Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/15/2025 7:25:53 AM PST by Taxman
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Just wow. Spoken like a true Leftist.
Feminism took advantage of women's sex drive. Very few men have children with multiple mothers while many mothers have children from multiple fathers.
Women reduced themselves to fornicating with bums like Pookie and Ray Ray, after which women would find some beta simp to raise Pookie's kids.
Now, even the beta simps are walking away, leaving women to deal with the consequences of them listening to the Feminist propaganda their own mothers embedded in their brains.
As Kevin Samuels said, "Buy a cat or die alone."
We became woke. So we'll end up getting replaced by a culture that's not woke. The West as we knew it no longer exists. It's already happening in Western Europe, we're just 20 years behind them.
As I said: For 95% of human history, women bore their first child while still in their teens.
The situation in the U.S. since the 1890s is hardly a blip on the radar.
When viewed across the backdrop of millennia, the current sorry situation is thus hardly reflective of the majority of our evolutionary history, nor for the bulk of humankind. Rather, it should be viewed as an aberrancy.
Regards,
No, that's incomplete!
Women's natural reticence, external social pressures, the fear of societal disapproval also deserve highlighting. I think that you may have folded them into "consequences," but they should be underscored separately.
And the one you're calling an "idiot" who made it run all the time? That's God Himself.
I'm dyin' here, Yoits! You're on a roll. PURE GOLD!
Regards,
Persevero: I have no way of knowing… I hope so
Be honest! You do have a way of knowing, and: They don't!
You stand accused of:
1. Appeal to Emotion (Pathos);
2. Wishful Thinking;
3. Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) - your response doesn't actually address the question at hand - of whether churches influence behavior - rather, it shifts to a statement of personal hope, which is irrelevant to the claim.
The verdict?
Regards,
A_perfect_lady: Hate to break it to you, but women don't turn to men for their society. Our social lives are largely comprised of our female friends. You know, the people we actually talk to while the men are playing video games?
SEMANTIC FALLACY!
The Semantic Fallacy refers to errors in reasoning that arise from confusing words with the realities they represent, or from manipulating meanings rather than engaging with substance. It's essentially when someone wins an argument by playing with language instead of presenting evidence.Specifically, A_perfect_lady is guilty of the sub-variant known as EQUIVOCATION.
Using the same word in different senses and pretending they mean the same thing. Example: "The sign says 'fine for parking here,' so parking here must be fine."A_perfect_lady knew perfectly well that Campion was referring to society as a whole.
Campion was using the word "society" in the broad sense: the social order, institutions, and collective moral fabric.
A_perfect_lady then proceeded to ignore that broader meaning, and instead deceitfully reinterpreted the word "society" narrowly as "personal social circles or friendships" - which are definitely not the subject of discussion here!
Semantic sleight of hand!
Regards,
Maybe, if you were forced to acknowledge, up front, the later consequences of your choices - and maybe, if you had a responsible, wise father and helpful clergymen to whose advice you listened, or who actually limited your choices - you would make better choices!
T.B. Yoits and the other anti-feminist FReepers here and I aren't saying that it is a positive good for you to be "shackled" to a degenerate gambler, alcoholic, or what have you! Nor are we saying that you should be denied all choice!
Rather, we are saying that the brainwashed victims of feminism are predestined to make bad choices, for the most part.
Feminism is a "mind virus," and - by and large - has had a thoroughly pernicious effect upon Society (in the broader sense of the word).
Regards,
That's like saying that the U.S. should lift all restrictions on the importation of Chinese-made Oxycodone - but that the downtrodden, middle-class Americans prone to abuse it should just be "more careful."
Feminism is a slippery slope. At first, it invites young women to be just a little bit more adventurous, sexually. Then it forms a positive feedback loop. Dissolute or embittered women farther down the line then amplify the message. Self-reinforcement becomes a factor. And then you wind up with masses of 30-year-old women who have lived their "hoe phase" to the hilt (often with a bastard child or two in tow), suddenly deciding to "opt out" of the sex orgy and "settle" for one of the "responsible providers" they had previously shunned - only he ain't playin' that game!
Regards,
Karl Marx was not an advocate of "free love" in the sense promoted by 19th‑century utopians or later sexual liberation movements. His writings did not deal with female sexual emancipation. Rather, he analyzed women's oppression within the larger framework of class, labor, and family relations.
Marx criticized bourgeois marriage as an institution tied to property and inheritance, but he did not call for the abolition of marriage or promote promiscuity.
Perhaps you are confusing him with Friedrich Engels? Engels was more explicit about linking women's oppression to monogamous marriage and property relations, but even he did not advocate "free love" in the modern (feminist) sense.
Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg might be rightly said to bear more blame, seeing as how they emphasized women's emancipation as inseparable from class struggle, though they focused more on economic independence than sexual freedom.
But if you want to examine (later) Marxists who really latched onto "free love" in order to "turbo-charge" Marxism, you should look to:
1. Alexandra Kollontai (Russia, early 20th century), who explicitly argued that sexual freedom was part of women's liberation and saw sexual emancipation as a necessary complement to socialist revolution;
2. Inessa Armand (Russian revolutionary), who famously said: "If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women's liberation";
3. Second-wave Marxist feminists like Juliet Mitchell and Lise Vogel, who claimed that capitalism exploited women through both wage labor and reproductive labor.
"Clara?" "Rosa?" "Alexandra?" "Inessa?" "Juliet?" "Lise?" I think I'm beginning to see a trend here...
Regards,
You got that backwards!
The first floor sign said, "These women enjoy sex." And no one knows what's on the floors above that.
MEN DO NOT CARE ABOUT A WOMAN'S WEALTH, since we men have no access to it!
As Joan Rivers famously quipped, "No man ever shoved his hand up a woman's skirt looking for a diploma [educational attainments]." The same applies to her material resources.
Regards,
“””””Women did not suddenly go rogue for no reason, and we should not have sole responsibility to be the brakes on the mindless male sex drive.”””””
I think you revealed yourself and the root of your bitterness with that summary, America be damned, Western Civilization be damned, you have some bitter personal feelings.
Then why did they decide to "go rogue" at this particular juncture in recorded human history?
Why at this particular point in time (I'm guessing that we are all generally in agreement that it was about the 1950s)?
What, exactly, prompted the female psyche to "wake up" and say to itself, "NOW IS THE TIME?"
If you can answer that question COMPLETELY, you will be a lot closer to understanding the overall issue at hand.
[...] and we should not have sole responsibility to be the brakes on the mindless male sex drive
Why not?
The female sex urge is magnitudes lower than the male sex drive. Hence, as long as brute physical force is not at play (rape), why shouldn't women bear the bulk of the responsibility for curbing men's appetites?
After all, it's the women who also bear the lion's share of the burden (i.e., immediate consequences - i.e., pregnancy) when they don't exercise caution and restraint and "apply the brakes!"
I'd say it's not possible to "divvy up" the responsibility in percentages. But women are the first line of defense; if they say "NO!", then the male sexual imperative is foiled, plain and simply. The second line of defense should be the woman's male guardians (father, brothers, etc.), and the third should be the closely-knit community that would stamp that licentious woman as a brazen Jezebel, ruin her social standing, and perhaps even escort her and her bastard progeny out of town.
Regards,
You ignored the context and the article, this is about America.
And this statement was inaccurate and misleading. “to about the 1980’s, all mom’s were “teen moms.””
Thank you for your measured response!
I assert that the problem in America cannot be properly understood without examining and understanding the physiology of the human sexual drive - which was forged in a hundred thousand years of human pre-history in the savannas of Africa and the forests of Europe.
We all still carry that evolutionary legacy in our genes, and the corresponding phenotypes in our bodies.
Our reflexive response to the sight of a women's derriere, a woman's scent, etc. - in short: our natural urges, hormonal triggers, and the corresponding responses - are indistinguishable from those of a Cro Magnon Man.
If you want to understand the pernicious effects of feminism on 21st-century society, you have to remember that you are dealing, in essence, with a savage in a business suit.
I may have gone overboard with the rhetoric here, and indulged in some hyperbole, so please don't go attacking me for, e.g., declaring that we "have no souls" or are "little better than animals."
Rather, I am merely pointing out that that graph (showing age of first marriage in the U.S. since 1890) does not reflect our underlying nature. (Rather, it reflects our reaction to momentary blips.)
Sure, it's fun to trace the curves and see the bump at WWII, and the drift after the introduction of pharmaceutical birth control.
But if you want to get to the heart of the matter, it is necessary to view the whole, sweeping pageant of human evolution - and that is rooted in our primeval past.
Regards,
“””””Rather, I am merely pointing out that that graph (showing age of first marriage in the U.S. since 1890) does not reflect our underlying nature. (Rather, it reflects our reaction to momentary blips.)
Sure, it’s fun to trace the curves and see the bump at WWII, and the drift after the introduction of pharmaceutical birth control.””””””
Actually it goes far beyond that short history, almost 15 years ago there were major arguments with Mormon freepers trying to sell the young marriage line and we refuted it with tons of data from America and 1500s English marriage records, records from medieval Wales and Britain, 1300s records from the European Catholic church, plenty of data of many centuries, unfortunately those links are broken and the the graphs lost when the photo hosts went out of business.
With the inferior search engines of today it might not even be possible to duplicate what we found during the Romney wars, and the age at first childbirth was also different from what most of us thought from movies, the last 500 or 1000 years is not what people usually think when it comes to marriage and motherhood.
Why were they selling? Because it was men who had the money. Commerce, as you point out, was created by men for men. Women got the crumbs that fell from the table if they did one of two things: bind themselves for life to one man, or just sell the one commodity they had. Those were the choices.
Got it. Automobiles, airplanes, the internet, satellites, space exploration, laser surgery, chemistry, physics, optometry, fiber optics, medical imagery, law, mathematics, computers, roadways, infrastructure...
Guns, bombs, napalm...
Women are blind to the world around them if it doesn't trigger their "emotions". All that men create, maintain, and improve is invisible to them.
Nonsense, we see it. A lot of us just would rather participate in it than stay at home being your reward, placing our fate in your hands.
So somehow men watching pornography causes women to chose to multiple children with different fathers
I never said one leads to the other. I just pointed out that these objectionable things are due to men's obsession with sex.
It's almost exclusively women posing or performing in all this pornography. They could do anything but they chose that. And somehow it's men's fault that women chose to do it.
Yes, it is. Women don't do it for the artistic satisfaction. Law of supply and demand. No demand? No porn.
The largest consumer group of pornography by far is married men. If only their wives were better wives, and better stewardesses of our culture.
Because the male sex drive is never the male's fault, yes, I know that's the male excuse.
Not one mention of women's kryptonite - accountability.
I bet you can't even see the hilarious irony of you listing all the ways that men's sexual exploits are never their fault. And then you say it's US who can't accept accountability.
Let me ask you something, you're a religious fellow, you know the answer to this. When Eve offered Adam the forbidden fruit, and he took it, what happened? Did God say, once Adam explained that this was all Eve's fault, "Oh, of course! You couldn't be expected to turn down anything a woman offers! This is not your fault! I'll kick Eve and that nasty snake out of Eden, and you can stay here with me, since really, this isn't your fault." Is that how it played out? Did God fall for your excuses?
Are you high? Men having children with multiple mothers is an epidemic! Particularly in the inner cities.
No idea where you get all that, unless you are saying that Western Civilization cannot exist unless women accept that nothing is ever men's fault.
More feelings.
Is that how it played out? Did God fall for your excuses?
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.