Fempocalypse!!

I think what this woman says is very sensible, and she backs it up quite well. I need to start meeting women like this.

reply to post by redoubt

War and violence on this level is undoubtedly a male invention.

I think I'm going need to take a break from the internet for a little while after this *sigh*

Seriously? A male invention? You have to be kidding me.

War is part of them "human" condition, I doubt that disputes over territory and resources have anything to do with gender.

If you don't believe me go do some research on Cleopatra or Matilda of Tuscany.

Women are just as capable of committing terrible acts as men.

Originally posted by hotel1

It was not my intention to offend you, I am sorry if the truth about human nature hurts your feelings.

That's ok, I'm not offended or hurt by reading your truth because I know you're just talking to the image you have of me in your brain which is not my self image in my brain. They are 2 different brains with different truths. But thanks for being so considerate I guess, you may never know for sure what mental state the other you are talking to is in.

Now back to the fempocalypse? I'm still waiting for that one woman to rock the world. Or blow it all up lol. If she could set off a chain reaction and take the rest of the universe out that would be grand. In a strictly metaphysical/immaterial/mental way ofcourse, not actually blowing up physical stuff or me for that matter lol

reply to post by Dragonfly79

Happy days friend, we good?

I firmly believe that it is possible to discuss a subject among reasonable people and remain courteous and polite.
As you have just demonstrated.

Warm regards.

reply to post by Openeye

I think I'm going need to take a break from the internet for a little while after this *sigh* Seriously? A male invention? You have to be kidding me. War is part of them "human" condition, I doubt that disputes over territory and resources have anything to do with gender.

Take a break from the internet? Because someone you don't know... a total stranger, has an opinion you don't agree with?

Maybe that's a good idea.

There are a lot of our worst tendencies that do indeed cross gender lines but... still and all, the concept of war with masses of male bodies pitted against other masses of male bodies, seems fairly apparent. In fact, history shows that early battles between male warriors actually forbade females from the line. Alexander the Great, whose army had many females follow it... wives and concubines of officers and soldiers, did forbid women from combat.

Who knows... maybe they agreed? Nah.

If this (or any other) opinion makes your life on the web unbearable... maybe a vacation somewhere there is no other people and no web worth your time. May I suggest, Doku del Larosa?

Seriously, though... thanks for the reply

Originally posted by hotel1
reply to post by Dragonfly79

 

Happy days friend, we good?

I am good and whatever you say you feel I can only assume that's true. The conflicts between male and female are difficult to discuss but since I haven't seen any moderators intervention I guess it's good.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by redoubt

 

Women are just as capable of committing terrible acts as men.

In fact, how about this. Women look for dangers outside of home to protect their children and society as a whole. Women perceive dangers in another home, they change because of stress/fear and become difficult to be around. If the male cannot comfort and assure the female then he has 4 options;

- diplomacy, go to the other home and talk about the perceived danger
- war, eliminate the perceived danger
- go drinking and forget about it all
- lock her up, disconnecting her from the outside world so she doesn't know the world but doesn't see any danger either

Or, she could go Joan of Arc style on the perceived danger herself or find some way to deal with the perceived threat without ignoring it. Like working towards building a spaceship. She could also 'man up' and learn how to let it all go but this would conflict with her sense of femininity or caring/being vulnerable and open to her surroundings as in essence because of inaction she is expressing uncaring for her surroundings. Which everyone appreciates in women (women caring for others like women can). She could confront her fears but this also means manning up in a way I guess.

reply to post by redoubt

Take a break from the internet? Because someone you don't know... a total stranger, has an opinion you don't agree with?

Meh, more like a plethora of strangers I do not agree with.

Maybe that's a good idea.

Nah then I wold have no one to argue with

There are a lot of our worst tendencies that do indeed cross gender lines but... still and all, the concept of war with masses of male bodies pitted against other masses of male bodies, seems fairly apparent. In fact, history shows that early battles between male warriors actually forbade females from the line. Alexander the Great, whose army had many females follow it... wives and concubines of officers and soldiers, did forbid women from combat.

The only thing that this supports is that Men make up the bulk of combat troops, which is undoubtedly true because male bodies are "built" to be stronger than a females. But what is not supported in your comment is that "war is a male invention", which is the hyperbole that enthralled me.

How many wars did men fight in that were supported by women?

How many men were sent out to fight by Cleopatra?

A war in all honesty has as much to do with those that instigate and support it, as it does with those that fight in it.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by charles1952

 

That's a good idea, it is a half hour video. She says that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman - that feminists miss the fact that although a woman was earned for her sexual and reproductive capabilities, men were owned as beasts of burden.

At the moment, men are not motivated to be productive (scientific studies do show that men's production increases when they have kids), and when they are productive, their earnings are being taken to support kids they don't see...

So their motivation to be productive decreases once again. She brings forth evidence that shows that children (especially guys) who grow up in single-parent households are more likely to drop out of school at all levels, use drugs, engage in criminal behavior, etc. and especially are less likely to marry.

All of those facts, I can verify from learning about them as a psychology major.

edit on 5-6-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Before I relay my thoughts on this topic let me just say I normally avoid it because it seems to come from disappointed men who feel they are lacking things.

But, this is exactly *why* as men, it is important to embrace Feminism.

I chose the above quote as there is mention of productivity. Another core issue here.

Big Business (and affiliated banking) certainly does not want population reduction - that would mean less profits for them. Common sense. Also why the Right is against anything that reduces population - from Gays to birth control to Feminism.

Do not fall for Propaganda claiming Big Biz is behind Feminism or population control, because it makes no logical sense. 1 Million less people = 1 Million less profit opportunities.

Productivity: OF COURSE they want you married and breeding to *produce more consumers*. Additionally, in the 'traditional' family - this then *forces* the father to work for *the system* to support the kids and thus Big Biz makes money off your back (exploit the Proletariat.)

Do not fall for any Right Wing Propaganda about gender roles (or anything to do with Gays, or Feminism) because the motive behind it is to get you to breed. For them. Consumers for them as well as people forced to work for them. Do not fall for it!

Do you want to wind up stuck with kids which in turn sticks you in a dead end job working for their system?

Which would you choose: A working woman with her own money and no kids. Both can then work at what they choose. And can leave any exploitative job.

Or, you can demand she quit working because you are against Feminism. And, she ought to have kids right away. While you will work. If you have anything less than a BS in a Tech field you will be forced to work a low wage job and live in a dump. You can't quit that job either.

Which would you choose? I know what Big Biz would choose for you - they would choose breeding, producing more consumers, and locking YOU into a working a soul crushing job where *they* make profit off your work. Even *with* decent education - same thing, just a tad less painful.

You need to ask yourself - is this what I *really* want? To be an exploited tool of The System stuck in it because I have kids to support?

That is indeed what they want. Make no mistake. This is why they are against Feminism, abortion, birth control, gays, environmentalism, self determinism.

You must be very careful about what you do and who you believe. Do not take the knee jerk reaction with these topics just because you do not presently have a girl friend.

Be careful what you wish for. Traditional Family? Why should YOU have to work so hard?

The best bet is to remain CHILD FREE. Then you can do what you want and you do not have to work for The System. Which only benefits Them, not you.

Get yourself a soul crushing Corporate job and then see how you feel. This could be anything from retail to IT for some Big Biz. You will wish for a second income and NO kids to support after just a few weeks.

This woman is wrong on all this, and so is all the MRA and Right Wing Propaganda. Don't fall for it! Ask a guy in a dead end job stuck with brats and an obese sex adverse wife - see what they say.

Feminism is great for men because then you don't have to work so much. Do NOT breed either! You *absolutely do want* a Feminist CHILD FREE lady!

But They don't like such things at all because *you are not producing consumers* for them.

Do not fall for this rhetoric and wind up trapped in an ugly bleak life that you cannot escape. *These* - the "Family Men* are indeed the Beasts of Burden.

Productivity? The only ones who care about that are those who make money *off YOUR back*.

Don't fall for it just because you are lonely or nostalgic for some 'good old days' that never existed.

I can't find the article, but, I'm going to say, in 2002 after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. commissioned a local Iraqi artist to replace one of the toppled Saddam statues. The theme of the statue was to be "Freedom". He/she proposed a statue of a man and woman holding a child. Do I even need to say that the idea was rejected? Eventually, the powers, that be, opted to build an eagle or some other cliche crap. Even back then, my impression was that they were threatened by the fundamentalism of this idea. To me, its all about the destruction of the individual to create a subservient and spineless slave. That starts by destroying the individual's natural role models: mom and dad. Children naturally want boundaries and social structure but the new social "norm" sabotages this.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Openeye

 

I think I'm going need to take a break from the internet for a little while after this *sigh* Seriously? A male invention? You have to be kidding me. War is part of them "human" condition, I doubt that disputes over territory and resources have anything to do with gender.

There are a lot of our worst tendencies that do indeed cross gender lines but... still and all, the concept of war with masses of male bodies pitted against other masses of male bodies, seems fairly apparent. In fact, history shows that early battles between male warriors actually forbade females from the line. Alexander the Great, whose army had many females follow it... wives and concubines of officers and soldiers, did forbid women from combat.

Persians had female fighters along with Sythians, Celts, Germanics, Britons, Sarmations and possibly Khazar and Bulgar forces. They were usually horseback skirmisher fighters, not infantry shock-troops, but they fought.
After Alexander conquered Persia he had them as part of his Persian auxillaries going off the accounts we have of Mithridates (Selucid Greek ruler).

reply to post by redoubt


There have been plenty of female warriors and military leaders throughout time. Boudicca, Tamar of Georgia, Fu Hao, Artemesia, Princess Zhao Pingyang, and Queen Tomyris are just a handful of very successful female military leaders...some in what would be considered very male dominated societies today. In fact, Queen Tomyris is probably my favorite as she slew Cyrus the Great (Persian--grandfather to Xerxes I of "300" fame), who invaded her lands after she rejected his marriage proposal. He ended up getting her army drunk on wine (something that they were not familiar with) and Tomyris' army was defeated. She swore vengeance and in the second battle, Cyrus the Great's army was defeated, he was captured and Tomyris beheaded him herself.

This idea that women are somehow the weaker sex is one that is pretty much fairly new. I'd say that it's a more modern take of women than one that has been ever present throughout history. In fact, roughly 25% of the Scythian-Samaritan army were women based on archaeological finds of women buried in battle dress with armaments along the Don River in Russia. The Amazons were considered to be pure mythological fancy until they found the tombs.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by redoubt

 

There have been plenty of female warriors and military leaders throughout time. Boudicca, Tamar of Georgia, Fu Hao, Artemesia, Princess Zhao Pingyang, and Queen Tomyris are just a handful of very successful female military leaders...some in what would be considered very male dominated societies today. In fact, Queen Tomyris is probably my favorite as she slew Cyrus the Great (Persian--grandfather to Xerxes I of "300" fame), who invaded her lands after she rejected his marriage proposal. He ended up getting her army drunk on wine (something that they were not familiar with) and Tomyris' army was defeated. She swore vengeance and in the second battle, Cyrus the Great's army was defeated, he was captured and Tomyris beheaded him herself.

There have also been many female scholars, saints and goddesses in history, in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, animistic belief systems. The pen is mightier than the sword.

This idea that women are somehow the weaker sex is one that is pretty much fairly new.

One reason is because of women getting lower paychecks. If they were more convincing towards their (often male) boss that average might be higher which I'm sure in time will change. They should demand a raise en masse or quit their jobs. But then they would have to find a man to support them.

Males just quit and go find another job hoping their next boss likes them more and gives them more chance to become succesfull or less difficulties. Some use women to support them but doesn't happen very often. Many times it has nothing to do with personal skills just presentation and likeability. People who are alike are quicker to trust eachother and give eachother oppertunities or are more forgiving in cases of costly mistakes, it's how it works in most cases.

There's a male in the company that is too ambitious and succesfull, the higher ups might get replaced and see it coming, so they replace that guy. He exits and often gets scoffed by other male coworkers when disagreeing about the decision, in modern companies sometimes even that extra feminine kick from the women on the way out lol

Thank you for the responses, I have been away but I have read your statements. Women and men experience a dichotomy of life and usefulness and therefore live accordingly. Aside from this dichotomy there are ever increasing sociofinancial pressures. What is the split that the OP video talks about? Usefulness, and perceived worth to the opposite sex.
Men increase their usefulness and therefore their worth increasingly as time progresses. They do this by becoming more efficient providers as they grow old and can reproduce to a ripe old age. The dichotomy is that most women at a man's youth do not find them attractive because they are not useful or stable providers, yet.
Women on the other hand are directly useful in their fertile years and then the years past this until the children can take care of themselves. Perceived worth is instant in their youth and of course with great power comes great responsibility. Young women love attention and their gleeful exuberance attracts males, but it drops off and doesn't come back. Therefore women do something that men don't do which is to try their best to extend the perceived worth years as much as possible. It starts with make-up, hair and clothing, nails, shiny objects...surgery, augmentations and reductions and when all else fails they become a pain in the a** lol!
So if there is talk of each gender adopting their specific roles then go ahead and do them, but this is going to get worse as we live longer lives. My prediction is that the transgenic movement or any movement that involves genetically altering our DNA for extra capacities or stopping the aging process will be adopted by women first.
As to women educating themselves, perfect but it all really started with the prospect of landing an educated man while attending a watered down curriculum.

reply to post by Emeraldous


I see you're sticking to your specific ideology despite arguments to the contrary. Believe it or not, I don't blame you for the causation of any sort of societal apocalypse that could potentially end with the demise of humanity isn't going to be found in something like feminism or any other man-made construct. If you can look out into the world and see corollaries existing between what is occurring out in the world and what has occurred in repeat experiments testing what was glimpsed as cities grew larger and larger, then it pretty much dismisses those man-made construct because it is truly nature at work. The experiments that were done in the 70's after what occurred during the murder of Kitty Genovese led to the realization that society will, in fact, eat itself eventually. Probably the most disturbing example that you will find a whole lot of corollary with is Calhoun's rats, which was repeated and repeated again with the same horrific results every time. Total decimation of the population. What most people don't seem to comprehend is how much money has been spent by our governments in an attempt to stymy that fate. Why do you think cities have parks? The problem with Calhoun's rats was not a lack of food or anything like that but over stimulation that simply grew worse and worse. If anything the proclivity of humanity to have a constant need for entertainment, information and stimulation is going to accelerate the problem. Ask any young man from the US or Japan as to why they have chosen to not take the path of fatherhood and the answer will frequently be the same--why give birth to a child in a world like this? Fears of the future.

Like I said though, I don't blame you for sticking to your ideology. I wish I could do the same.