.

Feminism is great because it can open your eyes to all kinds of things. Good for men too.

More and more people, male, female, various orientations, are going "Child Free" also. People got wise to the truth - that this 'family lifestyle' is NOTHING LIKE how it's pitched. Read any parenting forum - witness the misery and regret.

I don't care what people do but why anyone would want to buy into the Family Propaganda is beyond me.
I don't want my rights taken away and / or people telling me what to do, either.

Originally posted by Zinky
Feminism is a *good thing*. ANYTHING that goes against The Overlords and their money systems is a good thing.

Except it doesn't go against them. The cabal want depopulation, and they invented feminism for that exact purpose. There is a direct logical connection between misandry and a lower birth rate. Women who hate men are not going to want to have sex with them, and are therefore not going to reproduce.

The other thing to understand about the cabal, is that they invent solutions, for the problems which they also invented previously. So women not having access to education, which was one of the legitimate rationales of feminism, was a condition which the cabal created. They then create feminism, and sell the public on it by saying that feminism means that women will get access to education, which was one of the few genuinely positive byproducts of feminism as a movement.

That wasn't the real reason why feminism was created, though. The cabal are eugenicists, as you say; but they want men and women to hate each other so that they won't reproduce. Creating hatred between the sexes, is the main thing feminism is good for.

Interesting thread and opinions.

What I find quite remarkable is a tendency to view feminism as a monolithic social movement or group.
There's a lot of debate in feminism, and it differs historically and internationally.
Feminist symposiums can get extremely heated.

There are conservative feminists and social constructionist feminists, and even ecological feminists.
There are feminists who don't necessarily oppose female circumcision if it empowers women within some cultures, and believe that Western women shouldn't interfere in African customs, and many others who strongly oppose such customs.
There's feminist divisions in Islam, with some women saying it is inherently against women's rights, while others say it's a matter of interpretation, and Islam actually expanded women's rights.

There are also debates on whether historical French feminism in the social contructionist stream was the same as Western feminism, and whether "femininity" is a cultural gender construct imposed by patriarchy, or whether it is a biologically determined sexuality that women should celebrate.

In the West there have been notions that women can use their sexuality to gain power over men, which would celebrate postmodern pop stars like Madonna, or even porn stars and "powerful women" like the Kardashian sisters as a kind of feminism (or what some more traditional feminists have labelled "female chauvinist pigs", or dismissive "bimbo feminists" who misuse the very struggles that feminists from previous generations fought just to get access to university education, or laws against marital rape and underage girls in heterosexual marriages).
Some would link the toleration of this brand with massive rises in teenage pregnancy rates (at least in SA, although it seems unfair to only blame the women, so the men's movements should also do more work on this).
However, some see population growth at all costs as a good thing, although without family planning it may ruin many opportunities for the mother and the children.
So in the West feminism is sometimes unjustly blamed for Malthusian choices on family planning made by both men and women, while in other countries it may aim to lift women out of poverty, and perpetual cycles of living in slums.

This division between conservatives and liberal feminists is also mirrored in the debate about pornography and female bodies.

However from the OP article one gets the idea that there is only one kind of "feminism" (and similarly one kind of homosexual movement, which is re-branded to make a handy scapegoat for right-wing polarization).
So "feminists" are bra-burning stereotypes from the 1970s, with lesbian tendencies, who don't want families and children. That's the notion of "feminism" I'm left with, which is totally ridiculous.

As such the article is more a product of the reactionary men's movement (as can be seen from evangelical men's ministries like Promise Keepers or Mighty Men, or in SA the Worthy Woman ministry, which reduces married women to the "happy hooker" for one man, who may not even masturbate).
This is different to the New Men's Movement which embraced feminism and broader gender roles in child-rearing for men, and a newer version of the men's movement that embraces gender equality, but not if men are discriminated against, and which actively opposes discrimination against men, for example, against divorced fathers, unfair affirmative action, violence against men and unfair national service in some countries.

So the article doesn't really expand much on the true nature or variety of the global gender debate.

Originally posted by Zinky
I see myself as outside of various 'systems' so these things don't really apply to me. But yet, they do - and they apply to all.

You have to see this for what it is - Breeding Propaganda. Consider who pushes that and why. All current economic systems depend upon an ever increasing population.

What you should do is - read *actual books* about Eugenics. This BS about Feminism, Communists, etc - the Rockefellers is incorrect.

There *is* a slight bit of truth in there - in that one stray party boy Rockefeller was marginally involved in Eugenics as he had nothing to do and was being pushed to do charitable work. And early Feminists were sometimes *in league with* Eugenicists - for the study and availability of birth control, and that's about it.

It is not any type of "Communist Plot". And there's one big issue that the Right Wing who comes up with these crazy ideas leave out - the Eugenicists wanted the *poor and colored* to breed less; And they also very much wanted white people - to breed more.

Read any book on Eugenics.

If anything - these things are a Capitalist plot - and Pro Breeding is very much a part of it. They need more consumers.

It's only common sense too - that 'they' would want people making more people - they'll reap exponentially larger profits that way.

Don't be fooled. Its all about Breeding. For whites. Some who are racist will flat out state this. They also flat out state that there aren't enough young people to work for the aging. Same with gays - some will flat out state that why they don't want them is that they don't make babies.

Feminism is a *good thing*. ANYTHING that goes against The Overlords and their money systems is a good thing.

MEN should consider Feminism too. Read and see how it can relate to you. You want a 'traditional' stay at home wife and kids? Guess what happens when you do that - THEY now OWN YOU! You are forced to work to support those kids - it's an excellent debt load, you can't quit your job or smart off - because of the kids - there are reasons *why* 'family men' are preferred by corporations. Because they already have shackles on them and are more easily controlled.

Consider these issues from these angles. Women too. Notice in the link the OP had that the guy there (who's widely regarded as an inflammatory idiot out for ratings btw) - see how often women are told to 'sacrifice'. Yeah?
For who? Ask yourself that. Your family? If it was *for them * - why you need these people preaching it? What's in it for them? Oh right - the Corporate Overlords got you Moms birthin and training the next wave of consumers and Corporate Stooges - for FREE. In the biz world this is known as an externality, or shoving off your work onto someone else - unpaid.

As far as looking down upon the 'stay at home Mom'. - yeah, I don't care what you do. What I do care about is people telling ME what to do!

It's my nature to sacrifice for others? Um, no, it isn't. I only care about myself. So?

And why would *anyone* care - unless - they were looking to get something off of me. See? That's the dead giveaway right there. WHY they preach all this 'Family Values' BS at you - because they need you to *make more consumers*.

Feminism is great because it can open your eyes to all kinds of things. Good for men too.

More and more people, male, female, various orientations, are going "Child Free" also. People got wise to the truth - that this 'family lifestyle' is NOTHING LIKE how it's pitched. Read any parenting forum - witness the misery and regret.

I don't care what people do but why anyone would want to buy into the Family Propaganda is beyond me.
I don't want my rights taken away and / or people telling me what to do, either.

edit on 3-6-2012 by Zinky because: typos

This is an example of why I keep coming back to ATS...

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by petrus4

 

I recognize your right to disagree with social movements such as feminism but i feel i can fairy say that not all opposers of feminism have been as objective as yourself. Many who oppose simply lack any logical reasoning as to why and this, i believe that is why the "discussion" goes around in circles.

Anyway, i just wanted to say that i understand why we don't see eye to eye but that i am perfectly fine with the difference of opinion.

I appreciate that. I was reading the article, "The Misandrony Bubble," which was quoted earlier in this thread, but ended up closing the tab, because the further I got into the article, the more I started to feel that it was excessively exaggerated, misogynistic rubbish.

I am not Left or Right. I am not male chauvanist, or pro-feminist. Both at times have valid points of view, and both often have perspectives which are entirely irrational. As something of a former magician, there were times when I made use of a particular ritual, called the Middle Pillar; and I'm inclined to believe that as well as fortifying me energetically, it enabled me to literally realise that Left and Right thought each correspond to a particular sephiroth.

What this means, is that both elements of political and economic thought are necessary, and that neither of them can exist in exclusion, nor were they meant to do so. It is the same with men and women.

Realisation of this fact, is the only thing I have found in life, which has brought me even a semblance of peace.

Yet another...................

Originally posted by halfoldman
Interesting thread and opinions.

What I find quite remarkable is a tendency to view feminism as a monolithic social movement or group.
There's a lot of debate in feminism, and it differs historically and internationally.
Feminist symposiums can get extremely heated.

There are conservative feminists and social constructionist feminists, and even ecological feminists.
There are feminists who don't necessarily oppose female circumcision if it empowers women within some cultures, and believe that Western women shouldn't interfere in African customs, and many others who strongly oppose such customs.
There's feminist divisions in Islam, with some women saying it is inherently against women's rights, while others say it's a matter of interpretation, and Islam actually expanded women's rights.

There are also debates on whether historical French feminism in the social contructionist stream was the same as Western feminism, and whether "femininity" is a cultural gender construct imposed by patriarchy, or whether it is a biologically determined sexuality that women should celebrate.

In the West there have been notions that women can use their sexuality to gain power over men, which would celebrate postmodern pop stars like Madonna, or even porn stars and "powerful women" like the Kardashian sisters as a kind of feminism (or what some more traditional feminists have labelled "female chauvinist pigs", or dismissive "bimbo feminists" who misuse the very struggles that feminists from previous generations fought just to get access to university education, or laws against marital rape and underage girls in heterosexual marriages).
Some would link the toleration of this brand with massive rises in teenage pregnancy rates (at least in SA, although it seems unfair to only blame the women, so the men's movements should also do more work on this).
However, some see population growth at all costs as a good thing, although without family planning it may ruin many opportunities for the mother and the children.
So in the West feminism is sometimes unjustly blamed for Malthusian choices on family planning made by both men and women, while in other countries it may aim to lift women out of poverty, and perpetual cycles of living in slums.

This division between conservatives and liberal feminists is also mirrored in the debate about pornography and female bodies.

However from the OP article one gets the idea that there is only one kind of "feminism" (and similarly one kind of homosexual movement, which is re-branded to make a handy scapegoat for right-wing polarization).
So "feminists" are bra-burning stereotypes from the 1970s, with lesbian tendencies, who don't want families and children. That's the notion of "feminism" I'm left with, which is totally ridiculous.

As such the article is more a product of the reactionary men's movement (as can be seen from evangelical men's ministries like Promise Keepers or Mighty Men, or in SA the Worthy Woman ministry, which reduces married women to the "happy hooker" for one man, who may not even masturbate).
This is different to the New Men's Movement which embraced feminism and broader gender roles in child-rearing for men, and a newer version of the men's movement that embraces gender equality, but not if men are discriminated against, and which actively opposes discrimination against men, for example, against divorced fathers, unfair affirmative action, violence against men and unfair national service in some countries.

So the article doesn't really expand much on the true nature or variety of the global gender debate.

edit on 5-6-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

More flame for the fire......

reply to post by MagesticEsoteric



Since women entered the work force full time, divorce hates have SKYROCKETED. It have destroyed the family because it has turned the family into a business relationship of constantly balancing incomes. But, just remember, the monetization of everything is the ONLY WAY.

Originally posted by albertabound
Since women entered the work force full time, divorce hates have SKYROCKETED. It have destroyed the family because it has turned the family into a business relationship of constantly balancing incomes. But, just remember, the monetization of everything is the ONLY WAY.

I personally feel that women in the workforce (after marriage) messes up the woman psyche. Women (excluding femi-nazis) have a psychological desire to feel protected by their man; have a Bread Winner. Men have a psychological desire to provide and protect for their women; be the Bread Winner.

My wife recently quit her job and our life has been exponentially better. Sure, we don't have as much money as we used to, but my income provides for the both of us and allows her to finish school. Did she want to quit her job? NOPE. But, you know the reason she didn't is because it was engrained in her that she needed to have a job or society would look down on her, which it has! Now, all of a sudden her married girl-friends and family members are telling her how lazy she is and how "nice it would be if I could quit,"... yada yada yada.

On the opposite side of the spectrum you have myself and my associations with other males (friends/family/coworkers), many of whom are struggling with unhappiness and dissatisfaction in their marriages due to their wives working and messing up that psychological balance. They would LOVE for their wives to quit their jobs and stay at home, but they have an uphill battle ahead of them.