Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

reply to post by WhiteSpectralMirror

Originally posted by WhiteSpectralMirror
I'm not saying a man should have the say in if a child is kept by the woman, just a male equivalent that allows for him to take back some control over the next 18 years of his life.

Then, it seems that we agree 100%. I support a male equivalent to abortion.

But I will point out that it's not women who have set up the pseudo-equality seen in the courts and the military. It's not women who decided that, in a divorce, women should get the custody, nor did women make the rules saying women in the military wouldn't have to pass the same tests as men.

Yes, it needs to change, but I would choose to move toward more equal treatment under the law, not less.

I can't even respond to the op. The idea that women breastfeeding in public is some kind of turn-on boggles my mind and rates right up there with the idea that "gay people should just keep it to themselves". I can only say he has NO CLUE what feminism is (as I suspected in my first post).

This thread is just one more indication that some people see women as objects, for their entertainment and service, which is the very opposite of feminism.

the subjugation of women in the past WAS IN NO WAY NATURAL!! nor did it try to preserve anything natural...
reckon, what do you think mama bear would do if papa bear came into the cave and started knocking the baby around??? I think mama bear and papa bear would be having a fight to the death!!!

what does the religions teach women should do??
keep quiet, obey, which would mean if the man was too lazy to get out of the chair and do the smacking around themselves, they could order the mother to do it for them!!,, and pray!!!

basically, what the op seems to be saying, at least to me, is that men should be free!!! and well, whenever a human is emotionally tied to another, they will lose (have to give up) some of that freedom. and the only way they can avoid this is if women are conditioned to be subservient to them, always obedient to them, never questioning them. women have to give up their freedom entirely, if men are to be free!!!

sorry, I've tried to live it, it doesn't work out too well..... unless of course you are the man...
by the way, is it true that jewish men wake up every morning and pray to God, giving thanks that God did not create them as a women???

why is that?? maybe because they would not like to be treated in the same manner as they are treating women?? the golden rule of the bible is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you!!!
if you wouldn't want to live the life, don 't try to enforce onto me!

I tend to think that the skewed image of a "patriarchal" society such as Islam is what most are reacting to in their responses. This is not the True God's ordained order. Violence, oppression and hate are not of God, even an athiest can agree to that if they had to list what they thought a Creator's characteristics would be. The Christian ordained order is a patriarchal society in His declaration to Eve "he shall rule over you," ...The word mashal [to rule] in this form means ‘to rule’ (and not ‘to be like’) and definitely implies subjection. but the Hebrew word mashal is used in many passages "in the sense of servant leadership, to ‘comfort, protect, care for, love.’ Adam was ordained to be the spiritual head of the family, but in the garden, it was he who disobeyed God's direct commandment by his obedience to his wife instead. Instead of leading his wife into obedience to God’s command, he allowed his wife to lead him into disobedience.  ‘He shall rule over you’ expresses the effect of sin corrupting the relationship of husband (the head) and wife.

Understanding the time in which we live, the spirit of feminism indoctrinated into the lands of Christian forefathers is no surprise for the serpent uses the same deceptions.  Men abandon their spiritual headship to their wives who are indoctrinated by feminism. Feminism preaches the right to kill their babies, paganism, communism and the usurpation of God's defined order. Millions upon millions of babies have been slaughtered, millions of families have been destroyed and men have rolled over because they have spiritually died by following their wives to their own destruction. Men have chosen to follow the first Adam instead of the second Adam, Christ Jesus. Jesus stated that the end would be just as in the days of the flood, and looking at scripture, the sons of God chose to marry any wives of their own choosing. In so doing, the women without faith led them away from their previous relationship with God, leading to a world of sheer violence and evil. I'm not blaming women here, but rather pointing out that just as Adam, the men chose to be obedient to their wives instead of God. 

Today, the rise and elevation of "goddess" and "androgynous deity"worship is indicative of Satan's final assault - Mary worship, Isis, Ishtar, the Queen of Heaven, Baphomet, nature worship etc are all signs of its rise. Feminism is not about "equality", and the militancy of it should be a red flag. Feminism is about destroying the children of God, His portion Israel in the world through disobedience. Jesus said that the world needed to learn by his complete obedience to His Father, and Paul affirms this in his discussion about women not leading in the church or family. Men and women today look in aghast at the Islamic model and run away as they should, but tragically, they reject the True God's version of order, one in which the head is male and leads his family through strength, love, caring in obedience to God's will. That was God's promise to us - choose good and the result is life, but choose evil and the result is death. Today's world is upside down once again, and as in the days of Noah, it will equally end in destruction and most won't even see it coming. That is His Promise and words to this generation - 2,000 years of patience will end and justice will be done. Love your partners and families to the fullest but lead them in obedience to His Will.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can't even respond to the op. The idea that women breastfeeding in public is some kind of turn-on boggles my mind and rates right up there with the idea that "gay people should just keep it to themselves". I can only say he has NO CLUE what feminism is (as I suspected in my first post).

I concur.

It gives me a minor aneurism reading people's opinion on what they think feminism is in this sort of context. It's such a diverse and complex area that makes me wonder ... If these types of people are right, Judith Butler and Donna Haraway should cease writing immediately and reconsider how they wasted the last century of their lives.

It's an insult to decades of quality writing that someone believes that feminist literature could fit in a pamphlet entitled, 'how women take your rights away with their quality racks'.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Understanding the time in which we live, the spirit of feminism indoctrinated into the lands of Christian forefathers is no surprise for the serpent uses the same deceptions.  Men abandon their spiritual headship to their wives who are indoctrinated by feminism. Feminism preaches the right to kill their babies, paganism, communism and the usurpation of God's defined order.

Feminists for life is a feminist org against abortion: Link

Mostly what I gathered from your post is .... 'everyone is monolithic evil except us, we are fan-freaking-tastic!' Also that you know zero about feminism and wouldn't know a feminist theorist from a wikipedia article on Cheng Kai-Wen.

Originally posted by dontreally
There's a recent thread that somewhat touches upon this question: why do men commit rape? Primarily, of course, because they're amoral; secondarily, out of sheer sexual frustration.

A thread on ATS is your idea of ‘scientific and empirical’ evidence? Well...

Rape occurs for many different reasons, sexual frustration is a very minor one. Nor do I think that most males are amoral, but I do think that society imbues the male of the species with the perception that females are to blame for their lack of sexual activity. Particularly where Abrahamic principles underlie the society’s morality.

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case, you're in a position in which you need to posit something without any evidence to support it: that a mans biological response to a woman's beauty - or toplessness, or even more, to the fact that nature has designed man as the sex which courts the other, could be 'wiped clean' - eliminated - by "desensitization".

I never claimed that anything would be wiped clean, I said desensitised. That means less sensitive or rather, less reactive. You could still appreciate what you see, but you be less likely to have the physiological response that you are seemingly concerned about.

Originally posted by dontreally
It is completely hardwired.

No it is not, it is a matter of conditioning.

Originally posted by dontreally
Excuse me, but that makes no sense. If one put up guards, i.e. laws, or rules, then one can remove the intensity of the impediment in question. True, it does not "change" thought forms, but it limits their intensity and ability in dictating inimical behavior patterns.

Laws are control mechanisms, they control the behaviour of the majority certainly, but it has also been demonstrably proven that prohibition of things that most desire, leads to greater criminal activity and therefore creates a grey area of morality and legality. One need only look at alcohol prohibition and in greater context, pornography and the sex trade.

Originally posted by dontreally
If a woman for example covers her chest area, I will think less sexual thoughts than if she were completely exposed.

You will think ‘less’ sex thoughts, but you will not completely cease to think about sex. Learning instead to concentrate on the person, rather than the flesh as presented, should be perhaps what you should aim for. Women will always be desirable, you cannot control that, you can learn to control your own thoughts, impulses and reactions. It is not the woman’s fault that you find her desirable, she does not need to be controlled, you do.

Originally posted by dontreally
To ignore this is radical; it's to assume - which entails experimentation, of course - that there is no concrete connection between the impression of a naked female body and the emotional effect it produces in the other sex, who, mind you, is programmed by nature to be aroused upon such a visual.

Not programmed at all by nature, all the programming, most of the programming, is by nurture, and by the systemised concealment of human bodies from us as we are raised into adulthood, at which point, under current circumstances, we are assailed with nudity.

Originally posted by dontreally
Also, as a I mentioned before, there is a correlation between covering and sexual arousal; the 'tension' in keeping hidden and private those parts associated with personal function (a woman's breasts, which she uses to feed her child, is a personal and intimate thing) and the furtive desire to see a woman's (or mans) naked body, is part of what makes sex so thrilling; as said, the ancient discerned that a woman's sphere of power is the private, whereas the mans sphere of power is the public; the tension between these two states is what produces life's scintillating experiences.

Most of us no longer live in a world where women are kept confined to the home, and therefore, the sphere of both women and men has expanded. Thankfully! I agree to a certain extent, I find no need to display my body for general consumption, however, I disagree that breast feeding is a personal and intimate process, it is an essential and natural function, one that is hardwired, and there should be acceptance that if as a culture we want the best for our children we should be far more tolerant of mothers feeding in public without involving immature reactionary titillation. Breasts serve a function above and beyond their ability to sexually stimulate you, and besides, seeing partial nudity is not anywhere near the same as being intimately entwined in total nudity. The tension is more about the lack of contact than the merely looking.

Originally posted by dontreally
To just do away with these archetypal differentiations, would severely dampen the intensity of rapprochement. It would make life intensely boring, and dull. Hence, Differentiation is wonderful.. Differences between the sexes, rules of garb, etc - all adds to the intensity of living.

For you, not so much for others. I am all for difference, but then I am all for a mature and open attitude towards sex as well. I don’t think that being told what to wear would increase the intensity of living my life, but to each their own. And it would make very little difference to me if some women chose to walk around topless, except conversationally. I am all for freedom of expression.

Originally posted by dontreally
Why would a woman even want to feed in public?? That's what I would like to know.

Primarily, because her child needs to be fed. It is that simple. As I have said, breastfeeding is hardwired, and when your child cries to be fed there is an automatic physiological response to that, no matter where you are. You would perhaps insist that the mother of your child therefore stayed within the home for this period, but fortunately for most women, we are free to come and go as we please and one of the best things about breast, is that you don’t have to fuss around with sterilising and carrying bottles every time you leave the house. Breast feeding gives us more freedom, and is better for baby.

Originally posted by dontreally
If she wants to sit under a tree in a private area to suckle her child, I find nothing wrong with that. If, on the hand, she desires to breast feed on a public bench, I can help but wonder "why"?? Is she trying to make a public statement? Is she politicizing her motherhood?

No, she is feeding her child in the way nature intended. I have been at parties, sat round the table eating, with mothers breast feeding, there is nothing scandalous or licentious about it, that is all in YOUR head. You seemingly think that the breast evolved merely as a male plaything, it developed to feed children. Why shouldn’t a mother feed her child on a public bench, or while walking down the street, or doing her grocery shopping? So that you don’t get aroused?

Originally posted by dontreally
How very mature of you. You would like me to acknowledge your 'rights' - your right to dress as you want - but you refuse to recognize my rights i.e. my PERSONAL i.e. intellectual and moral rights, i.e. my right to be from external compulsion. Were not talking about something equivocal; there is no uncertainty about the effect a woman's nakedness has on a mans mind; it's known, hence, we devise methods to free our thoughts from the external compulsion of sexual arousal.

I do not need you to ‘acknowledge my rights’, in any shape or form. They are mine, your sanction is of no consequence to me. You wish me, and the collective female world, to modify our behaviour because you cannot control your own mind. I hear a resounding guffaw to that one. Your problem, you deal with it.

Originally posted by dontreally
You don't read very much, do you? Read Hegel, for example. There are values, ethical values, values ennobled primarily in the Jewish tradition, which cannot be preserved unless the mind preserve it's freedom by choosing - not by external impetus - but by internal freedom, how it would like to live.
Nature may have made man this way, but it also gave man the power of reason - the ability to know the effect nature has on a mans freedom of will.

Exactly, you have proved my point. Well done!

Originally posted by dontreally
That's because the female response to the sight of a mans exposed chest is not the same in its intensity - and frequency (i.e. not all females are as sexually sensitive as you may be) as it is in men. But I suppose you will argue this as well

Then use that power of reason to overcome those externally applied stimuli, your body may be beyond your control, but the way in which you mind perceives and translates that stimulus can be, which will, in turn, allow you more control of your physiological response. If you see a woman only as an object of pleasure then you will only react in that way. Women are far, far more than playthings, and it is about time you learnt to understand that, and deal with it.

Originally posted by dontreally
The idea of patriarchy and matriarchy - what do you think is implied by that? It's a basic dualism; it's either one or the other - there is no 'in between'; there is only whats called a 'patriarchal' society, which is the standard traditional cultures of the west, and there are 'matriarchal' societies, which were popular in pre-christian times.
In any case, it's not an exact formula; it really refers to a METAPHYSICAL attitude of the culture in question, rather than a particular mode of government.

Patriarchy was a mode of government for a very long time in the West to the extent that it stripped women of any rights as individuals able to make their own choices or to even represent themselves legally. It has been a long road to female emancipation, and one that is still being fought metaphysically.

Originally posted by dontreally
And you seem to not care that the values I would seek to imbue in my child could not exist in a society in which a bare breasted woman was a normal sight. It wouldn't happen; the unconscious effect of that sight would prime him towards a totally different philosophical attitude in life - i.e the one society inculcates by crystallizing that formality in law.

You could home school, keep them in a bubble...personally, I think that you have little to worry about in the bare breasted stake, it would remain in the minority I can assure you. Laws should protect, but they shouldn’t impose on the freedoms of individual self expression. You can lead your life however you choose, but only in tolerance to those around you. That works from every direction. I don’t want to see boobs everywhere I go, or moobs for that matter, it won’t spoil my day, or negatively impact on the way I raise my child if I do though. No more do I want to have to walk past strip clubs and brothels. In fact, I would prefer a free for all given the choice, but it is not my choice to make and I respect the freedom of others to choose even though I may not always respect the choice itself.

Originally posted by dontreally
The natural state always has primacy - but it's not right, because nature is in itself immoral - or rather, morally neutral. Thus, we cannot derive moral advice from nature.

Agreed, in part. But acceptance is sometimes key. It is natural for most of us to wear clothes, we have no fur after all. Animals are usually always covered and as such respond to breeding stimuli, they are not ‘at it’ all the time, usually only when it is appropriate. Only we and our closest primate relations have intercourse for any reason other than reproduction, so it seems that nature can teach us a thing or two, and clearly has.

Originally posted by dontreally
Man's unique device is his ability to IMPOSE law and order on the chaos of nature.

No, man’s unique device is to impose laws in writing. Most animal groups exist within the bounds of laws and rules, creating order and cohesion in that group, they just can’t write them down, or set them down, they merely enforce them.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


actually, the foundation of my reaction is experience with pentecostal christianity.....

one in which the head is male and leads his family through strength, love, caring in obedience to God's will. That was God's promise to us - choose good and the result is life, but choose evil and the result is death. Today's world is upside down once again, and as in the days of Noah, it will equally end in destruction and most won't even see it coming. That is His Promise and words to this generation - 2,000 years of patience will end and justice will be done. Love your partners and families to the fullest but lead them in obedience to His Will.

yes, but I kind of get the impression that this is what most churches preach from the pulpit, but they must not believe it since most of their outreach is to women and children. trying convince them to attend the church.. hoping that they will then lead the male into the fold!!! when well, you have any idea how dangerous it can be if a women accepts her role in the marriage before the husband actually has his role down pat is??
it can do more harm than good!

let me ask you a question here...

does human mama sin if she obeys her husband and slaps the kid around too much and the child dies?? who goes to prison??

I think the whole idea just a manmade lie because the male of the species had to have is way all the time so badly, that "God" had to give women the command.....just to keep the marriages together!

only, it's time to grow up now, no one always get their way all the time!!!

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Most Holy Theotokos, save us!

I don't even know where to begin with this. I've been trying really hard to bite my tongue on all of these religious misconceptions presented in this thread, as I find myself disagreeing with everyone on this thread who has posted their opinions on religion so far. From their historical revisionist imaginings of St. Constantine, to misconceptions of ascetism, Christianity, paganism, etcetera. I know I won't change anyone's mind, so I've refrained. However, I find I have little tolerance for this. We don't worship Mary (the Theotokos) dear. I'm telling you now it isn't done. I can break out a fantastic apologetics argument if you'd like, but it would be a huge deviation from this thread.

Your views on feminism destroying the fabric of society and being of Satan and anti-Christ (or however you worded it) in nature is pure, alarmist bunk. Feminism isn't some mass communist collective out to run society into the ground and destroy the faith of millions.

Edited to add: Now that I have that out of my system- dontreally- as you're Jewish (I'm assuming from your posts) have you considered moving to an area where you're around those who adhere to tznius all the time? I've seen a rabbi or two on youtube who are trying really hard to convert non-Jewish women to Jewish concepts of tznius- but even your concept of modesty doesn't measure up. As I recall, you have no issue with showing knees and elbows, which is verboten for those into being frum.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Understanding the time in which we live, the spirit of feminism indoctrinated into the lands of Christian forefathers is no surprise for the serpent uses the same deceptions.  Men abandon their spiritual headship to their wives who are indoctrinated by feminism. Feminism preaches the right to kill their babies, paganism, communism and the usurpation of God's defined order.

Feminists for life is a feminist org against abortion: Link

Mostly what I gathered from your post is .... 'everyone is monolithic evil except us, we are fan-freaking-tastic!' Also that you know zero about feminism and wouldn't know a feminist theorist from a wikipedia article on Cheng Kai-Wen.

Your views on my opinion come directly from the ideas given to you by feminism. I am a woman therefore I am perfectly capable of speaking on both sides of the issue. I can tell by your response that you didn't hear one word that I stated for it contradicts everything that you have been taught. Nowhere do I subscribe to the idea that "we are fan-freakin-tastic", and that comment arises from your own thoughts not mine. Feminism is not equality and has never been about equality between the sexes, but rather it is solely about women controlling men and usurping their God ordained role. I know, I was there. It is a spirit of disobedience and deception causing the vast majority of its adherents to despise the Father. God is dead in the minds of true feminists, and if you can't figure out that that is it's intended outcome, then you never will understand. You will never connect it to the disappearance of the strong family orientated father role on television either.

reply to post by My_Reality

Obviously an error. If you still have time perhaps you should correct it?

I think I had 2 pages open and I responded to your post under her header. My mistake.

However, the believers of Judeo-Christian morality pushed their representatives to make this activity illegal in the states. All for the sake of their personal beliefs.

There is no concrete law in the "Judeo-Christian morality" (which I think mentioned earlier, is an extremely vague term) preventing people from gambling.

Of course, it destroys lives, and people should not be encouraged into doing it, but, I still believe there is room to allow people to make that decision for themselves. One can still hold to a Jewish ethic without venturing into areas of public morality which does not in itself endanger the public good.

Still, this idea is not free of corruption, it is not free from perceived superiority.

I used to be far more conservative than I currently am.

My position is this. I would like a society that allows all types of philosophies and attitudes to thrive. It seems fair. I do not think anyone has the right to determine anyone elses beliefs - which is why it is an extremely tricky matter - the development of laws - to insure that both groups, left and right, conservative and liberal, are protected. I think Liberal democracy, and particularly Hegels 'outlines of the philosophy of right' fulfills that basic need.

Because nature is in a natural state of dominance, that man is inherently subject to the external force and power of the passions, that any laws that are made should be for the purpose of defending the rights of those who hold to a conservative moral doctrine.

In the situation of allowing women to walk about uncovered, what worries me is the overall impact such a sight would have not on immediate onlookers - the fact that it cause them some stress, especially if they're men who are in a committed relationship and would prefer not to be tempted by the sight of a topless attractive woman, but in subsequent generations: the young are IMPRESSIONABLE, and we mustn't forget the impact of environment in the development of a young person's personal beliefs. If a 15 year old, lets say, raised in a conservative Jewish family, saw a topless woman on the sidewalk, what impression would that create? He would be attracted, obviously, but at a deeper level, he would infer something, whether conscious or not (and if unconscious, it would be a content that would determine future thinking patterns) that this sort of thing is awesome. It's a welcomed sight to a kid titillated by testosterone. Already, something like this - a law which crystallizes a moral that nature makes man predisposed towards accepting - would influence his future beliefs. He would be undermined by societies sanctioning of this sigh, and would inclined to accepting the liberal position of the society in question.

This is why I feel laws should give precedence to the conservative position in this particular matter. The media already pushes a liberal message. This seems to suffice in allowing those who choose to live a liberal lifestyle to live the way they want to live. The affect of official laws - of not allowing a woman to go about topless - is a minor nuisance to their thinking, and in no way exercises a definitive force in determining their personal beliefs. Thus, since nature already acts as the base inclination towards accepting a liberal position, no further guarantee of living that way need be added.

In this way, both sides can be supported, the conservative and the liberal. If you attack the law, an impose your liberal doctrine on others, than you essentially seek to subvert the existence of the conservative position, doing to conservatives what liberals have traditionally inveighed against conservatives for: despotism.

Even so, the pagans were treated far worse in my opinion.

Depends, I suppose. The pagans who refused to exchange their old religion for a new garb were eliminated. Those who had the sensibility to accept the new garb - while maintaining their earlier ethics and morality (this is particularly the case with the Celts ad Germanic tribes; Wotan seems to be very similar to Jesus; even the suffering of Wotan on the Yggdrasil parallels Jesus' own suffering on the cross. I assume you understand that a philosophy is being hinted at through these metaphors, and it's not the metaphors themselves that are of chief importance, but the archetypal patterns they convey.

The Jews, on the other hand, are STUBBORN. Look at all they had to tolerate, and still, chose to suffer in ghetto cities, clean streets on their holy days, be led through rome on donkeys and humiliated by the citizens of rome, rather than convert to another religion. There is something unprecedented about it.

A guy might not want to control himself, but it doesn't mean he can't. Exclaiming your incompetence at doing so as a factor for all men is taking quite the leap, claiming leadership of all males and their interests.

Womankind has been favored in a way that man isn't. A man cannot exert subconscious, subtle influence over a woman's decision making and behavior as a woman can over a man.

This is untrue, and can be proven to be biologically incorrect. Women react to the odours of men, and will preferentially go to places where men are or have recent been as well as be drawn to men who are compatible based on those odours. Women's bodies react to the effects of semen, from regulating cycles to having a protective effect on pregnancy by that man. That's some pretty profound effects.

That those effects are on being drawn to and preferentially staying with a particular bloke(s) are pretty profound statements about biology.

One could claim that female biology is making men incapable of restraint. One could also claim that a male's basic instincts are to do anything biologically to make women stay attached to them while showing little actual behaviour that deserves it.

I'm just saying, that if you want to add stupid stories to hormones..... you might want to be careful about the backswing.

Men have no right to abortion.

If you leave your semen somewhere, you consquently accept the conclusions. It fits the legal definition of a gift. Or a bomb. Guess it depends on your interpretation.

A child on the other hand is a human who has rights that you cannot rid yourself of because they are inconvenient.

Until these dummies are capable of understanding that a child is not an extension of their mother, so that they can process their issues about these things appropriately, they'll continue to be immensely stupid about both.

Interesting though how people who claim that their inability to control their mind should think to want to legally control another person's abdomen. Apparently they want to control their sperm but not their brains. Fascinating concept.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

You will never connect it to the disappearance of the strong family orientated father role on television either.

I suppose the feminist posters in this thread wont notice either how men are HABITUALLY - I.e. deliberately, for the sake of conditioning the masses - represented as a buffoon.

Let me cull some examples.

Simpsons. Bart and Homer = Dumb, Marge and Lisa = smarter
Everybody loves Raymond. Raymond = moron, and Debra = long suffering, understanding wife; the archetype of sensibility
According To Jim. Jim = unconscionably dumb, his wife = smart
Family Guy. Peter = Dumb , Lois = smarter
Futurama. Fry = dumb, leela = smart
Modern Family. Father = idiot, Mother = smarter
The King of Queens. Man = dumb, Woman = smarter
Home Improvement. Man = dumb, Wife = smarter
South Park = Randy = dumb , Sharon = smarter and more sensible - the voice of reason
Malcolm in the Middle = Dad is a passive, pathetic push over, Mom = a bit crazy, yet the 'active' masculine decision maker. Gender roles are reversed here
Two and a Half men = this show all around deprecates men and their maturity
Cleveland Show = cleveland = dumb, donna = more sensible
Yes Dear = name speaks for itself
Whitney = her boyfriend is stupid, and whitney the voice of reason
Mike and Molly = Mike is a fat slob cop, good hearted, but Molly, his wife, is more level headed, more reasonable.
Rules of Engagement = Men are dumb, women are smart.
The Middle = wife smart, man dumb
Raising Hope = wife smart, man dumb

It's a complete reversal of the historical role, and one might even say the more natural role. But that again is all about conditioning. The male symbolizes reason, in contradistinction to the woman, who is more reflective of emotion. This, of course, is not to say that all women are unreasonable and all men reasonable; it just refers to a basic inclination. Women are influenced more by emotions, i.e. their menstrual cycle makes them somewhat subjective, which makes them less reasonable. Thus, the male is more naturally the archetype of reason. But do we see this in TV?? Amazingly, we consistently see the exact reverse. Why?? To condition us. This subtle archetypal psychology works upon are minds in extremely subtle ways, but it predisposes us towards the liberal,pro-feminist position.

The current buffon male in the media is offensive. Blaming it on women is stupid.

edit to add:

But I love the idea that the "natural role" in your opinion is for women to be stupid. Though I understand that this biologically works to some men's advantage, since if women think they are less likely to want to be with idiots.

Maybe that is why so many other media outlets focus on girls being drooling idiots. They feel bad for you, and are just trying to make sure that there might be a few females around dumb enough for ya.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Your views on my opinion come directly from the ideas given to you by feminism.

They come from your over reliance on the bible, your lack of reference or indication of any knowledge of the feminist movement whilst demonizing it unfairly, and my disbelief in biological determinism as a silver bullet answer.

I am a woman therefore I am perfectly capable of speaking on both sides of the issue.

Ironically, I don't see how revealing your gender supports you at all ... I think you've missed what 'both sides' of this issue are for me, and I don't need to point out my gender to get that across.

You're not the first person I've met that seems to think, being a woman, it's 'natural' or ordained by God to fit into a predetermined role. I've read several of the works of Watchman Nee, and his book on Spiritual Authority I think you would like very much. He preaches that God gave authority to man, and that authority extends over women. According to Watchman Nee, a woman will not be punished if she obeys a man's authority and proceeds to sin because the sin will fall on the man.

I simply oppose this line of thinking including your own proposed natural order. I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions as I think other people should have responsibility too, and if such a creator exists and doesn't understand that then they should have sent me to Earth with some kind of instruction book or manual (and not the circa 100AD or 1400AD variety).

I believe the type of behavior you're subscribing to leads to slavish decision making and is a slippery slope towards not taking responsibility for yourself at all. I believe in this instance I have done you the respect of being familiar with both your stance and your literature (regardless of if you consider yourself a follower of Watchman Nee's teachings or not).

I don't believe in intentionally thwarting a person's desire for a male lead family, but I also don't believe in one gender having to tell another off in some convoluted religious blame game declared by God given authority. If you want a dominant man in your life I think that's your personal business and nothing to do with the apocalypse.

Nowhere do I subscribe to the idea that "we are fan-freakin-tastic", and that comment arises from your own thoughts not mine.

Do you believe the bible is superior to all other forms of moral and ethical philosophy? Are you using the bible to justify your beliefs regarding feminism? If your answer is yes to either one of those questions or both then I understand you perfectly and won't retract my comments.

Your argument from scripture is one of superiority and not well read negotiation through logic and learning it seems. I'll apologize if I'm wrong.

God is dead in the minds of true feminists

Look up gender theologians or even just Christian feminists is bound to get some results. We're from all walks of life.

You will never connect it to the disappearance of the strong family orientated father role on television either.

I'd probably disagree with this also, but that's a whole other topic. Television is still a male dominated industry and, if anything, in recent years the male creative voice has been keen to investigate themes of masculinity and fatherhood.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


I'm very impressed by your understanding of the Bible. Genesis contains a whole gamut of archetypal psychology.

It is no coincidence that it was Eve who was influenced by the influence of the Nachash-Serpent. Here, it basically makes a statement, that the feminine, due to her natural state of being 'passive' relative to the masculine 'active' refused to admit her need to depend on the other; it was her unwillingness to not ask - to not question the command of the lord, which led her to obey her lowest passions (serpent).

The Lord here could be said to be nothing more than the dynamic of the created order. The world is as it is. The feminine corresponds to passivity, to negativity, to manifestation: hence, she's derivative, i.e. manifestation, the principle she corresponds to (hence, 'mother' earth), as opposed to the abstract principle in itself - which the masculine corresponds to. Eve - 'life' came from Adam. Adam is gender neutral, or androgynous. This means that the abstract in itself is still 'not alive'; not until it finds expression in action, in manifestation, not until the side - tzela - is split into two, not until duality comes forth, can 'life' or 'living' be said to happen.

The world we live in is governed by archetypal laws. The refusal of the feminine, or the passions, to submit to the right guidance of the reason, or the masculine, is also reflected in Hebrew mythology; there is a Jewish midrash which describes Lilith who Adam was apparently made to live with. But lilith - meaning 'night', or darkness, or negation (i.e. the negative philosophy of Schopenhauer, or Hinduism, Buddhism, or Gnosticism, comes to mind) refuses to be under Adam in copulation. She wants to be "equal" with him; but this equality implies an inability for the two to come together, for the two to act in complementarity with one another. In other words, Lilith obfuscates her role as the feminine. Consequence? The psychology of this myth is quite profound. Lilith gets ejected from the garden (or God's design for the world) i.e. goes against the Created Order, and by doing so, copulates with Sama'el "blindness of God" which is stubborn blindness, or chaos. This "copulation" or intermingling of factors produces 'demons'. Lesson? To oppose the order ordained by God necessitates the existence of evil, of suffering, of INEQUALITY, even though these same feminists cry for equality.

There is tremendous wisdom and truth in the Jewish tradition. Any wonder why they've always been opposed by the governments of the world since Greco-Roman times?

reply to post by LeSigh

Edited to add: Now that I have that out of my system- dontreally- as you're Jewish (I'm assuming from your posts) have you considered moving to an area where you're around those who adhere to tznius all the time?

I'm not Jewish. I know, it's amazing. What kind of non-Jew learns about Judaism, and then appreciates its?

And as for Tznius; Um. No, I'm not a Jew. I'm not even interested in converting to become a Jew. Why?? For what purpose?? Can I not hold to a conservative philosophy without being forced into a ghetto with the other Jews? Is that what you're suggesting all conservative people do?

I've seen a rabbi or two on youtube who are trying really hard to convert non-Jewish women to Jewish concepts of tznius- but even your concept of modesty doesn't measure up.

Yes, were talking about different people. The Orthodox have highly umm, 'supernal' and other worldly expectations from women in the world we live in.

My position would more correspond to the conservative or modern orthodox view, if even.

As I recall, you have no issue with showing knees and elbows, which is verboten for those into being frum.

In my opinion, they're a tad too conservative for my liking. Nonetheless, I know many Orthodox Jews, and theyre so loving, so kind, that it's hard for me to say something negative about them. I think if they want to live that way, they should be allowed to, in peace.

Try this interpretation on it.

Eve showed natural leadership, but no interest in looking at the consequences for others.

Adam showed he had no leadership and was willing to shirk his own responsibilities for his own behaviour.

Both showed they'd be willing to throw the other under a bus.

So women get to learn how to follow and think about consequences for others.
-So far women have knuckled under to the point of stupidity.

Men get a chance to learn to not being idiots while trying to learn some leadership abiilties.
-So far men are showing some leadership, still try to shirk all the time, are apparently are willing to grind women into pulp in an attempt to not have to control themselves still.

....narratives. Sometimes the simplier the better.


edit to add - I left this out because it starts moving out of my usual posting range. But hey, I"m in a mood.

In this interpretation, the use of the Grigori becomes a group of males imbued with some of the traits needed combined with sexual aggressivity to spread them. The first couple of generations showing an unpleasant tendency to add aggressivity to the wrong set of traits in the hybrids. Consequently adding in a tendency to prefer females whom are overly submissive and lacking physical strength so that over time the males would bulk down and become less aggressive through generational mating with physically weak specimens. One expects that this starts to even itself out or is going to be tweaked at some point if they STILL can't manage to figure out how to control themselves.

Originally posted by dontreally
I suppose the feminist posters in this thread wont notice either how men are HABITUALLY - I.e. deliberately, for the sake of conditioning the masses - represented as a buffoon. sic

Almost every single example you've given matches one or more of the following:

* From the American comedy channel
* Produced by the same writers/artists/production units in multiple cases
* Includes equally negative female stereotypes (neurotic house cleaners do not support a liberal feminist agenda)
* Follows the long pattern of family parody comedy from the United States (USA entertainment loves to move in patterns!)

I do not share your belief that these shows portray women acting reasonably. Often quite the opposite.

reply to post by AussieAmandaC

really? That was rude

Rude?? I was actually giving you credit. If you don't want it, fine,

Let me tell you that you have no understanding of woman in her natural form (you can't have possibly seen it), because you're constantly at war within yourself over granting supposed consessions to said harlet.

Wow. And this isn't rude? To assume I have problems within my self? That's what your argument amounts to? Ad hominem attacks?

Naturally dominant heh? I thought I was protecting myself from ignorant men all these years, who knew?

Do you not understand that nature i.e. the feminine, is naturally dominant? That doesn't make sense to you?

I believe what you are trying to achieve as a 'co-creator' (as are we all by the way) is antiquated and confining and would become suphocating in the extreme,

It's only suffocating if you rebel against it. The resistance against this idea, is what creates that inner tension. But what makes it so difficult? In the world we live in, I COMPLETELY and UTTERLY agree with you that conservative ideas, self regulation, self control, sexual modesty, is suffocating indeed! It is hard to do it when everyone around to tempts you with different ideas and beliefs that could make the question just 'vanish' into thin air.

But, fortunately, for me at least, I find the opposition, the liberals who take it too far - to be vacuous. Vacuous, as in empty, as in the promise they hold to be empty and destructive in the long run.

, although your clear intellegence is somewhat interesting.

Thank you.

A question for you, should women be allowed to study all the same information that men do, or is there literature which you deem too dangerous for her to read? I'm guessing there is....

How do you jump from "woman shouldn't walk around topless" to "woman shouldn't be allowed to study". Where is the causal link?? What makes you think I subscribe to such medieval thinking? I do not, in the least bit, feel that woman should be prevented from studying anything that men do. What field could there possibly be??

I don't understand. You seem to be closing me in as some religious orthodox Jew, or Muslim. No. I'm a conservative, but I can see no reason or logic - beyond some hyper-metaphysics taken to the extreme - for women not to be allowed to pursue anything they want that men are.

I made a comment elsewhere about a short female cop. I merely objected to her being small - just 5'0, not her being a woman. I think height and size is relevant, not gender.

Gotta go now, my husband wants me to dominate him no really...I just asked him!

I don't really care about what you do in private.