The "Women's Liberation Movement" is a covert population control scheme.

In 1972, The Club of Rome, in cooperation with Potomac Associates released a book entitled "The Limits of Growth". In this book the relationship between population and many societal factors is examined. The bottom line of the book is that as population increases, the need for resources increases and this is bad for the earth. It is all interconnected and based on the premise that due to industrialization, life expectancy increases and fertility decreases due to better birth control and other factors, but not enough to offset the increase in life expectancy to impact population negatively. They needed something more effective and in my opinion, "liberating women" was the next best thing. From page 114 of the book:

"The economist J.J Spangler has explained the general response of desired birth rate to income in terms of the economic and social changes that occur during the process of industrialization. He believes that each family, consciously or unconsciously weighs the value and cost of an additional child against the resources the family has available to devote to that child."

And

"The "cost" of a child includes the actual financial outlays necessary to supply the child's needs, the opportunity costs of the mother's time, and the increased responsibility and decreased freedom of the family as a whole."

The most interesting piece of this is the seeming admission that traditional society is better for raising children than the "modern society" but that "modern society" is better for birth control as stated here:

"The cost of children is very low in a traditional society. No additional living space is added to house a new child, little educational or medical care is available, clothing and food requirements are minimal. The mother is generally uneducated and assigns no value to her time. The family has little freedom to do anything a child would hinder, and the extended family structure is there to provide child care if it should become necessary, for example, for a parent to leave home and find a job."

This is just total nonsense. What does that even mean? The "family" doesn't have freedom to do things that will be hindered by a child? How is it even a family if there are no children? That would just be a couple. Or two people in a relationship. And the assumption that a mother places no value on her time because she would rather be home, taking care of her children and family than working. But this is all just warming you up for the good stuff....

"As family income increases, however, children are given more than the basic food and clothing requirements. They receive better housing and medical care, and education becomes both necessary and expensive. Travel, recreation and alternative employment for the mother become possibilities that are not compatible with a large family. The extended family structure tends to disappear with industrialization, and substitute child care is costly."

So basically, "women's liberation" was and is actually "women's enslavement". Divide and conquer. Those darn men keeping us down. Keeping us from working. Keeping us from earning our own, equal money. We demand men's jobs. We can do it! In this book they specifically talk about how this form of population decrease through industrialization will take a VERY long time.

Meanwhile, over generations the family structure is destroyed and people have less and less children because they don't have the time or money to have children because they are constantly working to feed the system. Practically everyone has to work or you can't afford to exist in this system. Day care, baby sitters. It is all ridiculously expensive. But you have to have it, unless you have that "extended family structure" to watch your children while you work. Many people I know spend a large portion of their paycheck on day care, just to be able to work in the first place! I blame Woodrow Wilson for all of this by the way.

This essay from the Brookings Institute talks about the history of women's work and wages.
www.brookings.edu...

"In the early 20th century, most women in the United States did not work outside the home, and those who did were primarily young and unmarried. In that era, just 20 percent of all women were “gainful workers,” as the Census Bureau then categorized labor force participation outside the home, and only 5 percent of those married were categorized as such."

Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

a reply to: Havamal

Lol. I would love to go back to a time when a man stood when ladies entered the room and removed their hat. I would love to be respected and treated like a lady like women of the distant past. As the heart of the home. Respecting my husband as the provider and protector and a real man, supporting his family on his broad shoulders. But that time will never come back now. We are in the onlyfans era. Men literally whistle at me and ask if I will give them a bath while I am at work. I have been offered 100 dollars by a creepy customer at my job to go on a date with him. Just let me take you to dinner he said. Wow. Perverse.

I think as long as I've been posting on here being a married mouthy girl with kids, that we're all pretty familiar with how I feel about "womens' lib" #.

I could revisit that, if people care for a rehash

be careful taking up that offer. Especially when it comes to playing my "savior".

a reply to: Chalcedony

You mean the time when a man could beat his wife with a stick, as long as it was no bigger than his thumb?


The time back when it was legal for a husband to rape his wife, even if she said no?

Back when women were not considered humans, and could not vote?

Women could not own credit cards in the US without a father or husbands approval till 1973.


Good times, I guess. At least some guys were nice.

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Quoted for the stupidest thing that I've ever read on the internet.

And I read Youtube comments, so that says something.

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

And it has been that way since the beginning of time.

That you are unaware of that made me giggle...

To the OP, you are entirely correct.

Progressives in America have been pushing that since the late 1800's... before they took over the Democratic party here.

Our now 3rd generation FemiNazis do actual women no favors at all.

a reply to: Havamal

People are going to do what they will do with or without a law prohibiting it. Bad people are bad people and that is truth. Men beat their wives and children every single day and either never get found out or get a slap on the wrist for it. Why do I need a credit card? I pay cash for anything I need. You are talking about things that the system has created. Most men have never and will never rape or beat their wives with or without a law prohibiting it because it is not the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with a law forbidding it.

I am sure overall incidents of rape have increased exponentially since the "liberation" of women, with how rampant pornography is throughout society and mixed messages women send when they go out in public dressed like they are in pornography and made up like 2 cent street walkers.

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: Havamal

People are going to do what they will do with or without a law prohibiting it. Bad people are bad people and that is truth. Men beat their wives and children every single day and either never get found out or get a slap on the wrist for it. Why do I need a credit card? I pay cash for anything I need. You are talking about things that the system has created. Most men have never and will never rape or beat their wives with or without a law prohibiting it because it is not the right thing to do. It has nothing to do with a law forbidding it.

I am sure overall incidents of rape have increased exponentially since the "liberation" of women, with how rampant pornography is throughout society and mixed messages women send when they go out in public dressed like they are in pornography and made up like 2 cent street walkers.

I like you, you actually think

Modern women dumped more guys, sure, but they're just being self-abusive while trying to claim it's "liberation". Ok, I guess if you're a bitter sadist.

a reply to: Lumenari

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

You got that right .
Veteran of a 44 year marriage.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Lumenari

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

You got that right .
Veteran of a 44 year marriage.

Thank you for your service!

Men stand up when I enter a room, then again it's usually because I outrank them... a weird perk? I guess. a reply to: Chalcedony

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Lumenari

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

You got that right .
Veteran of a 44 year marriage.

Thank you for your service!

Give that man a cushy retirement package, he earned it!


But seriously, I'm 15 years in to mine (a May-December, so age gap) and I'm sure hoping to get 30 more out of it like Goth

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Quoted for the stupidest thing that I've ever read on the internet.

And I read Youtube comments, so that says something.

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

And it has been that way since the beginning of time.

That you are unaware of that made me giggle...

To the OP, you are entirely correct.

Progressives in America have been pushing that since the late 1800's... before they took over the Democratic party here.

Our now 3rd generation FemiNazis do actual women no favors at all.

LOL, I was so hoping you would comment on this, you didn't disappoint...

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Quoted for the stupidest thing that I've ever read on the internet.

And I read Youtube comments, so that says something.

Males think they dominate... women actually run things.

And it has been that way since the beginning of time.

That you are unaware of that made me giggle...

To the OP, you are entirely correct.

Progressives in America have been pushing that since the late 1800's... before they took over the Democratic party here.

Our now 3rd generation FemiNazis do actual women no favors at all.

LOL, I was so hoping you would comment on this, you didn't disappoint...

I'm not here a lot anymore, because as a strong now single woman I have a lot on my plate and am working through reality before ATS.

But I do peek in on the weekends and I could NOT resist commenting on that post.

Just because it was the funniest virtue signal I've read in years.

a reply to: Chalcedony

Well I suppose it does work fairly well for population control except for low income women.
They pop out welfare babies like there’s no tomorrow.

On the surface, women’s lib was/is full of positives. A woman gained control of her reproductive parts and was no longer stuck in bad relationships because there was no way to get out.
On the down side my mother in law wasn’t all that keen on her 30 years in a damn factory which destroyed her physically.

I think overall society has lost more than it gained from women’s lib.
Women are no longer something to be respected and protected by their own doing.
So many kids that have been raised by single parent households are clueless on how to have a healthy relationship.
Kids are raised by babysitters and schools instead of parents.

The pendulum has swung way to far in the opposite direction which has lead men to stay away from marriage.
Family court has destroyed men’s ability to see their kids and done the same financially so now they are just avoiding the whole thing.

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Doesn't biology just suck?

Titties on the march.
I can work this to my advantage.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Doesn't biology just suck?

I actually think it works out quite well.

Males have a biological issue... they have a big head and a little head and don't have the blood supply to use both at once.

This is where females come in.

Think of it as the horse and the rider.

The horse is all muscles and can get the rider to where they need to go.

The horse kinda knows where he needs to go but gets constantly distracted.

A good relationship between the two gets both to where they need to go.

It isn't too hard to let the horse think that it was his idea all along.

originally posted by: Homefree
Titties on the march.
I can work this to my advantage.

If you cut your nuts off, Havamel might just put out...

a reply to: Lumenari

It was sarcasm but I appreciate your clarification of the male/female dynamic.