Posted on 05/12/2012 8:48:49 AM PDT by fabian
There are some that believe the downfall of our once great and free nation is largely due to the proliferation of women in positions of power which were only religated to men in days of old. These women supposedly are allowing for the all manner of the evil to take place.
My answer to that is, to discuss women's role in the very real and almost complete socialist takeover of our country, minus the man's role in allowing that to happen, is really the real reason we are losing so much of the battle! It is a man's inflated ego once again putting the blame on women's emotions, rather than blaming himself for not being the leader that he was born to be.
Yes, many men are raised with parents who themselves have problems, so they grow up inadequate leaders very often. But there are plenty of those types of men that still do not bail out on their families and leave the women to entirely raise the fragile souls of the children. The numbers of this happening are huge, and with that comes the majority of prison inmates coming from those emotional homes where the father was absent!
How on earth can anyone in their right mind not lay the blame on this huge issue squarely on the man? Yes, women do tend to be more emotional and do vote for liberal candidates more than men. I know that is why the founders did not include them in voting when they set up the nation. However, the men are primarily at fault here for being so cowardly and misusing their women and being so very needy of the women's comfort and ego support. With more bold and moral men, we would have a lot more Sarah Palin types of women who vote rightly!
Men, stop being irritated and blaming the women for our downfall and go to www.copingstrategiescd.com and get a hold of your conscience. Then we will become a free nation once again. And it will happen, with a lot of help from above!
“Female dominance as such is completely dependent upon men agreeing to allow it, for one, and chemically dependent upon birth control for another.
Take those away, the tacit agreement of men to permit it as well as contaception, and there will be no dominance. It’s largely an illusion of our own making.”
Yes, and this is my main point! It is indeed the man’s weakness that is the issue here.
Of course both men and women have issues that compells them to act in wrong ways for our nation, but men are the natural leaders.
I meant morally stronger and not needy of the women’s body. Decent women love that in their men!
The Fabian Society was not named after one person. It was a large, international front for socialism with links to communism that purposely infiltrated not only Europe, but also the FDR administration and continues to this day through various front groups. You need to know this history so you do not continue to embarrass yourself with comments on FR trying to link positive political ideas to the Fabian name, which is unfortunate. It’s like being named “Lewinsky.”
Why do I keep seeing this coping strategies website mentioned in posts?
Well, ok. I was only halfway serious. I do know the name is connected to the socialist movement but i do not really care. I care about stopping them!
a marriage counseler told me men get married for two reasons, companionship and sex. Deal with it.
Yes indeed. Women who are conservative have a big big influence in helping to turn us around.
I had this discussion with a left wing woman once, just to mess with her head (and it worked....a little too well).
My point was that women shouldn’t have the right to vote because then they wouldn’t have equal power - they’d have TOO MUCH power, vastly more than men. The reason being that there will always be a certain percentage of men who are weak and will allow themselves to be led around by the nose by a woman, even in the most brutal, manly times. We all know this type of men - the quintessential “beta” man, the kind of guy who follows around the girl he fancies for months or even years hoping that, if he does enough things for her or kisses her rear end enough, she’ll eventually like him and maybe he’ll get some, maybe she’ll even marry him.
This weak percentage of men are prone to being influenced by the woman, to caving to her demands, even accepting her reasoning as his own. If she tells him to vote for such-and-such, he votes for such-and-such. Proof of this concept can be found in the fact that women got the vote at all. Given that only men had the vote at the time women’s suffrage was voted on, that means that men put it in place, demonstrating that women had quite the influence on these male voters even when women, themselves, did not have the vote. Now, add to that women having the vote, and you’ll have a huge voting bloc of women and weak men. This voting bloc is the core of the left-wing agenda in this country.
Women invariably prefer security over freedom, and they support this on an emotional level. It is rare that one can have a truly intellectual conversation about politics with a woman, especially a left-wing one, because it always comes down to an emotional state which cannot be reasoned with. For example, if one says that the welfare state is immoral and should be ended, the women say “You just don’t care about the children/the sick/the elderly! etc.” and no amount of logic can dent the belief that you’re just a mean, mean person who hates everybody. And you’re just an oppressive patriarch. And you hate women. And you’re just a sexist racist homophobic right-winger full of hate.
So, given the propensity of women to vote for oppressive nanny states, and given their inordinate influence over the minds of weak men, the only way to prevent the inevitable degradation of one’s society into a totalitarian hellhole is to keep at least a reasonable limit on the political power of women. Returning to a time when only men voted is impossible now, barring a full revolution and rebuilding of our government, so my suggestion would be to focus on the other original aspect of the Constitutional franchise limitation, which was that voters be property owners. We could modify that to where voters must be net taxpayers. This would eliminate all of the welfare leeches, including the single welfare moms.
Well sure. But that needs to evolve into no need at all, and a more strong and great relationship. Afterall, if a man or woman is complete within by God, there no longer is any need, only love.
I don’t know if I am a lady or not, but I do have to say ... now that I have been working in a factory for a couple of years I have to wonder “Who raised these kids ...?”
So many unmarried gals having so many babies ... guys having two girlfriends preggers at the same time ... affairs, divorce, abuse, drugs, drunkenness ... guys more committed to sports teams than the mothers of their children ... gals trying to support a family on one $9 an hour income ... guys avoiding child support at all costs ...
These are 20-somethings. What happened to my generation and our parents to raise such weaklings?
You betcha. Read an article from the Chicago School of Business which factually shows it happening at the very beginning of passage.
Women tend to act on emotion rather than fact. They don’t need to be in positions of control. I love them (my mother is one),but they don’t think right in some tense situations
Women can only dominate where upper body strength is irrelevant—that’s a biological fact!
You could have left off the upper body part of that and been correct.
“They don’t need to be in positions of control”...why don’t you tell that to Sarah Palin types and the millions of women small business owners who do an admirable job.
You are falling into the trap of generalizing, when indeed women have bee nforced to have higher position simply out of the need to make a good living often.
It has always something of a maxim for me that, in any given society, women have only as much power as men allow them to have.
That could be argued in reverse. Women control this world covertly. They have most of the money and all of the most cherished commodity to males. They just leave it up to us to run things
Yes, women’s emotions get them in trouble. And the men soon follow.
An absolute fact
The book of Isaiah was written almost 3000 years ago, so it's nothing new.
3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
Sounds a lot like now, as the school systems and CPS try to put children in charge of their parents. And, part of the Strong's Concordance definition of the word "women" in this verse is "adulteress", so we're talking unseemly women. I'm guessing more like the Pelosi/Hillary types, not the Thatcher/Meir types.
Oh I agree with you on the woman boss...I’ve got one who is late 30s...gorgeous and works at staying that way...super smart, hard working, fun, nice. She gets an A++++ from me and I’ve been a boss myself most of my life. Her people skills are a standout.
But I should say that this is the tax accounting dept of a Fortune 500 company. Another industry could be another matter entirely.
You missed a word.
That's ridiculous. You know the wrong women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.