I have observed women are more likely to stick in a bad situation rather than risk going it alone, although "tough" new abuse laws and programs make the man just the payor.Perhaps what we have now is the result of generations of women voting for the kind of gov't which punishes men in general and reduces the risks in dealing with the natural consequences of non-marital sex and preferring "bad boys" over solid "dull" men (who build, plan, and believe in a just God).
Could you please expound your theory that the women's vote is the major contributing factor to the downfall of the country?
They don't make history books and voting records where you're from?
Tell me, has it gotten better? Or worse?
From: Dr. Deth's archives 8/31/01
On a grand scale, the notion of government as nanny to "help those who can't (i.e. won't) help themselves" is a relatively 20th century phenomenon, exacerbated by the cajoling of the so-called 'progressives'. The ultimate result can only be a regression of the human species as those non-productive members of the species outbreed the productive members.
The root of America's (perhaps the world's) ultimate demise can be traced back to this: (don't laugh) Giving women the vote. It's not mysogyny so much as a balance being lost. Nobody wants to own up to this, but consider:
1) The predominant natural instincts of females are the inactive, and the negative (the Taoists call this yin). Some of these are emotionalism, security, pacifism, and stability. This is an evolutionary byproduct of the physical inferiority of their sex. Opposed to this are the male, active, positive forces (yang); instincts toward reason, adventure, violence, and construction. This is why traditionally males take lead roles in social, economic, and governmental auspices. Of course there are always exceptions, but we're painting with a broad brush for sake of this argument.
2) Having given women the vote, it took some fumbling by the collectivists to find their winning formula: fear - another manifestation of yin. By confusing targetted members of the voting populace (now including women) with various boogeymen, and aligning with a few traditionally disaffected splinter groups: minorities, the elderly, and anyone else who can be portrayed as some victim class, the collectivists consolidate larger and larger blocs of power, but gradually so as not to be noticed. This formula was laid out by noted Communist Antonio Gramsci early last century; you may recognize it as 'incrementalism'. FDR was the first to truly utilize the power of this formula as an authoritarian club against his domestic enemies.
3) Collectivists exist to leach from society. Their ultimate goal is hardly egalitarian despite their pretty slogans: they merely want the power and enrichment that they feel should be their entitlement as 'educated forward-thinkers', as opposed to the current cadre of elites. To wit: how equal is everyone in Cuba? Their end is power, their means is anything that works. The spin-doctored, poll-directed reign of Clinton was a sublime example.
4) The stereotype of 'mean old Republican' and 'overprivileged white male' is so ingrained into the culture now as to have manifested that peculiar phenomenon of 'political correctness', prophecized by Orwell as 'groupthink'. This is INDEED the result a conscious and concerted effort of a media dominated by 'progressives' and collectivists, and affects most the naive young, confused elderly, and (the crucial bloc) women... because this is their boogeyman. Witness the linking of the Republicans with so-called 'militias' during the Clinton era.
5) Having sufficiently spooked the weaker element of society, one can now offer a 'solution'. The concept of government-as-nanny is not only a BAD idea, it is the most dangerous idea in the world today. From Big-Brother legislation 'for the children' (which automatically appeals to... whom?), to our notions of Socialist Security and even this right-to-prescription-drugs fiasco (which Constitutional Amendment was that, again), America continues oblivious, inexorably along a path travelled many times before in history. Note the ludicrous War On (Some) Drugs, the classic example of government creating a problem, then magnanimously offering to solve it for us poor helpless citizens... all it will cost is the Bill Of Rights. A small price to pay for our laughable Drug-Free School Zones, yes?
As the bounds of individualism are encroached upon daily, government acquires to itself more and more 'responsibility' (translation: power). If personal liberty is lessened incessantly, why should we be surprised when personal responsibility is lessened accordingly? The void is filled by government-as-nanny, manifested by more and more laws to 'protect us from ourselves'. At the upper limit of this is Communist or Fascist (same idea, different implementation) government, of which it was joked, "that which is not prohibited is compulsory."
The end result can only be toward a bureaucratic, authoritarian government which takes the stead of the former role of dominant individuals (yang) in society. The 'country as family' structure has begun manifesting in America with the traditional family structure apparent not within individual units, but on a societal level (public schools and collectivist domination of academia are a big factor in this, but that's another dissertation). Either way, Hitlery would be proud, because it now 'takes a village.'
Let me tell you this: Worry less about whether Bush is or isn't cutting taxes, and more about which provisions of the Bill Of Rights are still in effect. By my reckoning, only the 3rd and maybe the 7th Amendment are not routinely violated. And worry about why the government feels comfortable assuming by force rights which are granted you by the Creator (who/whatever). You may not recognize fascism when it comes to your country, but it will be fascism all the same. America is not Weimar yet, but one solid economic or terroristic (think Reichstag) jolt and all bets are off.
(Postscript: note the original date. Think we've seen that 'jolt' yet?)