Feminism & The Downfall Of The Traditional Family

page: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 




Your post


LoL what were you born in the 1800's WOMENS RIGHTS and a link to Wikipedia



The whole linked article alluded to women's NON rights in the 18/19th centuries

and I merely pointed out the correct dates for women's property, equality, and discrimination

rights That women didn't even have rights over her own body till about 1970



This thread is not solely about women's property rights...or hadn't you noticed?



Don't expect others to read your post's when you don't even have the decency to take the

time to read theirs properly!




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Feminism did take off on its own! So I guess it must of been a good idea.

Tired of control Freaks



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 






You're making an assumption that every man is a devoted selfless father and interested

in his children above himself?
.........Well I've got news for you NOT SO!


And do you know how eager he was to 'capitalise on the equity' or disappear or even

support his children emotionally or financially??


No not all men are selfless downtrodden angels - and contrary to what you seem to believe

not all women are misandrous harridans .



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The "traditional" family, or nuclear family, has been broken up for at least a generation and the causes are many.

We evolve not only biologically, but culturally and in the technological age, it seems to be speeding up.

I think feminism does have nazi's, but pretty much every group has extremists as well.

I find it interesting that women entered the workforce in greater numbers as we first started to really worry about overpopulation.

90% of a woman's eggs are spent by the age of 30. That's high school, college, graduate school, and early career.

So many people now focus more on this generation than the next. It's a shift in our collective consciousness that seems to indicate deep down we're not sure the next generation will have it better than we do.

That's my guess.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You're making an assumption that every man is a devoted selfless father and interested
in his children above himself?
.........Well I've got news for you NOT SO!
And do you know how eager he was to 'capitalise on the equity' or disappear or even
support his children emotionally or financially??
No not all men are selfless downtrodden angels - and contrary to what you seem to believe
not all women are misandrous harridans .


In your first response to me you admit you did not read my post.

Now you go on saying I am making assumptions, please go and identify where any of the things you claim I am assuming have even been presented or hinted at by myself? If you are referring to my description of actual feminists in the movement I was associated with then you would be apt to realize I was ascribing those descriptions individuals not an entire gender.

You seem to have serious trouble discriminating between fact and the emotionally driven fictional narrative taking place in your head.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


You're making an assumption that every man is a devoted selfless father and interested
in his children above himself?
.........Well I've got news for you NOT SO!
And do you know how eager he was to 'capitalise on the equity' or disappear or even
support his children emotionally or financially??
No not all men are selfless downtrodden angels - and contrary to what you seem to believe
not all women are misandrous harridans .


In your first response to me you admit you did not read my post.

Now you go on saying I am making assumptions, please go and identify where any of the things you claim I am assuming have even been presented or hinted at by myself? If you are referring to my description of actual feminists in the movement I was associated with then you would be apt to realize I was ascribing those descriptions individuals not an entire gender.

You seem to have serious trouble discriminating between fact and the emotionally driven fictional narrative taking place in your head.



"You seem to have serious trouble discriminating between fact and the emotionally driven fictional narrative taking place in your head."

Seems all females tend to have this quality. Logic out the window when any arguement arises.


Now it's time to insult ALL females. This is a prime example of logic out the _



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


Negative Ma'am.
That was a solid observation. I simply stated it.
I believe that was a fine display of logic.... don't you agree?
providing an observation isn't logic at all now?
Of course I'm not referring to ALL females, there are few that soar above the others.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Feminism did take off on its own! So I guess it must of been a good idea.

Tired of control Freaks


It still is, particulary in the area of equal pay and crashing through those glass ceilings.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli[/
 




WRONG...


I have indeed read every post on this thread so please point out to me where I say that

I didn't read your post



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


My point was that The Daily Mail is a biased right-wing hate rag who wouldn't know the truth if it came and slapped them in the face...and thank you for demonstrating that for me so well in your subsequent post. As you can see, we go from the Daily Mail reporting that two parent families are in the minority, to...


In 2012 there were 18.2 million families in the UK. Of these, 12.2 million consisted of a married couple with or without children.


What is even more interesting about that quote above, from your post, is that statistically, you don't even have to have children to be classed as a family...traditional what?

And then you quote this...



David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents.


Don't all children have two parents? Or am I missing something on the evolutionary scale?

And before you say it...I do realise what he means...but then you were cherry picking and as the article goes onto say...


"It's also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you're much more likely to be poor."

But Jane Ahrends, from One Parent Families, said while single parents might face poverty, the image of them as "young, feckless women who deliberately get pregnant" was wrong.

"The vast majority of lone parents are ordinary working mums and dads in their 30s and 40s, who are just trying to do their best in circumstances they didn't choose," she said.

"And remember, families are constantly changing - lone parenthood is not a permanent state for most people. It's a phase, usually lasting about five and a half years."


news.bbc.co.uk...

We can all take information out of context and shave it to suit our agendas...but that doesn't really help us understand the issues involved, now does it?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Ok now that I read this thread a little, I got to say that were all doomed and its just a matter of time. More things will fall other then the mythic traditional family, in fact that is not even the real issue, its kind of like arguing about the spot in the carpet, when your house is slowly burning down around you.
SO ya, much more important things that our whole world and humanity turns on will crumble, wither and eventually die. Oh well, cest la vie, as somebody once said when one door closes, others will open.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
Don't expect others to read your post's when you don't even have the decency to take the

time to read theirs properly!


This would indicate that you did not read the post seeing as I corrected you on the context of the information provided.

The response was to someone talking about the property rights involved in a divorce and so I provided the historical information regarding the issue.

You then come in talking about equal pay and women's suffrage.

Does any of this make sense to you? You are bouncing around from one issue to another to suit your interests.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents.


Don't all children have two parents? Or am I missing something on the evolutionary scale?

And before you say it...I do realise what he means...but then you were cherry picking and as the article goes onto say...



If you do realize the meaning then why did you bother to make some diatribe about evolution?

These are statistics from a government funded study with commentary by a trained professional.




"It's also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you're much more likely to be poor."

But Jane Ahrends, from One Parent Families, said while single parents might face poverty, the image of them as "young, feckless women who deliberately get pregnant" was wrong.

"The vast majority of lone parents are ordinary working mums and dads in their 30s and 40s, who are just trying to do their best in circumstances they didn't choose," she said.

"And remember, families are constantly changing - lone parenthood is not a permanent state for most people. It's a phase, usually lasting about five and a half years."


news.bbc.co.uk...

We can all take information out of context and shave it to suit our agendas...but that doesn't really help us understand the issues involved, now does it?


The causality here being that the couple divorcing and thus becoming single parents directly relates to poverty which is also directly (a.k.a. not inversely) relates to crime.

Are you indicating that it is better for a parent to place their children into poverty so that the parent can be more happy? Obviously there are exceptions such as abusive relationships. Basically you are justifying the selfishness of the parent placing their own wants over their child's.

BTW the article was about the decline of two parent families, meaning two parents in the household raising a child. Why are you trying to turn it into a poverty issue?

Apples meet oranges . . .



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26I believe that was a fine display of logic.... don't you agree?


You seem to be lacking in the ability to display anything resembling logic. The numerous people who have pointed out the countless holes in your argument in your Op alone prove that.

Well that and you conveniently avoiding answering anything they brought up. You going to tell me how a 25 year old whos already married and spent time in the military prior to that knows so much about women?
Because your story and many of your comments reek of inexperience if anything.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli[/i
 







In the first instance YOU replied to a post by TiredofControlFreaks

directed to ME with a sarcastic comment 'quote':



"LoL were you born in the 1800's " with a link to women's rights.

Information on that link was all PRIOR to 1900, and both ToCF and I have had

actual life experience of property and women's rights in 1900 I think that lends

some credence in the thread?? Don't you think?

Do YOU have any actual life experience of the topics being discussed?


You go on (off topic) and call the poster "quote":
'a weak woman who is going to

get walked over and you deserve it don't blame the man. To be blunt you made a very

poor choice of a husband, unless it was arranged (?) etc. OFF TOPIC, PERSONAL

AND UNCALLED FOR




Until you can answer my last post directed to you asking


Please point out where I said that I didn't read your post I intend to ignore you



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
This I have to say about the feminist movement, and I have said it before on these boards, the woman who wrote, "The Feminine Mystique" was a Communist sympathizer and was married to a Communist. She was not just a bored, downtrodden housewife as she portrayed herself.

David Horowitz says this


Imagine what it would be like for America's premier feminist to acknowledge that well into her 30s she thought Stalin was the Father of the Peoples, and that the United States was an evil empire, and that her interest in women's liberation was just a subtext of her real desire to create a Soviet America. No, those kinds of revelations don't help a person who is concerned about her public image.


www.writing.upenn.edu...

It was a truly telling moment to watch the Progressive feminists bash Sarah Palin, one of the most accomplished conservative female working girl with a position as a civil servant, who yet had a wonderful family and a husband who supported her. Her husband also is a rugged guy.
Anyway the Progressives bashed her as hard as they could because she doesn't agree with Porgressive politics. It really shows that feminist in the Progressive sense are not what feminism was portrayed to be, a true liberator of the woman.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by resoe26I believe that was a fine display of logic.... don't you agree?


You seem to be lacking in the ability to display anything resembling logic. The numerous people who have pointed out the countless holes in your argument in your Op alone prove that.

Well that and you conveniently avoiding answering anything they brought up. You going to tell me how a 25 year old whos already married and spent time in the military prior to that knows so much about women?
Because your story and many of your comments reek of inexperience if anything.


Is that right bub?
What holes in my argument?
And what questions have I avoided. I'm almost certain I was the one initially asking the questions.....

25 years old and I can promise you, I know more about woman than you. (unless of course you are a woman.) Please don't sit there and act like you have met me personally sir/ma'am. Have a little respect at least.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Modern feminism is an ever-evolving movement dependent upon necessity. Just look at the women in India struggling to have their laws changed due to lack of safety. As well, you can readily see the result when women's issues are ignored; Romney's loss.

This quote sums up, quite nicely, my slant on modern feminism:



Gender equality, however, does not mean gender similarity; as empowered women, we do not have to imitate men, but only to gain equality. If women chose to imitate men to attain power, we only affirm an image of male superiority, rather than excelling in our own strengths.


voices.yahoo.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli[/i
 


In the first instance YOU replied to a post by TiredofControlFreaks

directed to ME with a sarcastic comment 'quote':



"LoL were you born in the 1800's " with a link to women's rights.
Information on that link was all PRIOR to 1900, and both ToCF and I have had
actual life experience of property and women's rights in 1900 I think that lends
some credence in the thread?? Don't you think?
Do YOU have any actual life experience of the topics being discussed?


Actually that was directed at the poster TiredOfControlFreaks, not you.

Sorry, please go be crazy somewhere else.



You go on (off topic) and call the poster "quote":
'a weak woman who is going to
get walked over and you deserve it don't blame the man. To be blunt you made a very
poor choice of a husband, unless it was arranged (?) etc. OFF TOPIC, PERSONAL
AND UNCALLED FOR



I was clearly restating the position that others in this thread had against men who get controlled by women and applied the same point of view to women. That is equality. You can confirm that this view has indeed been used against men earlier in the thread by reading the posts in the first few pages.



Until you can answer my last post directed to you asking

Please point out where I said that I didn't read your post I intend to ignore you


Already did.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join