Feminism & The Downfall Of The Traditional Family

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


FriedBabelBroccoli

You claim I was a weak woman and I deserved what I got. Wrong, I was (and am) a very strong woman. Strong enough to take a beating to avoid having my children starve. Strong enough to escape a sociopath without assistance from either friend or family. Strong enough to educate myself, get a good career, take my children from poor class to middle-class. Strong enough to do it without child support or alimony (not enforceable in my day).

Strong enough to stand up to an extreme bully without help from anyone.

BTW - sociopaths are very very charming people (until they have you in a vulnerable position).

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


There are those here that will never understand unless they have walked in your shoes.

Again, I say this thread is a blame game and there seems to be no genuine desire from some to intelligently discuss real facts and statistics as to the evolution of the nuclear family.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

FriedBabelBroccoli

You claim I was a weak woman and I deserved what I got. Wrong, I was (and am) a very strong woman. Strong enough to take a beating to avoid having my children starve. Strong enough to escape a sociopath without assistance from either friend or family. Strong enough to educate myself, get a good career, take my children from poor class to middle-class. Strong enough to do it without child support or alimony (not enforceable in my day).

Strong enough to stand up to an extreme bully without help from anyone.

BTW - sociopaths are very very charming people (until they have you in a vulnerable position).

Tired of Control Freaks

You ladies have a serious issue with context . . . I mean a great big giant swirling disaster of an issue.

Go back and read the post where I stated this. I used you and your story as an example to those who had said if 'men only grew a pair' or 'acting weak this is what you get' in their arguments against the men who pointed out the extreme controlling nature of women they have been involved with.

Don't come back several pages later trying to make it look like I was attacking you.

It makes you come across as completely irrational.

Now if you want to make me out to be some chauvinist then I will say that this is a common female tactic of bringing up things completely out of context at a latter date in an argument. Especially the part where you reinterpret the entire episode along fantasy lines which never occurred in reality.



More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male, report reveals
Campaign group Parity claims assaults by wives and girlfriends are often ignored by police and media
www.guardian.co.uk...

Women's convictions for domestic violence 'double'
www.bbc.co.uk...

A domestic violence victim
www.washingtontimes.com...

Yet more than 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much violence against their male partners as vice versa. Men account for about a third of domestic-violence injuries and deaths. Research shows women often compensate for their lack of physical strength by employing weapons and the element of surprise

. . .

The most recent large-scale study of domestic violence was conducted by Harvard researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health. The study, which surveyed 11,000 men and women, found that, according to both men’s and women’s accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time.

New research from Deborah Capaldi shows the most dangerous domestic-violence scenario for both women and men is that of reciprocal violence, particularly if that violence is initiated by women. Moreover, children who witness their mothers assaulting their fathers are just as likely to assault their intimate partners when they are adults as those who saw their fathers assault their mothers.

Just to drop a little statistical sanity into the pot here.

So tired of hearing the sob story.

Daym this thread still going? lol

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

The invisible domestic violence – against men
More women are being convicted of domestic violence, but discovering the true number of male victims is a complex affair
www.guardian.co.uk...

Professor John Archer from the University of Central Lancashire has conducted a number of meta-analytic reviews of these studies and found that women are as likely to use domestic violence as men, but women are twice as likely as men to be injured or killed during a domestic assault. Men still represent a substantial proportion of people who are assaulted, injured or killed by an intimate partner (50%, 30% and 25% respectively).

If the empirical research is correct in suggesting that between a quarter and half of all domestic violence victims are men, a question follows: why has women's domestic violence towards men been unreported for so long, and what has changed in the last five years to make it more visible?

One reason may be the feminist movement. Feminism took up the cause of domestic abuse of women in the 1970s, with the world's first women's refuge being opened by Erin Pizzey in 1971. Feminism understood domestic violence as the natural extension of men's patriarchal attitudes towards women, leading men to feel they had the right to control their partners, using violence if necessary.

. . .

Men were also unlikely to view their own victimisation as either domestic violence or a criminal assault, and so were unlikely to seek help.

We can go on and on about who feminist activists actively change the definitions of domestic violence to suit their needs.

Where is the equality there? Most studies show women and men claiming that in the majority of cases the woman instigated the event.

Equality, what's that?

reply to post by InTheLight

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

Yes, I would agree with you that the only way feminism would have taken hold is that women have been dowtrodden and suppressed by the patriarchal society. If men had not abused women by dishonoring them in extramarital affairs and as sex objects, the feminist movement would not have had root. women have a right to express their potential. It is unfortunate that in the process, they have sacrificed their natural talent for the family and the nurturing role they have fulfilled in other centuries. THis was the breakdown of family that the Communists have sought to exploit, using women and recruiting women to their causes. If it is depopulation, as Margaret Sanger promoted, they have recruited women to sacrifice their pre-born in Satanic way.and relegated their children to the care of strangers. In addition, women have proven themselves to be just as mean, cruel, warmongering, backbitingand ruthless as men, and literally have been some of the worst pawns of the NWO I have seen.

I did see that show on Oprah a few years ago, where they showed women who had been burned in the kitchen by their husbands who wanted a bigger dowry than the women's familites could afford. It is truly sad that a society who has the longest-running knowledge of karma and such wisdom from the Vedas and a knowledge of women as expression of the Divine Feminine to abuse them like that.
We can only go so far in legislating against human violence, then people have to grow spiritually. One cannot force the orchid to bloom in winter.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I would say that more or less., because in the change of laws, men cannot defend themselves against women or they will go to jail. The women know this and take advantage. It is not becuase men cannot defend, but because they know they will go to jail if they do.
This is also not the expression of the Divine Feminine, but a feeling that women have now they can do anything, including all the most evil deeds they criticized men for.

Originally posted by resoe26
Is that right bub?
What holes in my argument?
And what questions have I avoided.

Try looking back through the pages of this thread. Your op was continually pointed out as being illogical,

Originally posted by resoe2625 years old and I can promise you, I know more about woman than you.

How? You were in the military for what i would assume were a few years and you got married upon leaving. That would not leave you with a wealth of experience and time to get to know a variety of women.Again your story does not add up and leads one to question whether your "theories" are a result of your frustration due to you not being desirable to women in the past or like many men who exhibit misogyny it was merely a learned behavior from a father figure leaving you to merely regurgitate what you were told.

The latter makes sense especially as you seem to be enamored with the good old days and traditional values even though of course you are obviously far too young to know what they were like and thus would have to depend on an older person filling your head with stories of the era.

Originally posted by resoe26Please don't sit there and act like you have met me personally

Why not? You are sitting here acting like you have met ( And I'm quoting you here) almost every single female in your age group and thats fine. But someone analyzing your behavior is a no no?

Originally posted by resoe26Pleasesir/ma'am. Have a little respect at least.

respect isn't given its earned.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Not any more, if a woman hits a man, she will be hauled away to the hoosgow...the law is the law, no matter which gender you happen to be.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Not any more, if a woman hits a man, she will be hauled away to the hoosgow...the law is the law, no matter which gender you happen to be.

Yes, I was saying that men cannot hit back or they will be hauled. Both women and men can become violent and out of control. Is it not time for us all to learn self-restraint?

Furthermore, extreme feminism has also gotten the State more involved in our families, that is now the State can dominate in the affairs of the family, and even take the children away at the State's whim. This is also part of the plan to destroy the traditional family and replace it with the Supreme State. It is in the Communist Manifesto that the nuclear family is a deterrent to the success of Communism. This is also why Hillary has been pushing the Rights of the Child in the UN.

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I think you missed my point. All I'm trying to get at is this. It should be the individual woman or man that defines femininity or masculinity for themselves. As long as they respect the freedom of others, that should be okay, and they are no less of a man or woman for it.

But I would like to hear a story about the feminists who outright say they want to be like men. Surely those are transgender people?

No, they aren't. Not the ones I have met, in any case. Most of the stories I could share aren't really appropriate for online, though.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


And that is precisely what I talked about when I said that I think that the pendulum has swung a little too far!

No one should have to live in fear in their home - man, woman or child. But as with all human relationships, things get complicated. Dad fears violent mom will get custody of the kids and stays to protect them. You see how these things go?

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


And thus we have another reason for the downfall of the traditional family; after the kids live with that why would they want to repeat it?

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
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.

Diatribe? Hardly. I was not questioning the statistics, simply how little sense the quote you posted made when taken out of the context of the wider article. The only statistics that I questioned were those presented by The Daily Mail, which you, yourself, subsequently proved to be incorrect.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

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.

Again, I am indicating nothing, I was merely referring to the article that you linked to and supplying further information, that being, according to experts in the field, that single parented children are not necessarily disadvantaged due to having a single parent, but due to the poverty that often accompanies single parenthood. I am not justifying anyone, or anyone's behaviour, one way or another, and unlike you, I certainly would not be inclined to make value judgements in such a broad sweep. Each situation is unique, and the reasons for that situation arising myriad.

Let me ask you, what is the difference between a women raising the children alone while her husband works away for much of the time, or the family of armed forces, where a parent may be on active service? How does that situation differ to one where the parents are living seperate lives but still contribute to the upbringing of the child? Or where a mother works, but the childcare is handled by the extended family, grandparents...aunts...uncles etc?

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
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?

As previously stated, I wasn't. I was merely drawing upon the source, that you so kindly provided, to elucidate upon the issues at hand here. You used a quote that stated that two parents were better for the children, the article went on to explain that the reasons for that were often that single-parent families were living in poverty, and that it was that situation that led to the children often suffering disadvantages in later life, not the lack of two parents in the home. If you don't like your source and the information that it presented, then I suggest you back up your position with something that better supports your agenda next time.

Originally posted by InTheLight
Again, I say this thread is a blame game and there seems to be no genuine desire from some to intelligently discuss real facts and statistics as to the evolution of the nuclear family.

I agree. The Nuclear family is after all a post-World War two adaptation that supplanted the more traditional extended family, resulting from the need to fill jobs left empty by those men who did not return from the war alive, leading to greater geographical mobility, as well as due to the post-war economic boom which enabled young families to buy their own homes, whereas they were forced to live with their parents before, until they got on their feet. We are now seeing a re-emergence of the extended family. Fewer young people are able to afford their own homes and are staying at home living with their parents for much longer. So, rather than blaming feminism, we can perhaps understand that familial structure is economically dependent and often cyclical as a result.

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by resoe26
Is that right bub?
What holes in my argument?
And what questions have I avoided.

Try looking back through the pages of this thread. Your op was continually pointed out as being illogical,


-How bout you tell me what you deem to be irrational.

Originally posted by resoe2625 years old and I can promise you, I know more about woman than you.

How? You were in the military for what i would assume were a few years and you got married upon leaving. That would not leave you with a wealth of experience and time to get to know a variety of women.Again your story does not add up and leads one to question whether your "theories" are a result of your frustration due to you not being desirable to women in the past or like many men who exhibit misogyny it was merely a learned behavior from a father figure leaving you to merely regurgitate what you were told.

The latter makes sense especially as you seem to be enamored with the good old days and traditional values even though of course you are obviously far too young to know what they were like and thus would have to depend on an older person filling your head with stories of the era.


--Yes a 4 year vet from the Army. And you believe I haven't been with a variety of women? I mean I'm not going to sit here and brag or anything... But maybe you understand machismo?

-And those good ol days, yes I have experienced them. I have grown up in it. I lived in Mexico nearly every summer since I was 5 years old. (not your stupid tourists areas) I'm talking about Real Mexico. Were the traditional family had remained prevelent. This is why I can make conclusions and observations on family life here. Any hispanics in this thread? They would much agree.
-It is not my problem if you want to trip out because you grew up with a single parent or never experienced "traditional" family life. Unlike most Americans, as I have once stated, us folks with culture tend to admire our family. We try to keep it "traditional". We don't throw our parents in nursing homes because we don't want to deal with them when they are older.

I could point out differences all day, but honestly, I believe you will still disagree so eff it cono.

Originally posted by resoe26Please don't sit there and act like you have met me personally

Why not? You are sitting here acting like you have met ( And I'm quoting you here) almost every single female in your age group and thats fine. But someone analyzing your behavior is a no no?


-Sure analyze if you must. (I'm giving you permission now)

I'm simply making observations on the MANY females I have met, have dated, etc. And I am almost certain I said "the majority of them" but you must have jumped over that part

Originally posted by resoe26Pleasesir/ma'am. Have a little respect at least.

respect isn't given its earned.

-Indeed

Was it not recently that women in the military were given the green light to be in combat situations??


Wouldn't want to be in that outfit.
I don't know many women that have the strength to drag a battle buddy to safety while getting shot at.

At least Spec Ops is still sane

Originally posted by resoe26
Was it not recently that women in the military were given the green light to be in combat situations??

Wouldn't want to be in that outfit.
I don't know many women that have the strength to drag a battle buddy to safety while getting shot at.

At least Spec Ops is still sane

This is your thread in "Relationships" ???


Titled

"Feminism and the Downfall of the Traditional Family"

I would say your post is OFF TOPIC !!

Originally posted by eletheia

Originally posted by resoe26
Was it not recently that women in the military were given the green light to be in combat situations??

Wouldn't want to be in that outfit.
I don't know many women that have the strength to drag a battle buddy to safety while getting shot at.

At least Spec Ops is still sane

This is your thread in "Relationships" ???


Titled

"Feminism and the Downfall of the Traditional Family"

I would say your post is OFF TOPIC !!

it was intentional.

reply to post by resoe26


You have serious hate issues you need to deal with and this is not the place.