Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Feminization Of America
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm ^

Posted on 05/15/2005 12:12:28 AM PDT by DR GIBBOUS T HILL

March 29, 2004

In the United States women are, I think for the first time in history, gaining real power. Often nations have had queens, heiresses, and female aristocrats. These do not amount to much. Today women occupy positions of genuine authority in fields that matter, as for example publishing, journalism, and academia. They control education through high school. Politicians scramble for their votes. They control the divorce courts and usually get their way with things that matter to them.

If this is not unprecedented, I do not know of the precedent. What will be the consequences?

Men have controlled the world through most of history so we know what they do: build things, break things, invent things, compete with each other fiercely and often pointlessly, and fight endless wars that seem to them justifiable at the time but that, seen from afar, are just what males do. The unanswered question is what women would, or will, do. How will their increasing influence reshape the polity?

Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for)them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness.

I do not suggest that the instinctive behavior of women is necessarily bad, nor that of men necessarily good. I do suggest that that the effects will be profound, probably irreversible, and not necessarily entirely to the liking of either sex. The question may be whether one fears most being conquered or being nicened to death.

Consider what is called the Nanny State by men, who feel smothered by it, but is accepted if not supported by women, who see it as protective and caring. (Yes, I know that there are exceptions and degrees in all of this, and no, I don’t have polling data.) Note that women are much more concerned than are men about health and well-being. Women worry about second-hand smoke, outlawing guns, lowering the allowable blood-alcohol levels for drivers, making little boys wear helmets while riding bicycles, and outlawing such forms of violence as dodge ball or the use of plastic ray guns. Much of this is demonstrably irrational, but that is the nature of instincts. (Neither is the male tendency to form armed bands and attack anyone within reach a pinnacle of reason.)

The implications of female influence for freedom, at least as men understand the word, are not good. Women will accept restrictions on their behavior if in doing so they feel more secure. They have less need of freedom, which is not particularly important in living a secure, orderly, routine, and comfortable life. They tend not to see political correctness as irritating, but as keeping people from saying unpleasant things.

The growing feminizaton accounts for much of the decline in the schools. The hostility to competition of any sort is an expression of the female desire for pleasantness; competition is a mild form of combat, by which men are attracted and women repelled. The emphasis on how children feel about each other instead of on what they learn is profoundly female (as for that matter is the associated fascination with psychotherapy). The drugging of male schoolchildren into passivity is the imposition of pleasantness by chemical means. Little boys are not nice, but fidgety wild men writ small who, bored out of their skulls, tend to rowdiness. They are also hard for the average woman to control and, since male teachers are absent, gelded, or terrified of litigious parents, expulsion and resort to the police fill the void. The oft-repeated suspension of boys for drawing soldiers or playing space war is, methinks, a quietly hysterical attempt to assuage formless insecurity.

The change in marriage and the deterioration of the family are likewise the results of the growth of political power of women. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but it is assuredly happening. Divorce became common because women wanted to get out of unsatisfactory marriages. In divorce women usually want the children, and have the clout to get them. But someone has to feed the young. Thus the vindictive pursuit of divorced fathers who won’t or can’t pay child support. And thus the rise of the government as de facto father to provide welfare, tax breaks, daycare, and otherwise behave as a virtual husband.

When women entered a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it. Men told off-color jokes, looked at protuberant body parts, engaged in rough verbal sparring as a form of social interaction, and behaved in accord with rules that women didn’t and don’t understand. Women had the influence to change things, and did. Laws grew like kudzu to ban sexual harassment, whether real or imagined. Affirmative action, in addition to being a naked power grab, avoids competition and therefore making the losers feel bad. It degrades the performance of organizations, sometimes seriously, but performance is a preoccupation of males.

Men are capable of malignant government, whether authoritarian or totalitarian, as witness North Korea or the Russia of Stalin. I don’t know whether women would behave as badly if they had the power. (I’d guess not.) But women have their own totalitarian tendencies. They will if allowed impose a seamless tyranny of suffocating safety, social control, and political propriety. Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women.

The United States becomes daily more a woman’s world: comfortable, safe, with few outlets for a man’s desire for risk. The America of wild empty country, of guns and fishing and hunting, of physical labor and hot rods and schoolyard fights, has turned gradually into a land of shopping malls and sensible cars and bureaucracy. Risk is now mostly artificial and not very risky. There is skydiving and scuba and you can still find places to go fast on motorcycles, but it gets harder. Jobs increasingly require the feminine virtues of patience, accommodation to routine, and subordination of performance to civility. Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as “macho,” a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men.

A case can be made that a feminized world would (or will) be preferable to a masculine. Perhaps. It is males who bomb cities and shoot people in Seven-Elevens. Yet the experiment has not been made. I suspect we will have the worst of both worlds: a nation in which men at the top engage in the usual wars and, a step below, women impose inutterable boredom.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/15/2005 12:12:28 AM PDT by DR GIBBOUS T HILL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DR GIBBOUS T HILL

All part of the big plan.


2 posted on 05/15/2005 12:30:53 AM PDT by Rca2000 (America, oh America, I MISS YOU!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
Yup.... the vast left wing conspiracy of the left, the feminist, and Hilery.
The only need the feminist and women will have for men in this brave new world will be to impregnate them, and be their slaves to produce money for them for their shopping trips to the malls with their girlfriends who laugh at their boyfriends and husbands for being a weak kneed spineless schmuck for letting the women get over on them.
3 posted on 05/15/2005 12:43:55 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000

Women want to be treated as equals but then insist on laws (made by men) to give them preference in hiring and promotions. They say they are equal but hide behind laws (once again made by men, foolish men) giving them the superior position in divorce.

One only has to look toward the black community to see the results of the feminized society. Black youth raised by single women; High crime rates, drug addiction, family violence. These are the wages of feminization.

Personally (and I can't substantiate this) I've always felt that the decline of this nation can be traced back to allowing women to vote. Also didn't the female vote carry Hitler to the Reichtag in old Germany?

Am I saying women should be barefoot and pregnant? No, but before they can vote they need to show demonstrated responsibility. It is this lack of ability in women to accept responsibility for their actions that creates these problems.


4 posted on 05/15/2005 4:35:02 AM PDT by samm1148 (It can only be bad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DR GIBBOUS T HILL

"The hostility to competition of any sort is an expression of the female desire for pleasantness; competition is a mild form of combat, by which men are attracted and women repelled."

About half of the attorneys at my firm are women - and that includes litigation. Funny, they tend to be driven by the same thing male attorneys like myself are. That is, being the top of their field, beating the opposition, and making tons of money.

I'm sure there are women who care more about security and family and all that. There are men like that too. We call them losers. Someone's got clean the floors and serve the food to the winners.


5 posted on 05/15/2005 9:06:47 AM PDT by New Orleans Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DR GIBBOUS T HILL

This guy must have a PhD. Probably a Harvard grad.


6 posted on 05/15/2005 9:33:14 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
All part of the big plan.

I'll drink to that. BTW, what happens anyway is that the people who are fighting against injustices, real or perceived, they become just as corrupt, mean and ugly as the people they are fighting against, sometimes they are much worse than the people they are fighting against. It's sort of like getting Stalin to take out the evil Hitler and afterwards you get an evil Stalin instead who is just as bad. They are just trading one master for another. Since we are both AKers (Audio Karma) I can say it as "same song, different jukebox." B-P
7 posted on 05/15/2005 12:55:18 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: samm1148
Women want to be treated as equals but then insist on laws (made by men) to give them preference in hiring and promotions. They say they are equal but hide behind laws (once again made by men, foolish men) giving them the superior position in divorce.

One only has to look toward the black community to see the results of the feminized society. Black youth raised by single women; High crime rates, drug addiction, family violence. These are the wages of feminization.

Personally (and I can't substantiate this) I've always felt that the decline of this nation can be traced back to allowing women to vote. Also didn't the female vote carry Hitler to the Reichtag in old Germany?

Am I saying women should be barefoot and pregnant? No, but before they can vote they need to show demonstrated responsibility. It is this lack of ability in women to accept responsibility for their actions that creates these problems.


I never believed in universal sufferage. Taking a page from Robert A. Heinlein's "Starship Troopers," I always thought the privilege of voting should be earned or at least one must pass a test. Before I go on, I'm not for bringing back Jim Crow where the test was given to a White guy where he had to read a comic book while a Black guy has to read Shakespeare. Instead the test would be equal to all where one would have to be literate, be able to do basic math (multiply, divide, add, subtract), basic knowledge of US History and basic reading comprehension. If someone is handicapped in anyway and needs assistance (blindness, deafness, etc), assistance will be provided in those cases but they must still be able to pass the test. Also, you have to be working or self supporting, not on the dole. Exceptions for this again will be if you are retired or disabled where you cannot work (but still you have to pass the test). If you go on the dole, you cannot vote and once you are off it, then you can vote again.

I know in the early days, the Founding Fathers limited to men who had property and although the idea is sound, we need to update it to our society. I know Heinlein had the stipulation of serving in the military, generally a good idea but a little too excessive but I admire his outlook.

I mean, we license drivers for cars, pilots for plants and amateur radio operators to run there ham radios. I know in the last case, I hold an amateur radio license, you generally have to know basic radio theory, I mean, I just cannot put a radio on the air, if I do without some knowledge, my radio signal could maybe cause a 707 to fly into someone's home while on approach. B-) A bit extreme, but wehen you are playing with things that can possibly harm others when misused, well, you have to take steps to make sure people know what they are doing. Same with voting, people can and do hold the fate of their nations at hand without realizing it, or perhaps they do and the movers and shakers know how to bring them out.
8 posted on 05/15/2005 1:10:26 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

I too was a fan of "Starship Troopers". Between that and 20 years in the Air Force I believe in a limited franchise as well. The first time I came back from overseas I remember hearing someone going on a rant about "the poor". How misinformed! I had seen really poor people in the Phillipines, worse yet in Turkey. How is a smuck like that going to vote properly when he doesn't even have a perspective?

The stiulation of those serving in the military being granted an exclusive franchise is enticing. Those willing to put there life and limb on the line for their society sets vets apart. Other than that as Heinlein remarked in that very same book veterans as a class aren't much different from other citizens. Land ownership could be a prerequisite too. It was once before.


9 posted on 05/15/2005 1:20:23 PM PDT by samm1148 (Brother you are preaching to the choir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DR GIBBOUS T HILL

"Men are capable of malignant government, whether authoritarian or totalitarian, as witness North Korea or the Russia of Stalin. I don’t know whether women would behave as badly if they had the power. (I’d guess not.) But women have their own totalitarian tendencies."

Yes, indeed, some women behave quite authoritarian once in power. A good example, Queen Jezebel in the Bible with her vascillating husband, Ahab. She was hell on wheels persecuting the prohets of God. God help us if Queen Hillary gets elected.


10 posted on 05/15/2005 4:48:35 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samm1148
an exclusive franchise

How about this one as a qualification--you must be currently married to a member of the opposite sex.

That might help lower the divorce rate, and recognizes the importance of family to society.

The only downside that I can see is that cheating dirtbag spouses like Bill and Hillary that refuse to divorce would still be allowed to vote--I guess this proposal needs some refining.... :-)
11 posted on 05/15/2005 4:54:20 PM PDT by cgbg (When do I wake up from this socialist nightmare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: New Orleans Slim
About half of the attorneys at my firm are women - and that includes litigation. Funny, they tend to be driven by the same thing male attorneys like myself are. That is, being the top of their field, beating the opposition, and making tons of money.

Of course I'm sure you realize that's a self-selecting sample. It's a bit like saying "all the men in my fusion cuisine class really like to cook" or "all the women doctors I know are good in the biological sciences". One would assume that the type of personality required to become a good practicing lawyer tends to weed out individuals who are not very competitive(men or women).

12 posted on 05/16/2005 5:44:07 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DR GIBBOUS T HILL

I see some bone-headed prejudice against women, as well as some sweeping generalizations, in the article and in the comments posted. What irks me the most is when men whine about the decline of marriage, but stick emotional knives in the hearts of their wives by being unfaithful.

That said, there is a deep well of truth here...but America is gone because men gave it away...and it is men who must fight to get it back for all of us.


13 posted on 05/16/2005 5:59:19 AM PDT by Wage Slave (All problems can be solved with duct tape or violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Empress Catherine the Great. Queen Hateshepsut. Queen Semiramis. Heck, if you don't like the British Empire, their's Queen Victoria.
Then don't forget Empress Theodosia of the Eastern Roman Empire. Or some of the Roman Empresses... or the mothers of Roman emperors like Nero.

Women are perfectly capable of screwing up government as bad or worse than men.


14 posted on 05/16/2005 6:04:27 AM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Bttt


15 posted on 05/18/2005 12:45:47 PM PDT by Rca2000 (America, oh America, I MISS YOU!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray; All
This will probably get me flamed worse than sodium tossed in water,but here goes anyway::

In my opinion;

What has the "feminization(AND Fagization, as both go hand and hand), led to in this country-- let's look at a few examples of the "fruits" of that kind of "softer side of $hit",leadership has resulted in::

In Kentucky, a group of boys, 6 and 8 years old were caught in the bathroom at school, messing with EACH OTHER sexually. What kind of punishment will they receive? NONE, as long as they undergo some "psychological counseling"-- mind you, the "psychologists, in particular, the APA, in California-- is pushing to remove Bestiality, now called "zooophiela", to remove it from the "disorders" category, and classify it as a "normal" behavior. Do NOT forget, it is from the APA, that many laws regarding human behavior are established.

On the other hand; last year, I believe, a 6 year-old boy was SUSPENDED, from school, IIRC, for kissing a little girl on the cheek.

Here n the Cicny area-- a council member has been charged with child abuse, for using a belt on his son, AND, another man, was charged with "assault with a deadly weapon", after using a belt on his son, to discipline him.


On the flip side, a teen rapes a girl, 14, and THEN gets out very quickly of prison, and rapes ANOTHER girl, 12, and is given 12 months PROBATION, for his crimes. (Sean Hanity talked about it on his show)

Just recently, A leading news magazine, Newsreek, published an article detailing how American soldiers "desecrated" a Koran, causing a deadly reaction in the MIddle East(depicted here on FR)

On the flip side, "peace" groups constantly cheer for the "rights" of TERRORITS", calling them" freedom fighters", or "Insurgents", and decrying them as "having their civil rights violated.

Everyone is aware of the non-stop fight to remove ALL vestiges of Christianity from society-- the ten commandments, crosses from tombstones, "in God we trust" from the pledge; etc. On the flip-side, a week or two ago, not far away from my house, THOUSANDS of people gathered in a park called "serpent mound( with a part of land shaped like a snake) to have a PAGAN celebration, sing, chant, and do other pagan things. Did the local news show the police arresting them, or the ACLU coming out, charging them with a violation of "seperation of church and state"? NO, they were CELEBRATED for their "diversity".

Where am I gong with all of this?? it should be obvious to FReepers, but I'll tell you anyway. EVERYTHNIG I listed is an example of the BACKWARDS society we are living in-- and the "femilezis", (a word I made up), are much to blame, for that messed up society. If THIS is what is considered "spreading PLEASENTNESS", as the article talked about-- I do NOT want any!!

Consider the world 60 years ago-- I know it was not a perfect place, BUT-- it was NOT the backwards society we have now. In schools, in 1945, or so, students actually LEARNED, and ,there was DISCIPLINE in the schools. NOT time-out. NOT "redirecting their bad behaviors". Real old-fashioned discipline. If a student got mouthy to a teacher, they got WHACKED on the backside. If that did not solve things(and it usually DID) then, the principal took his turn, and if that did not solve the matter, OUT-- no "worry about hurting their self-esteem" or other BS. Learn, or GET OUT, That was how schools were, in the '40's. Churches were a big part of society in the '40's Most people attended them at least once a week. These beliefs rubbed off on society in general. and every morning, before class students said(gasp!!) the Lord's prayer!! Sure, there was crime, and child abuse back them. BUT-- if a guy was found to have raped a woman, the penalty was SWIFT and HARSH-- no "try to understand his motives" BS, or other such crap, as now. And in homes, most all children were raised with discipline. They , for the most part, RESPECTED their parents, and other adults. Back then, a teen would NOT had mouthed-off to another adult, most likely, if they had, the situation would had been handled right THEN AND THERE, and the parent would had agreed with the other adult, NOT sued them. Children were active, and in general, played with each other, Knew each other, and each other's parents, and got along well. If someone got a skinned knee, from horseplay, at a neighbor's house, the neighbor would take care of it, and NOBODY would threaten to sue. Most women in that day knew how to handle children. A kid KNEW better than to say to his mother" make me, you can't make me" when asked to do somethnig back then, for the mother would do JUST THAT.

Now, I know, many Freepers will say" no, it was NOT a better world, things were going on like today, it was just "hidden". NO, I do NOT think " things were just like today. And yes, I know things were a lot more more private then, and there was genuine child abuse and child molestation , back then. BUT-- nowhere as rampant as today, of that I am SURE about. I still believe, in my heart, that MOST early feminists, who had a legitimate gripe at the time, about voting and fair pay and such, if they could had seen where their movement would lead to, in a century or so-- they would had left well enough alone.

Also, many women will say, " we did not have any freedom back then, and no choices". True, most women were n the home then. BUT-- with all of the "freedom" that feminism has brought women-- how many can REALLY say they are happier today, than in the "old days"? Sure they say, I have more opportunities, and choices"-- but happier? For the most part, I doubt it. Women are dying earlier than in the past. No longer is a woman expected to live 10 to 15 years longer than a man-- that gap is now down to 5 years or so-- and FALLING, fast.

SO, to sum things up-- there were a FEW things in this world we live in today, made better by the "feminist revolution", more opportunities, fair pay,voting rights ,and so on. BUT--- at what cost?????

I also see that FReepers are beginning to understand what I refer to when I say "all part of the big plan", or others say"Rome is about to fall");.

16 posted on 05/18/2005 2:07:24 PM PDT by Rca2000 (America, oh America, I MISS YOU!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
Don't need to tell me; there are times (after talking to my Mom and my sister) that I have issues with Women's Suffrage, much less "feminism."
17 posted on 05/18/2005 2:15:10 PM PDT by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
Where am I gong with all of this?? it should be obvious to FReepers, but I'll tell you anyway. EVERYTHNIG I listed is an example of the BACKWARDS society we are living in-- and the "femilezis", (a word I made up), are much to blame, for that messed up society. If THIS is what is considered "spreading PLEASENTNESS", as the article talked about-- I do NOT want any!!

Welcome to "Bizzaro World." "Bizzaro" was like an exact opposite of Superman down to the backwards "S" on his chest, at first a villain but IIRC, he and Superman became friends but he lives on "Bizzaro World" (sometimes called "Htrae, " Earth backwards) where it is a mirror of Earth, except the planet is square, people root for the bad guys in the movies, kids are rewarded for bad behaviour and breaking a mirror is 7 years of GOOD LUCK. I sometimes think we are headed that way.

Consider the world 60 years ago-- I know it was not a perfect place, BUT-- it was NOT the backwards society we have now. In schools, in 1945, or so, students actually LEARNED, and ,there was DISCIPLINE in the schools. NOT time-out. NOT "redirecting their bad behaviors". Real old-fashioned discipline. If a student got mouthy to a teacher, they got WHACKED on the backside. If that did not solve things(and it usually DID) then, the principal took his turn, and if that did not solve the matter, OUT-- no "worry about hurting their self-esteem" or other BS. Learn, or GET OUT, That was how schools were, in the '40's. Churches were a big part of society in the '40's Most people attended them at least once a week. These beliefs rubbed off on society in general. and every morning, before class students said(gasp!!) the Lord's prayer!! Sure, there was crime, and child abuse back them. BUT-- if a guy was found to have raped a woman, the penalty was SWIFT and HARSH-- no "try to understand his motives" BS, or other such crap, as now. And in homes, most all children were raised with discipline. They , for the most part, RESPECTED their parents, and other adults. Back then, a teen would NOT had mouthed-off to another adult, most likely, if they had, the situation would had been handled right THEN AND THERE, and the parent would had agreed with the other adult, NOT sued them. Children were active, and in general, played with each other, Knew each other, and each other's parents, and got along well. If someone got a skinned knee, from horseplay, at a neighbor's house, the neighbor would take care of it, and NOBODY would threaten to sue. Most women in that day knew how to handle children. A kid KNEW better than to say to his mother" make me, you can't make me" when asked to do somethnig back then, for the mother would do JUST THAT.

Amen! Even 30 years ago. I got paddled in 2nd grade back in 1974 for fighting. I used to get into it with this other kid who kept picking on me, I got so mad, I just hauled off and slugged him one in self defense. Well, we both got sent up to the principal's office where we both got spanked. Myself, I felt I didn't deserve it but I guess it proves that life ain't fair at times. My parents never found out, I thought I was dead meat at the time. I know now, Mom always told me that there would be times I would have to defend myself and I think she would understand and not get mad at me. But at that time, being 8, I kept my mouth shut. A day passed, than two days, then three, nothing. Well, I kept my mouth shut until 1994 when I told Mom about it, she never knew and she did confirm that I wouldn't have gotten in trouble at home and even she would praise me for sticking up for myself. She always said, "if you don't defend yourself, I'll beat you up." B-)

Now, I know, many Freepers will say" no, it was NOT a better world, things were going on like today, it was just "hidden". NO, I do NOT think " things were just like today. And yes, I know things were a lot more more private then, and there was genuine child abuse and child molestation , back then. BUT-- nowhere as rampant as today, of that I am SURE about. I still believe, in my heart, that MOST early feminists, who had a legitimate gripe at the time, about voting and fair pay and such, if they could had seen where their movement would lead to, in a century or so-- they would had left well enough alone.

Also, many women will say, " we did not have any freedom back then, and no choices". True, most women were n the home then. BUT-- with all of the "freedom" that feminism has brought women-- how many can REALLY say they are happier today, than in the "old days"? Sure they say, I have more opportunities, and choices"-- but happier? For the most part, I doubt it. Women are dying earlier than in the past. No longer is a woman expected to live 10 to 15 years longer than a man-- that gap is now down to 5 years or so-- and FALLING, fast.


Ever hear the term Pyrrhic Victory? Basically it means there is a victory won but at great cost that may or will doom the victor into losing something down the road which is worth a lot more than the victory that was gained. Take France after World War I, they were on the winning side but they were so weak and demoralized, they were easy pickens for the Germans and it was the ball that started rolling where she lost all of her colonies. In short, I ask the question, "was it worth it?" The Bible puts it even more succinctly, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" - Mark 8:36. That is the ultimate example of a Pyrrhic Victory.

I think we need to pick apart the feminist movement and divide it into two groups. The early feminists were "gender equity" to where they wanted opportunities open for women who had the desire and ability to enter any fields, they wanted to have a choice if they do so. I have no arguement against that, as long as they learn and have the ability, no problem, if they want to be housewife, pilot, TV repairman, teacher, well, there is a choice. I do believe that many early feminists were pro-life, well, I've heard scuttlebutt that Susan B. Anthony was. The right to vote figured into this as well, I have thoughts on that too, but for another time.

Now in the 1960's, which I consider a cancer on our morals and society in the social change of that decade. When I see hippies and Woodstock, I have to change the dial, otherwise I'll end up with a dead 1982 Zenith, I get that infuriated. Well at that time, you had the second group of feminism, the "gals who want to act like guys" and/or the "get even with them crowd." If you prefer, the idea of the Superwoman. I'm sure you remember the 1970's era commercial that had the New Woman come home with the bacon and fry it up in a pan. Pure BS. There are only so many hours in a day, days in a year and years in a life. What you take from one, the other suffers. If a person works so hard to get the high cost toys to the point where the wife has to work and no one is a home with the kids, that time taken for "the good life" hurts the kids in the long run. You rob Peter to pay Paul.

I know in some areas, I would get flak, but you know what, if I can face down bullies, I can face them down.

People are individuals. There are some women out there that would be happy to be single and a career or married and a career with no kids. Same with men too. If they are truly happy, more power to them. But when a couple settles down and has kids, they have to think on making decisions to raise a good family. I believe one parent should be at home with the kids, preferably the woman, but I do see situations where the guy might be better like in the case of my female cousin, her husband would make a "better mom." B-) Anyhoo, there has to be sacrifices made for the sake of the family where one spouse doesn't work, works a part-time schedule or even at home. The breadwinner will have to sacrifice too, less overtime, can't hang with the guys as much after work and so on. We lost that in our hedonism, again a result of the 1960's. It's all about "me and I" and the heck with everyone else.

Again, we have to ask, "are we better off than we were in 1950 or even 1900?"

SO, to sum things up-- there were a FEW things in this world we live in today, made better by the "feminist revolution", more opportunities, fair pay,voting rights ,and so on. BUT--- at what cost?????

See above but let me add, to me, fair pay means if there are two truck drivers who have 5 years experience and all else being equal, they should be paid the same no matter who they are. Voting, well, in a nutshell, I don't believe in universal sufferage. First one must pass tests to vote, the tests will be applied equally and apply to all. Then one must be working or self employed, i.e., not being supported by the welfare system if able bodied. I see the welfare system where it should be a safety net with the goal to help people with a hand up, not a hand out or if someone can't work for good reason, that's what it is for. Exceptions would be people who are retired, can't work for a good reason but mentally sound otherwise and disabled people. They will still have to pass the test and for the case of the disabled, help will be provided in comunicating tthe test questions such as if the person is blind or deaf. I think in order to vote, one must have a stake in society. It sort of like my modified Robert A. Heinlein approach to where in Starship Troopers (1959), before one can vote, one must do a tour of duty in the military.

I also see that FReepers are beginning to understand what I refer to when I say "all part of the big plan", or others say"Rome is about to fall");.

Well, if you read the book, "The Naked Communist" written by Cleon Skoussen (sp) written in 1958, he lays it all out right there. I like to read it myself, but I've seen the list of all the things the Communist, along with the rabid left (I see them all on the same team), have to do to weaken us, it is very chilling how much has been down and how far we have gone down that road. Skoussen is still alive, he's in his 90's and one of the "major domos" in the Mormon Church.

I know late at night, my mind "diesels" on this stuff too and there are times I need to think on it and put my thoughts down.

IIRC, I remember you have written a story about all of this stuff and so on. Myself, I've thought of writing something a bit on the science fiction side about all of this where the idea is to go back in time and "abort the 1960's" ala Turtledove's "Guns Of the South" style.

Speaking of books, if you want a good turn of the Century (1900) style "pyrrhic victory" story, try David Graham Phillips "Susan Lenox - Her Rise and Fall" (1908, published 1917). Basically it was about a young lady born out of wedlock where her mother died at her birth, she lives in a small town in southeast Indiana, she is basically an outcast to the small town and her cousin wants the guy Susan is with so she gets her parents (Susan's aunt and uncle, the girls were raised together) to get Susan out of the picture and it snowballs from there. She is forced to marry some sharecropper, she runs off and ends up on the streets at dead end jobs and prostitution. A lot of the story takes place in Cincinnati so I know what "over the Rhine" means from reading the book. B-) Anyways, she "yo-yoes" up and down as her fortune goes up and down. She does become a famous actress with all the glory, cars, money and rich stuff associated with that but even she admits and wonders, "was it worth it going through all the Hell I've experienced" and "I never really experienced love and commitment." She feels empty. Again, in my 8-Track mind loop, "pyrrhic victory" comes into mind. B-)) One thing that really saddens me, the story of course, but I often wished Susan turned to God and Jesus and got together to have a good, quality life, but of course, it was Phillip's story so he was in the driver's seat. I knoe myself, 9-11 and the crumbling of our morals in the recent years have made me a bit more religious. Still overall, the book made me feel more humility and compassion as well as seeing what is important in life and to watch out for the pitfalls. One last thing, if I ever have the time, I'd like to start a literary group here on FR, but time is not on my side for more. B-) Sorry for being longwinded, but when my mind is going and the passion flowing, well, I become the "Energizer Bunny." B-)
18 posted on 05/18/2005 10:46:37 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage in '08! - DeCAFTA-nate CAFTA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000
I just read your post here.

The most important icon in the liberal theology is "progress" That is why they love to call themselves "progressives".

I have lived among them my whole life and I believe I understand them better than most Freepers.

There can be no question that the liberal's agenda has ruled since the 1950s. So what have we "progressed" to and where do they want to go from here?

The biggest "progression" has been an overall loss of individual rights _and_ individual responsibility and an incredible growth in the size and scope of government, both federal and state.

The growth of government is easy to measure--look at Metro DC real estate prices.

In the early 1800s DC was a swamp and nobody wanted to live there--it was considered a sacrifice. Today the Congressman and Senators can't afford to live there unless they are rich or take bribes.

That is because today government is so powerful and important that every interest group has no choice but to hire lobbyists to protect them. Meanwhile the bureaucracies overflow their buildings.

Government contractors (an off budget item that we taxpayers are supposed to be too stupid to understand) expand the de facto federal work-force by millions.

That is why real estate is getting more expensive year after year. The "real" government keeps growing, while the amount of land in the metro DC area does not.

So what do the liberals ultimately want this "big government" to achieve?

Even most Freepers don't believe me, but this is what I believe the "hundred year plan" would consider "progress":

--Genetic engineering that ends human sexuality and reproduction as we know it. I think the feminists want a race of all females.

--Such artifically created humans would then have no "rights" at all. They would exist solely to perform as ordered.

--End of individual ownership of anything.

--World government--one world.

This is what the liberals want for our children and grandchildren. This is what they call "progress" and they have made great strides in the last fifty years.

While we try to resist I believe they are winning and we are losing.:-(
19 posted on 05/20/2005 4:11:01 AM PDT by cgbg (When do I wake up from this socialist nightmare?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000

I've always said if the wasted youth in this country could take a trip in time to the late 40's early 50's things would change when they came back. They wouldn't just vote the current scoundrels out of office--they would march on Washington with alot of nooses in hand.


20 posted on 05/22/2005 7:47:18 AM PDT by samm1148 (Time machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson