Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

Originally posted by Kali74


Then you are reinventing the definition of the word as it applies to an ideology or political party. Progressivism is a belief in a strong social safety net, they believe that government can do better by it's citizenry.

A strong social safety net at the sacrifice of others.

Which in all honesty, if we're going to have a Capitalist economy then we have to have a social safety net.

No we don't. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why does government have to be "our brothers keeper"?

I don't believe in either personally, I just think your demonization (encouraging and enforcing reliance on government) is extreme and serves to divide.

I'm just pointing out the division done BY progressives.

I think the ideology is naive, if well intentioned... but I also think the same of Conservatism, it's naive in it's belief that we can have Capitalism without poverty.

To be frank, since when did we have to give a tinkers damn about anyone but ourselves? This is what I mean about social engineering. Now we are supposed to care about everyone. We have to know what everyone is earning so they can pay their "fair share".

Do women really want to be the breadwinners? Or have they been manipulated into thinking that way. Has society been manipulated to the extent that some may need 2 incomes to survive?

Originally posted by hamburgerler


Progressives have used social engineering to eliminate Jim Crow, give women the right to vote, make a society where it is not longing taboo to see mixed race. It was the social conservatism that opposed the transformation of racial and social roles, so I am glad I am a progressive, proud of it.

At least you're up front about the use of social engineering.

Cheers.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by redtic

 

reply to post by Kali74

 

When I coin the term, "progressive" I'm not targeting republican or democrat, liberal or conservative.

I see progressives as a distinct element that has invaded all political ideologies. There are progressive republicans, progressive democrats.

Progressives, as I see them, are a group of individuals looking to encourage and enforce a reliance on government. Progressives use social engineering to as a way to influence reliance on government.

Women and men have been working and living side-by-side for ever. Checks and balances have been hammered out millennia ago. As we have become more "developed" those traditional roles have solidified and as such, can be manipulated.

Interesting - I guess when I see the term progressive (although I'm not a fan of labels like that), I think more in the literal rather than the historical sense - meaning, a progressive is someone who favors change for the good, specifically for the good of a group of people. I think a large number of individuals, be they women, gays, racial minorities, or a group with no particular affiliation or relation - a set of individuals with a common goal - is a powerful thing and should be encouraged. It's great to see when a group like that is empowered - it benefits everyone, imho.

We live such a tiny time on this big ball that we seldom see ourselves as anything but masters of our own destinies. As long as men and women can find harmony and live a happy enjoyable life, does it really matter (in the great scope of things) what our roles are?

No, no it doesn't. That, I agree with.

reply to post by beezzer

A strong social safety net at the sacrifice of others.

Versus the suffering that comes along with the corporate mentality, profit above people. Capitalism cannot exist without exploitation, so if the thought is that Capitalism is the best choice for an economic system let's at least stop pretending there isn't an ugly side.

No we don't. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why does government have to be "our brothers keeper"?

It doesn't have to be our brother's keeper. However, profits come with a big kick in the face to anyone not at the top, or at least the ever present raised foot... sometimes it's a soft kick where you only stumble but often it's a debilitating smashed skull. So as far as personal responsibility is concerned, yes everyone should have some, but there's also some responsibility that needs to be laid at the titans of capitalisms feet. Talk about social engineering...

I'm just pointing out the division done BY progressives.

No, you are not. You are engaging in hate (which isn't like you from what I've seen)... you use the word as if it is profanity.

To be frank, since when did we have to give a tinkers damn about anyone but ourselves?

We don't. It's a choice. One you've obviously decided to partake in, otherwise you wouldn't care what goes on in politics because you've already "got yours". I may disagree with you often but it's very obvious to me, your involvement with politics and voicing of your opinions comes from caring about humanity.

Do women really want to be the breadwinners?

Do men? I don't know the answer to that question, because I haven't asked every human male on the planet. It's a silly question to be honest. It's also a question that imposes your personal beliefs on everyone else. It's a personal choice not a gender one.

This guy is dumb whoever said look at nature and see male dominate...yeah males do dominate but humans are not animals.

You guys that are saying female lions are dominate, don't know what your talking about. The female lions hunt because they are smaller and more agile than the big 700 pound male lion...its more of a logic thing than actual dominance.

The male is always the first to eat too so who dominates who now?

reply to post by muse7


What the heck kind of drugs is Fox on? Guys have it rough enough without that kind of rhetoric. It is like they are trying to enable the feminist hate movement, and continue to marginalize men. This is insane.

It is like Republicans during the VAWA debate. Democrats wouldn't budge and include provisions to turn the VAWA into a gender neutral national domestic violence legislation that would help both female and male victims of abuse. So at the last minute Republicans supported it on the grounds that "male victims of domestic violence can take a better beating then female victims of domestic violence".

This is so utterly insane. The more insane thing is the people who support the democrats blatant hatred.

Let's face it, women have pursued interests outside the home for personal reasons of self satisfaction as well as security. Once we made it easy to get a divorce, and men dumped their wives who helped them build their career, stayed home and raised the children only to be dumped during his mid-life crisis as he ran off with the cute lil 20 something girl she used to be and was left with making her way in a world and not having earned a retirement etc. out of fear many women said, "sure it would be nice to stay home, but what if..... " and that idea of being destitute at 40+ was enough to make women feel they had to do something to protect themselves.

The government certainly likes getting taxes from women working outside of the home, and has not done anything to make it easier for women to stay home and be that nurturer and stability of a home maker. There are a lot of aspects to this discussion. I don't think things will change and so at this point you make the decision to live with less and stay home risking your future security or risking your home life by not being at home but feeling more secure. Now though it seems harder and harder for that security to be realized as pensions are a thing of the past and the government is licking it's greedy chops to start taking 401K and IRA's.

We are in for some tough times I believe.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by muse7

 

No gonna support the retardedness of Fox and its politicians, but in nature there is a dominant sex and a supportive sex. This does not mean one should put the other down, it just means both sex are not equal with cheery on top..

Yes there is always a dominate sex and a supportive sex, but it isn't always Male - Dominateand female -supportive. Anyone who believes that hasn't spent enough time really learning about nature. If they seriously push this it will only be another logical fallacy. Elephants have female matriarchs, The female praying mantis is so dominate she eats off the males head after sex; There are species of fish where the male basically becomes a sperm producing parasite stuck to the females side. Baboons and Hyenas are female dominate, Think of all the species you've seen where the female is actually larger. it's common with insects and different types of birds, Consider the Queen Bee. it's called reverse sexual dimorphism, It's not that rare, it's happening all around us every day. Some of those birds you see living around you probably have some examples of it too.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy


I think what most conservatives fear is loss of social power over women; it is emasculating for a man in our culture to be provided for. Culturally, we value male providers, not female providers.

So basically it's "please be careful with our ego's, results be damned."

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by amazing
Pathetic. Even worse...after reading some of the posts on this thread. It would appear that some of you would have been against women being granted the right to vote because it would be psychologically damaging to men. Lol. This...this is why Obama won the last election.

i dislike obama, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with obama. mentioning it like you have makes everyone who dislikes obama's policies look like they can think of nothing else to do but hate on obama.

No...I'm actually saying that these kinds of insensitive comments that are demeaning to women are all too common from right wing, republican politicians, leaders and mouth pieces. This tends to alienate women voters, moderates and independents. Who wants pseudo-sharia-old testament-Christian-women should be submissive to your husbands leadership in place? I don't. Neither do most Americans. This is why democrats keep winning elections. Obama is Democrat. Pay attention.

Originally posted by beezzer
No we don't. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why does government have to be "our brothers keeper"?

I'm responsible, so are you, we're good. Some other people are not, but hell my brother or sister might not be next week, I am THRILLED that they will receive assistance. One day something unforeseen might happen to you and I am glad that you will get to see that the dole is not a nice place to be.

To be frank, since when did we have to give a tinkers damn about anyone but ourselves? This is what I mean about social engineering. Now we are supposed to care about everyone. We have to know what everyone is earning so they can pay their "fair share".

To be honest, this quote here is a good reason that your political philosophy should never be used to govern a group of people.

Not to mention that the term "forward" is a communist slogan.

Women should be paid the same as men for an equal position, and women should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

Woman who stay home should be treated with equal respect for they are taking their role as mothers and nurturers of the family serious.

Be that as it may, there is still that Men are From Mars Women are From Venus thing and we have to be careful to respect one another.

During the Victorian era, a woman being taken care of was considered to be the height of respect. A man was expected to take care of the woman in all respects and the woman was supposed to be free from the masculine cares of the business world. In this way she could retain as much of her femininity as could be. However, there was still an element of machismo.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Not to mention that the term "forward" is a communist slogan.

Women should be paid the same as men for an equal position, and women should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

Woman who stay home should be treated with equal respect for they are taking their role as mothers and nurturers of the family serious.

Be that as it may, there is still that Men are From Mars Women are From Venus thing and we have to be careful to respect one another.

During the Victorian era, a woman being taken care of was considered to be the height of respect. A man was expected to take care of the woman in all respects and the woman was supposed to be free from the masculine cares of the business world. In this way she could retain as much of her femininity as could be. However, there was still an element of machismo.

edit on 2-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

And "Backward" serves as the GOP's current battle cry these days.

I agree with some of your points, does that make you a commie? Or me a conservative?

reply to post by hamburgerler


I was purposely staying away from either side. But the term as a communist slogan is absolutely true, and it is just as true that it made a resurgence about the time a Marxist has occupied the WH. It is not surprising to see it used by professed socialists around here either.
That being said, Betty Friedan, the author of "The Feminine Mystique" was herself a communist and married to a fellow traveler.
As a conservative I deeply oppose anything communist, including radical feminism, however, as a person who embraces New Age mystical things, I believe that women should be taking their place as equals to men, but it doesn't mean women should be forced onto the battlefield during pregnancy to fight stupid wars for the elites. And I don't think boys should be playing with barbies instead of guns.

It pained me to see Sarah Palin so crudely ripped to shreds by both RINOS and Progressives alike, even while presenting as a strong female with a career and a happy home with a man who supported her in every way. The reason she was so horridly treated was because Progressive women didn't like her pro life stance and felt that she did not represent their radical views. The fact that they so viciously attacked her for honoring the life of her unborn baby even though not "perfect" in the eyes of selfish, narcissistic women, was very telling that the feminist movement isn't what it purported itself to be, that is the true champion of women's choices in society. In this they revealed the real agenda of radical feminism, which is to tear down the family, the Divine Feminine, and fabric of society. Women today behave exactly as they said men should not behave. They have become the warmongers and the manipulative competitive slavers they thought men should stop being and that they said if women entered the halls of power they would change such things. They didn't. They wanted to share the power not stop the manipulations and the wars and whatever else they said men were doing wrong.

How's that for a statement?

As a final note, I find your charge of being "backwards" incredibly banal and I'm certain you have not absorbed even the tiniest bit of my message.

What is true on the macrocosmic level is also the rule on the microcosmic. Human beings too are said to also participate in the interplay of shakti and shaktiman. For in Hinduism, every woman is said to be a manifestation of the divine Shakti. The power of Shakti, the feminine principle, is believed to be directly present in creation in the form of our mothers, sisters, daughters and wives.

There are several traditions of spiritual unfoldment in India that teach the notion that Shakti resides within each and every human being, and that liberation can be achieved by the proper utilization of the feminine principle within.

www.adishakti.org...

reply to post by amazing

Who wants pseudo-sharia-old testament-Christian-women should be submissive to your husbands leadership in place?

Seriously? It is Christians who oppose Sharia and Progressives who are allowing this to come into our society.

All the nations are emerging from the Old World thinking but it doesn't mean we have to forget the wisdom which held the fabric of society together. I am not interested in women on the battle front because a bunch of communists thought that women could be co-opted into the revolution by being made to feel as equals in every way. Can we not allow women to take their place as equals without sacrificing their role as the Divine Feminine aspect of life? Why as a society are we celebrating death and not life?

reply to post by hamburgerler

Progressives have used social engineering to eliminate Jim Crow, give women the right to vote

Somethng you should know then, since you seem to be projecting that it is all the work of Progressives that women can vote....

In November 1868, in Boston at the largest women's rights convention held to that date in the U.S., Stone, her husband Henry Browne Blackwell, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Julia Ward Howe and Thomas Wentworth Higginson formed a new organization, the New England Woman Suffrage Association (NEWSA); the first major political society established for the sole purpose of gaining suffrage for women.[10] It was a pro-Republican group, with men in important leadership positions, designed to attract an alliance with that political party

en.wikipedia.org...'s_suffrage_in_the_United_States

I'm also surprised that someone of your educational demeanor does not know how involved in the abolitionist movement both Republicans and Christians were, much to your demerit, as well as the fact that it is Democrats in the South who enacted the Jim Crow laws to begin with.

In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, sometimes as a result of elections in which paramilitary groups intimidated opponents, attacking blacks or preventing them from voting. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with extreme violence unleashed during the campaigns. In 1877, a national compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the last of the federal troops being withdrawn from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[5] These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.

en.wikipedia.org...

Progressives of today continually take credit for things they did not do, while trying to pawn off on conservatives things they actually did to.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Not to mention that the term "forward" is a communist slogan.

If progressives were communists they would call themselves communists. It would be nice if people could use words without some hysterical ninny gasping that they're a ______.

Woman who stay home should be treated with equal respect for they are taking their role as mothers and nurturers of the family serious.

Yes they should, as should any man who chooses the same. Anything a person decides to do with their life should be respected. That's how to honor the supposed liberty we all have.

During the Victorian era

The Victorian Era gave birth to the Feminist Movement.

I believe that women should be taking their place as equals to men, but it doesn't mean women should be forced onto the battlefield during pregnancy to fight stupid wars for the elites. And I don't think boys should be playing with barbies instead of guns.

Women are not forced to be on the battlefield, ever, neither are men... enlistment is a choice, not a requirement. And how is it that you can speak of the Divine Feminine but dishonor the Female Warrior in the same breath?

Is it not social engineering to limit a child's choices in what they play with? Something so innocent as a child picking up a toy that catches their eye shouldn't be any connotation of how they're going to be when they grow up.

Sarah Palin

Didn't belong in office, it has nothing to do with her family choices.

The reason she was so horridly treated was because Progressive women didn't like her pro life stance and felt that she did not represent their radical views.

Women tend not to like people who tell them they don't have control of their own body, were we expected to change our minds on that just because a successful woman was now saying them? Pro-choice is not a radical stance.

The fact that they so viciously attacked her for honoring the life of her unborn baby even though not "perfect"

I don't buy that she was attacked for that, politics aside I have admiration for parents who come out stronger for having faced raising a disabled child. The things she did in her life, her successes and triumphs ARE admirable, that doesn't mean she was right for VP, or that because of those things women voters should automatically like her. I despise her on her own merit, for the things that came out of her mouth and for the fact that she let herself be such a tool for the GOP.

In this they revealed the real agenda of radical feminism, which is to tear down the family, the Divine Feminine, and fabric of society.

Drivel. The real agenda of radical feminism is liberty.

Women today behave exactly as they said men should not behave.

You mean SOME women are absolute jerks, warmongers, greedy etc etc? Gosh, who knew such things were only assigned to men in the first place...

Seriously? It is Christians who oppose Sharia and Progressives who are allowing this to come into our society

Just replace Islam with Christianity and it's absolutely true, of SOME Christians... or are you trying to pretend that there's no such thing as Christian extremists and that there's not a pretty healthy portion of them within the GOP?

I am not interested in women on the battle front because a bunch of communists thought that women could be co-opted into the revolution by being made to feel as equals in every way.

Women on the battle front extends as far back as humanity does, it has nothing to do with communism. You do understand that the definition of Communism isn't "I don't like this", don't you?

Can we not allow women to take their place as equals without sacrificing their role as the Divine Feminine aspect of life?

Again, you can't just ignore parts of concepts because you don't like them... the Female Warrior is an aspect of the Feminine Divine.

That said, it is just as wrong for men to be fighting these unjust wars as it is for women.

Why as a society are we celebrating death and not life?

Good question, I don't know that that's exactly what we're doing... but we're certainly not saying no loud enough, which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with gender.

reply to post by Kali74

Women are not forced to be on the battlefield,

I said that hypothetically because it came up as a result of the posed ERA legislation. Maybe you are too young to remember.
As far as men? Well you must be referring to the fact that there is no draft... but there could be. In fact I think it has come up as a possibility in the Obama admin. How quickly we forget these things when we support an ideologue.

The rest of the points I will have to take up later on in the day.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

As far as men? Well you must be referring to the fact that there is no draft... but there could be. In fact I think it has come up as a possibility in the Obama admin. How quickly we forget these things when we support an ideologue.

Nope there's no draft and we won't see one anytime soon, massive poverty ensures the enlistment of plenty of troops both men and women. How could there be a draft when there's thousands waiting to even start boot camp?

I don't support Obama, but you know this.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

As far as men? Well you must be referring to the fact that there is no draft... but there could be. In fact I think it has come up as a possibility in the Obama admin. How quickly we forget these things when we support an ideologue.

Nope there's no draft and we won't see one anytime soon, massive poverty ensures the enlistment of plenty of troops both men and women. How could there be a draft when there's thousands waiting to even start boot camp?

I don't support Obama, but you know this.

Yes, I said there's no draft, didn't I.
I remember the draft in 6th grade and my best friend at the time had a brother who was drafted into Viet Nam, so while we do not have a draft at present, it doesn't stop a tyrannical dictator and a bunch of CFR guys from making it happen. You are so sure you know what the people in government are doing and have plans for.

You obviously have zero awareness of how the radicals wanted the ERA legislation, and today they have expanded the idea to some other issues I will not expound on here, but thanks to some activists this was stopped in it's tracks but it doesn't mean they didn't try or that they won't in the future.

In 1971, when feminism first rushed onto the scene in the United States, a little band of women stormed the corridors of Congress and demanded the discharge from committee of the long-dormant Equal Rights Amendment. The House passed ERA on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only 23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.

In the Senate, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., (D-NC) proposed nine separate amendments to ERA to protect the traditional rights of women. Every one was defeated on a roll-call vote on March 21 and 22, 1972. These nine amendments established the legislative history that ERA was intended to do exactly what the Ervin Amendments would have prevented ERA from doing.

The Ervin amendments would have exempted women from compulsory military service and from combat duty; they would have protected the traditional rights of wives, mothers and widows, and preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their children; they would have preserved laws that secure privacy to males and females; they would have continued the laws that make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. All these modifying clauses were defeated. When ERA was passed in strict, absolute language, only nine Senators voted "no."

www.eagleforum.org...

I suggest you wake thyself up and stop accepting the spoon fed baby food your Progressive friends feed you to make you think the Nanny Government is your best friend and loves you cradle to grave.
However, since our current POTUS told us of his plans to have a civilian military bigger and better funded than the military we already have, what makes you think he is going to exempt women from that? So who knows where that is going to lead. Maybe it's already happening now.




Why do you accept the programs dictated to us by the communist devils in our government? Is it because you're convinced they really care about you and your rights? Is it because you think they really want to feed you when you are hungry but won't imprison you when you buck their plans?
OK so you don't approve POTUS specifically, but you imagine that he is different from some other set of Progressives, who in your mind are not communist and not Marxist.
Perhaps there's just a wider circle of socialists, communists, Marxists, liberals, and blue dog under the umbrella of the Democrat Party. As we saw with Rosa Koire, she will not identify with Progressives and their agenda. Why? Because they are more radical and more Statist.

Here's from a Democrat

In any case, progressives today are not social and economic reformers, or those who're directed toward modernization and social improvement. They're totalitarian ideologues working for the idealized utopia that always historically ends in the terror and the gulag.

americanpowerblog.blogspot.com...