Winston wrote:Anatol wrote:bladed11 wrote:We need a global biblical standard. Women need to learn in silence and cover up and learn their place. It's time now. They had an opportunity to prove to men they can handle it but failed so time to stop the whole womans lib thing and get them back to the biblical standard. They prove they can't be mature enough to handle liberation. Let's bring back the dark ages.
Hello,
The idea of liberating women is stupid to start with. It's unnatural and repulsive. Men are meant to control women. I am in 100% agreement with you. The real question is: HOW can this be implemented?
You are right. I have nothing against women. I love women and would be in favor of giving them some rights and protection from bad people. However, the concept of "liberating" them in the sense of giving them total autonomy so that they do not need men is one of the worst ideas in history and a very stupid one at that. Not only is it VERY BAD for men, but it's also destructive for society in general.
You see, if women do not need men, and become masculine and independent, then it greatly undermines the family unit, relationships, romantic love, and the romantic and sexual needs of men. As a result, a large percentage of men are left to suffer in forced loneliness and romantic and sexual deprivation against their will. This cannot be good for society at all and will greatly weaken it. After all, society cannot prosper if men are unhappy.
And a man-hating radical feminist might read this and think, so what if men's needs aren't met. They may think women can do whatever men can do, men aren't needed except possibly as sperm donors.
But most women do feel a need to have men. Even women indoctrinated by feminism may respond to a strong alpha male. It may not fit with their philosophy for a man to take charge, but when an attractive man does it, it makes her feel so..... tingly.
Fortunately, not all women have bought into the man-hating Feminist philosophy.
The ones who really suffer from the idea that men aren't needed are children. I'm trying to think of that guy's name, Farrel or something like that, the men's rights activist PhD. He's kind of liberal politically from my perspective, a former NOW activist. But he makes some good points about men's rights. According to him, children raised by men learn empathy better and fair better on a number of metrics than children raised only by women.
As far as feminism goes, I'm not for outlawing women working. Women have been working for a long time. In the 1800's, there were women working. Back when society was agricultural, women could make things to sell to contribute to the household, clothing or whatever she made. Old maids still had to do something to support themselves. I'm not in favor of women not being able to work.
I'm not radically opposed to 'equal pay for equal work' though I'd prefer the government not legislate and intrude on such matters. I don't think it's immoral for an employer to see that a male employee is a father and has a wife and kids to support and pays him a little more based on his need. I am opposed to the government mandating equal pay for someone because she is a woman. If the work isn't equal the pay shouldn't have to be equal. If a woman leaves work for 5 years to raise a baby, her salary may be lower.
I would like to live in a society where the government recognizes the man is in charge of household decisions. I don't think it's unethical just to have the men vote, or give the man multiple votes depending on family members and let him get a vote for his wife.
If we want to take some baby steps, we know women have a disproportionate amount of power. Most no-fault divorces in the US are said to be filed by women, and some of the research (which I've seen on a one-state level) supports this idea. The problem is, many states tend to give primary custody of the children to the woman. If they had laws or court guidelines that, unless evidence concerning the children's welfare were given to the contrary, that the one who filed a no-fault divorce could not get primary custody, that would be a powerful tool for stabilizing families, deterring divorce, and it would help take some of the disproportionate amount of power women have.
I'm also concerned about changes in rape laws. One problem is women can cry rape when it didn't happen and ruin a man. If there were fornication laws, or if the old ones on the book were enforced, then a woman crying rape without evidence could potentially be charged with fornication. That would be a deterrent both to false rape allegations and fornication. Fornicators are re-writing rape laws to fit the fornicator lifestyle. They invent a system of 'ethics' when it comes to sex. I saw a clip from the Bachelorette, where the last guy jilted was upset asking the woman why she made love to him if she didn't love him. It was a gender role reversal type scene, but seemed genuine. The weird thing is, I read that twitter people bashed the man for saying that. They didn't get on her case for being slutty. They got on his case for telling how slutty she was.
When Feminist fornicators re-write rape laws, it's all about being consensual. If there is a charge of marital rape, I don't think it should be tried with regular rape, for example, 20 year penalties. If a man raped his wife, under some state laws, she could divorce with grounds of cruelty the old fashioned way. If he were violent, it could be treated as some other form of assault. The law should recognize some form of implied consent or at least some kind of obligation for married people to provide each other with sex. Society should recognize it, too.
I hear in Canada, one partner can't wake the other partner up with sexual intercourse, the courts say, because the sleeping partner can't give consent. They don't even accept consent given before the sleeping partner goes to sleep. That's a real intrusion into the married couples sex life if you ask me. Some people are into that. A think a lot of guys like to be awakened with some sexual activity. I wouldn't mind at all if my wife did that. I wouldn't 'go all the way' on my wife in her sleep. Women's bodies are a bit different from ours, but the other way, I don't see why that would be a problem for most men. But the Feminists ideas of 'consent' can even intrude into a married couple having an interesting sex life.
One thing I don't like is if you take your wife to the hospital to have a baby, they give her a form to ask if you've been beating her up. I can understand not wanting women to be abused, but that's kind of insulting. I hear if you marry a foreign woman, if she's a con artist and knows what to do, she can just claim you've been hitting her, and then she gets a free greencard or stay permit and she can dump you. Again, I understand the concern that foreign women are vulnerable in the cases where they do marry an abusive type man. I've even read online a story about a man whose co-worker married a woman or brought her over on a visa and locked her in a closet to bring her out to cook and perform sex acts on him, and told her to do sex acts on other men. I can understand it in that case. But just giving a woman a greencard or stay permit just for making an accusation creates perverse incentives. I wonder if the reason behind it is because Feminists see men who marry foreign women, and not women like themselves, as sleazeballs who must be out to hurt women. I think in the vast majority of cases, the men are looking for good wives, even the old guys bringing back young women.
We're just supposed to co-exist. A man & a woman could never be equal, just as if 2 men were compared to each other can never be equal either ! That's where all the trouble started; equality! I may see one man greater then the other & you may see the opposite, that's why things like equality' & perfection' can never be measured. So this fight is pretty stupid, which brings me great shame.