Is this why there are so many nice guys?
- Thread starter VikingKing
- Start date
You're trying to use facts to respond to someone who thinks the feminist movement was devised by the central bank to get more income tax and destroy the nuclear family?Peña said:
Yewski - no one said they should be given what they arent due. Its about equality of opportunity.
Viking - Male dominated societies have been murdering, exploiting and enslaving each other (on a massive scale) for millenia, does that strike you as "good leadership"? Im not trying to be a dîck either its an honest question. I dont think women are better leaders, but I think balance is key.
SmooveMooves
Master Don Juan
That's my point.Epimanes said:
Both parties are at fault.
However, how many times have you heard the man blamed solely and dogged because he wasn't there. When simply the single parent household is the result of Two irrensponsible adults.
The way some people (not referring to you) talk it's as if men rape these chicks get them pregnant and then dip out.
SmooveMooves
Master Don Juan
Also, I agree with the destroying the family unit ideal. I always thought that may be the true intention of feminism and the destruction of family units but could never pin point exactly why. Doubling the tax base makes perfect sense, I don't know why I haven't thought of it before. I was thinking it was for control purposes (divide/conquer)
The government enables broken family units with immense public assistance and weird gender laws.
The government enables broken family units with immense public assistance and weird gender laws.
( . )( . )
Banned
Strawman. He's not saying what has happened to the average family/economy after you've uprooted half of the Western world, then flood them into the "work" force and destroy the family unit. He's saying what did happen.Peña said:
I use "work" loosely btw considering an influx of make work cubicle drones pushing papers is not really work.
There are so many "nice guys" because society is structured in such a way that masculinity is demonized. Its a form of conditioning. The media and movies show the beta losers getting the girl "in the end" while the masculine man is the villain or "azzhole". In some cases they turn the masculine man into a beta loser at the end when he "comes to his senses" and realizes "whats really important." Its all conditioning.
Feminism was necessary to bring women into the workforce and collect more taxes. In order for women to feel comfortable working along side men.. it was necessary to "tame" men.
Women crying and whining alone wasn't enough to tame men. Society had to support women and create an environment where untamed men are shamed, jailed and stripped of their money, status and resources. Thus creating an environment where men live in constant fear of saying or doing the wrong thing to a woman.
Because the consequences for p!ssing off a woman can be great. She has the law to back her up if she decides she needs to teach you a lesson.
Women have power through weakness. Society views them as weaker.. and thus in need of more assistance. But more importantly.. society views them as "innocent" and "victims". Thus giving them the freedom to do almost anything with no retribution. While men walk on eggshells.
This is why there are so many "nice guys".
Feminism was necessary to bring women into the workforce and collect more taxes. In order for women to feel comfortable working along side men.. it was necessary to "tame" men.
Women crying and whining alone wasn't enough to tame men. Society had to support women and create an environment where untamed men are shamed, jailed and stripped of their money, status and resources. Thus creating an environment where men live in constant fear of saying or doing the wrong thing to a woman.
Because the consequences for p!ssing off a woman can be great. She has the law to back her up if she decides she needs to teach you a lesson.
Women have power through weakness. Society views them as weaker.. and thus in need of more assistance. But more importantly.. society views them as "innocent" and "victims". Thus giving them the freedom to do almost anything with no retribution. While men walk on eggshells.
This is why there are so many "nice guys".
The Duke
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 5,592
- Reaction score
- 8,471
I guess the exact start of the Feminist movement can be debated. There has been feminist movements dating back to the 1800's.
The reason women first went to work in mass droves was out of necessity, not so the central bank could generate more tax income. During WWII there was a huge need for labor to work in the defense factories building bombs, airplanes, guns, ammunition, etc. These defense contractors didn't have enough men to fill the positions so they turned to women. My grandmother was one of them who went to work building airplanes while her husband was shipped off to war.
The feminist movement that most pua's have issues with today started in the 60's. These women were tired of the man being head of household. They didn't want to stay at home and raise children. They wanted to be equal to men in all aspects of home and work life. Back then divorce was difficult to obtain. There was no such thing as "no fault divorce" and the wife was not entitled to anything if divorce did occur.
The whole feminist/womans rights movement of the 60's wasn't created for tax reasons on behalf of the government, it was created because thats what women were demanding. And to push their agenda they published journals/magazines to help spread the movement. They organized protests, formal complaints, & held hearings. From all of that noise came laws regarding gender/employment discrimination, birth control, legalized abortion, and "irreconcilable differences" and "division of property" during divorce.
Thats unfortunately how we got where we are today.
The reason women first went to work in mass droves was out of necessity, not so the central bank could generate more tax income. During WWII there was a huge need for labor to work in the defense factories building bombs, airplanes, guns, ammunition, etc. These defense contractors didn't have enough men to fill the positions so they turned to women. My grandmother was one of them who went to work building airplanes while her husband was shipped off to war.
The feminist movement that most pua's have issues with today started in the 60's. These women were tired of the man being head of household. They didn't want to stay at home and raise children. They wanted to be equal to men in all aspects of home and work life. Back then divorce was difficult to obtain. There was no such thing as "no fault divorce" and the wife was not entitled to anything if divorce did occur.
The whole feminist/womans rights movement of the 60's wasn't created for tax reasons on behalf of the government, it was created because thats what women were demanding. And to push their agenda they published journals/magazines to help spread the movement. They organized protests, formal complaints, & held hearings. From all of that noise came laws regarding gender/employment discrimination, birth control, legalized abortion, and "irreconcilable differences" and "division of property" during divorce.
Thats unfortunately how we got where we are today.
bigneil said:
( . )( . ) said:
Poon King said:
Some very ignorant posters right here. Know your history, know what you're talking about, and know your facts first before you post nonsense like this. Quit having other people feed you false information soaking it up like sheep.
http://1940s.org/history/on-the-homefront/women-at-work/
Before the United States entered World War II, several companies already had contracts with the government to produce war equipment for the Allies. Almost overnight the United States entered the war and war production had to increase dramatically in a short amount of time. Auto factories were converted to build airplanes shipyards were expanded, and new factories were built, and all these facilities needed workers. At first companies did not think that there would be a labor shortage so they did not take the idea of hiring women seriously. Eventually, women were needed because companies were signing large, lucrative contracts with the government just as all the men were leaving for the service.
Working was not new to women. Women have always worked, especially minority and lower-class women. However, the cultural division of labor by sex ideally placed white middle-class women in the home and men in the workforce. Also, because of high unemployment during the Depression, most people were against women working because they saw it as women taking jobs from unemployed men.
The start of World War II tested these ideas. Everyone agreed that workers were greatly needed. They also agreed that having women work in the war industries would only be temporary.
The United States government had to overcome these challenges in order to recruit women to the workforce. Early in the war, the government was not satisfied with women’s response to the call to work .
The government decided to launch a propaganda campaign to sell the importance of the war effort and to lure women into working.
They promoted the fictional character of “Rosie the Riveter” as the ideal woman worker: loyal, efficient, patriotic, and pretty. A song, “Rosie the Riveter”, became very popular in 1942. Norman Rockwell’s image on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post on May 29, 1943 was the first widely publicized pictorial representation of the new “Rosie the Riveter”. This led to many other “Rosie” images and women to represent that image. For example, the media found Rose Hicker of Eastern Aircraft Company in Tarrytown, New York and pictured her with her partner as they drove in a record number of rivets into the wing of a Grumman “Avenger” Bomber on June 8, 1943. Rose was an instant media success. In many other locations and situations around the country, “Rosies” were found and used in the propaganda effort. A few months after Rockwell’s image, the most famous image of Rosie appeared in the government-commissioned poster “We Can Do It”.
Women responded to the call to work differently depending on age, race, class, marital status, and number of children. Half of the women who took war jobs were minority and lower-class women who were already in the workforce. They switched from lower-paying traditionally female jobs to higher-paying factory jobs. But even more women were needed, so companies recruited women just graduating from high school. Eventually it became evident that married women were needed even though no one wanted them to work, especially if they had young children. It was hard to recruit married women because even if they wanted to work, many of their husbands did not want them to. Initially, women with children under 14 were encouraged to stay home to care for their families. The government feared that a rise in working mothers would lead to a rise in juvenile delinquency. Eventually, the demands of the labor market were so severe that even women with children under 6 years old took jobs.
While patriotism did influence women, ultimately it was the economic incentives that convinced them to work. Once at work, they discovered the nonmaterial benefits of working like learning new skills, contributing to the public good, and proving themselves in jobs once thought of as only men’s work.
When the United States entered the war, 12 million women (one quarter of the workforce) were already working and by the end of the war, the number was up to 18 million (one third of the workforce). While ultimately 3 million women worked in war plants, the majority of women who worked during World War II worked in traditionally female occupations, like the service sector.
( . )( . )
Banned
Embers you're not actually saying anything...again
A big difference. You also might want to do some research and follow the paper trail of how feminism was started. Had nothing to do with assuaging some high testosterone count women who wanted to mix it with the big boys. That's just how they sold it to the masses of women. It was created for the sole purpose of doubling the tax base and to destroy the family unit. It was simply a business strategy, nothing more nothing less.
Nobody was even denying that. Of course they worked as secretaries, hairdressers, nurses and the like (jobs they were actually suited for). Most still were married and had children. They however didn't comprise of half the Western working world, affirmative actioned into make work cubicle jobs and jobs they were unqualified to be in such as tech, military, fire, police etc etc.Embers84 said:
A big difference. You also might want to do some research and follow the paper trail of how feminism was started. Had nothing to do with assuaging some high testosterone count women who wanted to mix it with the big boys. That's just how they sold it to the masses of women. It was created for the sole purpose of doubling the tax base and to destroy the family unit. It was simply a business strategy, nothing more nothing less.
Mike32ct
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 8,097
- Reaction score
- 4,705
And double the number of job candidates to drive wages down.
It was not, that is false, and you are wrong. Feminism started with the Women's Suffrage Movement in the late 1800's, and then continued to make small gains since that time in the U.S. and in Europe. There were many female pioneers that started woman's rights in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Women began to change way back in the roaring 20's when they started to make their mark. They wanted to do work but were denied that opportunity which is why they fought for Women's rights. Do some reasearch, go back to college and take some history classes because your history and facts are not adding up to your rhetoric as usual. Did you ever finish school?( . )( . ) said:
Women were already working and wanted to expand their pay and jobs. After they worked they wanted to continue working after the war. The family unit was already changing at that time.
I know how it started, and you made a false claim about the 1950's that you were called out on. You're wrong again, because with the rise of living costs going up and a stagnant economy, women had to work to make money. How would our economy be today without women in the work force? Most families couldn't exist without both parents working. The 1980's was not the same as the 1880's with technology and higher living costs. I agree though that a lot of jobs women should not try to hold.
There are plenty of qualified women that hold down important jobs. Those women make more money and are more qualified than you and that makes you angry. I myself, would like to see women not ruin politics with their nonsense. I think they should stay out. What are you going to do when the gullible sheep vote for imbeciles like Palin and other women on the right for political office to make the laws for them.
( . )( . )
Banned
Women's suffrage was about voting rights. Not uprooting half of the Western world and flooding the workforce, that's an entirely different animal. You can hamster it however you want, pretend it is was "coz feeelz/oppression" until the cows come home for all I care. At the end of the day it was simply a business strategy. The elite class had hundreds of years to prove they cared about some mustachioed fugly chick wanting to play dress up games with the men, yet they didn't. Feminism was/is business.Embers84 said:
Bingo.Mike32ct said:
Between_The_Lines
Master Don Juan
Da VinciVikingKing said:
Thomas Edison
Aristotle
Einstein
Newton
Shakespeare
Kepler
Tessla
Galileo
Descartes
Darwin
FVCKING USELESS PIGS ...ALL OF THEM
