Quote# 140375



Dasho, Reddit 8 Comments [9/9/2018 9:13:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Kanna

Sorry, but how is it your business what other people do in the world? I'm a woman, and I'm an intelligent adult. I define what I do on this earth, not you. And I know perfectly well that if all the women I worked with went home, the company could not find a sufficient number of QUALIFIED men to fill their technical positions.

And you seem to be so divorced from reality that you think children will always remain children. Yes, actually, they might ...if mommy continues to blow their noses for them long after they should have grown up. Is that your problem? My job as a mother was to turn children into adults, and I did. Your mother didn't do such a good job on you in that respect, it would appear, since you think the only way for men to be men is for women to be subservient and dependent. News flash, sparky: real men don't need to step on others to get ahead, and are not so insecure that they have to keep their wives from fulfilling their own potential.

9/9/2018 2:50:48 PM

Zinnia

I quit reading about a third of the way through. All this seems to be is a tedious, boring reiteration of anti-feminist arguments which might have been fresh and new in the 1930s, but bear no resemblance to reality outside of some white middle class families prior to the 1980s... and that's when it's not straight-up garbage disproved by nearly a century of politics since then. I've seen it all before. Get a new playbook, please.

Also, I found it mildly amusing how this seems to indirectly imply that breadwinner men care more about their kids and better understand their needs than the wife who actually spends most of her time with them.

9/9/2018 2:57:23 PM

Chloe

Fuck off.

9/10/2018 6:24:19 AM

Doubting Thomas

Sorry, nobody's going to take power away from women again. If you don't like it, go find another country to live in where women can't vote.

9/10/2018 11:31:46 AM

pyro

Transcription:

Every single stage of Feminism has been bad. Every single idea that it pushes is bad. Every single goal it had was bad. Thanks mostly to Second Wave Feminism, which covered an enormously broad range of topics, it is beyond the scope of even an effortpost to address all of it. But I can address the two main points of it, and I will.

• Women Should Have The Right To Vote!

No, they should not. I can give you three very good reasons women should not have the right to vote.

One, it allows politicians to drive a wedge between men and women and pit husband and wife against one another. They can use gender identity politics to attempt to appeal to men or women exclusively, pitting half of the nation against the other half while giving them an out on addressing the real issues. It gives politicians in Washington the power to get between a husband and a wife emotionally and intellectually, which is outrageous and should not be allowed.

Two, it is the most destructive thing to the family. Before Feminism, only men had the right to vote, and almost all men got married. In practice, this meant that there was, as a trend, one vote per family, not one vote per person. If we assume the lowest possible trust in politicians, then we assume that their political rhetoric will always reflect the bare
minimum of what they can get away with. When 95+% of American voters were men casting votes for their families, oliticians had no choice but to pitch policies and laws that were conductive to family values. But when all adults have a vote, politicians no longer have to careabout family values. The level of discourse can be lowered to simply being individual friendly, instead of being family friendly. We can see the transformation this has on political rhetoric in action by simply looking at how talking points were changed. "Homosexual marriage is bad for the family" stopped working as an issue. Why? Because of the individual friendly rebuttal, what somebody does with their own body, or what they do behind closed doors, is no business of yours. The family gave way as an issue to the individual. This counter to anti-homosexual sentiment did not exist until women were given the right to vote.

And finally, related to two but still a seperate reason on it's own to count it as three, Conservatives and Liberals have a very fundamental split on how they view the world. The molecule is defined as the smallest possible unit of an element that still retains all of the traits of that element. So a water molecule is the smallest possible amount of water that still behaves chemically and physically like water. If you break it down any further, it stops being water.

One of the most fundamental splits between Conservative viewpoints and Liberal viewpoints is what they view the molecule of society as being. The Liberal views the smallest possible unit of society as being the Individual. Thus, all of their policies and issues stem from this fountainhead. To the Liberal, it makes perfect sense that all of the rights and freedoms and powers should belong to every single individual. Even their more radical stance, which is the Communist reconfiguration of wealth and social structure, is nothing more than a relatively basic and logical extrapolation on this theory of the Primacy of the Individual. Communism takes "all Individuals should have the same powers, freedoms, and rights," and extrapolates this into all Individuals being totally equal in all things is the only true form of fairness and justice, because any difference between Individuals must be injustice. Thus, we have the creation of things like Social Justice and Cultural Marxism, and we come to understand why Communism, in spite of being referred to as a "radical" politic, is in actuality only a single step away from what we consider basic modern talking points for Liberals.

This is, by the way, how you can tell, rhetorically, that all Neoconservatives are just Liberals with red ties on, and it is also how we can accurately identify Libertarianism as being inherently and fundamentally left wing. Both Neocons and Libertarians accept and agree with the core Liberal framing that the Individual is Prime.

The Conservative, however, disagrees. To the Conservative, the molecule of society, the smallest possible unit of civilization that still retains all of the qualities and traits of civilization, is the family, not the individual. A family is a group of people who share blood ties, live in the same space, speak the same language, have the same culture, and share the same experiences. To the Conservative, a family is a microcosm of the nation itself, because it shares all the same traits that a nation does, and even the same general defination, but if you were to break the family apart into individuals, they no longer exhibit the traits of a nation, because they are alone.

This is the fundamental disagreement between Conservatives and Liberals over the identity of a nation in a nutshell, and it is why the Liberals have lost the argument. An individual is a lump of experiences and traits without context or frame. To base a nation off of individuals is to base a nation off of nothing, because individuals have next to nothing in common with one another. This is the reason why Liberalism, having fully incubated into it's final rhetorical form, is agitating for the dissolving of all boarders and the inclusion into any nation anyone who wishes to be a part of it. To a non-Liberal, it seems like madness, but to the Liberal, it is simple logic totally in-line with their core assumption that Individualism is Prime.

Conservatives, by contrast, have an infinitely more authentic depiction of a nation. A nation is blood, soil, and the shared culture and experiences of the people who live in it. A family is also shared blood, shared soil, and the joint culture and experiences of the people who are a part of it. Conservatives define a nation not by the individuals who make
it up, but rather by the bonds that hold those individuals together. A group of individuals is a family, the smallest unit of a civilization that still retains all of the traits and qualities of civilizations. A group of families is a neighborhood or locale, a group of neighborhoods or locales is a district, a group of districts forms a state, and you can either stop there with the Nation State, or take it one step further with a group of states creating a greater Superstate.

This is a very long explaination for a very short statement, but it was needed to appropriately justify it. The third reason women should not vote is because, simply, it distributes the vote to individuals over families, which creates a system that will always sacrifice the family and always destroy family values in the name of pushing individual values. In pure cause-and-effect, a system in which only women could vote and all women were married would be better than a system in which men and women can both vote. The vote MUST go to the family, it is absolutely paramount, and prior to Feminism, it did. Women's voting rights destroys that.

9/10/2018 12:41:04 PM

pyro

Transcription (continued):

• Women Should Have The Right to Work!

No, they should not. Fortunately, unlike the previous point, this one requires far less baggage to successfully unpack. I will make six points here, though strictly speaking, the first one alone would be enough to justify saying no.

One, giving women the right to work doubles the number of people looking for jobs while keeping the number of job positions avaliable the same. This means, at a bare minimum, all wages are halved and it will be at least twice as hard for anyone looking for a job to actually secure one. What bringing women into the job market did was functionally the same as going to a foreign nation, picking out an equal number of foreigners to the total number of American citizens, and then bringing all of those foreigners in and dropping them off in America all at once. If somebody today proposed importing 300 million immigrants within one year, which is the modern day equivalent of what Feminism did to America in the early 20th century, they would be lynched, and rightfully so.

I could leave this point here, and it would be enough. The math is cold, harsh, and brutal, and so simple that even a political pundit could not deny it, which is precisely the reason no one has ever actually formally examined the damage women entering the workplace did to first world nations economically. Because it was catastrophic, and that doesn't fit the narrative that giving women rights = goodthink. No one in the mainstream media or the mainstream political discourse wants to think about how much damage Feminism caused economically. Because we're not supposed to think about that.

But I won't leave it here, because there are five more good reasons women should not be in the workplace. They are all inter-related, but they are seperate reasons on their own.

The second reason women in the workplace is a mistake is because it destroys the husband's ability to support his family. Once upon a time, the income of a single man working full time was enough to pay all the bills, put food on the table, own and gas up two cars, pay for the needs of 2.5 children, keep a woman who is a housewife full time comfortable and well-adorned, keep a house in working order, pay his taxes, and still have enough recreational spending money to splurge on holidays and vacations, as well as having a little bit extra to put away into savings for the kids and for your own retirement.

Today, this reality of yesteryear is like a vision of wealth untold from Aladdin's Cave of Wonders. Why? Because women entering the workplace pushed salaries and wages down to the very rock bottom. Double the number of people seeking jobs means the Free Market dictates that labor is only worth half of what it used to be. Libertarians see no problem with this, but as we have already previously established, they are all delusional Leftists.

Reason number three: it enslaved women to the workplace. Cutting the wages of all working men in half meant that women had no choice but to enter the workplace in order to make enough money to fund their family. One of the primary reasons that Feminists agitated for the right to work any job they wanted to was because they felt they did not have the freedom to decide what they wanted to do with their lives. If that was truly their complaint, then they have failed spectacularly, because they have achieved the exact opposite of that. Instead of gaining the freedom to choose, they now have no choice but to work, whether they like it or not.

The housewife of yesteryear may not have had every business world door open to her that a man would have, but she, at least, had more freedom and choice than the woman of today, for she had the luxury of choosing to not work if she so pleased, and could sit pretty in the comfort that her husbands salary would take care of her and the family she was a part of. Those days are gone. That freedom is gone. In exchange for 2% of women getting to wear pantsuits and play at being power executives, 80% of women must work as waitresses and grocery baggers whether they want to or not. Funny how much this freedom smells like slavery, isn't it?

The fourth reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it emptied out the home. Forcing women to go to work alongside their husbands leaves an empty house with no one to look after the children. It doesn't take a genius to know that services like daycare and nannies will never be the same as a child being looked after and taken care of by their own mother. Forcing women to work to sustain their family means that they wil no longer be able to give their children the care that they need and deserve, which damages children mentally, emotionally, and socially at the time when they are most vulnerable. This is not fair to the children, and will (has) produce(d) a generation that is in some ways emotionally and socially stunted as a result.

The fifth reason women working was a mistake is because it undermines homeschooling as a means of educating your child, and increases the dependence on state and federal programs to take care of and instruct your child. Once upon a time, a child could be sent off to school, but a woman who wanted to be more hands-on could opt to not do this, and instead teach their child reading, writing, and arithmetic at home themselves. With the home emptied out and the labor of women tied up in securing a second income to support the family, the family has little choice but to forego homeschool and rely upon public and private institutions to teach their children.

Not only is this always a risk, because you do not control what is taught, but in the case of the public schooling in particular, it opens your child up to being influenced by whatever politics are at play on a state and local level, dictating what may and may not be taught. The outsourcing of education to strangers is inferior to the more holistic approach of home education, as all testing and aptitude rankings have shown. Head for head, children that are homeschooled systematically outperform publicly educated children in all areas, and match neck and neck with the highest achieving of the private school students. They are also happier and more content on average, and are more emotionally and mentally balanced.

But with women in the workplace, this superior method of education is limited to only the already wealthy, the uniquely fortunate, or the tiny few families that contain someone with a high-flying enough job to take up the slack for their spouse not working and bringing home a paycheck. And finally, the sixth and final reason bringing women into the workplace was a mistake is because it encourages them to not have families or children at all. Contingent to the previous points, without the strength of the male wage, the family becomes prohibitively expensive. What was once the social norm becomes instead an extravagent luxury only slightly less costly and less unattainable than a high-class yacht. The pressure to nothave children becomes immense, and women enter a state of postponement. "I'll have a family, but later, when I've saved up enough money." "I'll have kids but later, right now I need to secure a future for them." "l want to have a family, but I can always do it later when the situation looks better, right now I can just party and enjoy myself, after all, it's not like I could have one now anyway even if I wanted to."

But the cold reality of nature is that, while men continuously produce healthy sperm until the day they die, women have a finite number of eggs. And the longer she goes without having children, the greater the likelihood that there will be complications or congenital birth defects. The possibility of a child being born with issues such as autism, general learning disabilities, and Downs syndrome become markedly increased the older the mother is, and the age of the mother has also been linked to problems such as birth defects, miscarriages, and even Sudden Infant Death syndrome.

Studies have shown that the peak years of fertility for having healthy children begin around the ages of 19 and 20, and persist for the next six or seven years. Beyond the age of 28, a woman's fertility begins to drop, and the possiblity of health issues with her children begins to increase with each passing year. Eventually, she will enter a twilight of
fertility in her late thirties, and not long after, her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile.

The harsh fact of life is that not only do women have a finite number of eggs, but those eggs can and will go bad. The longer a woman puts off having a family, the less likely it is that she will ever have healthy children or a stable long-term relationship with a man. The odds are, in fact, even worse than they seem at first, because women do not live in
a vacuum. They must contend with men, and those men who wish to be husbands are compelled by their own instincts to naturally seek out as young a woman as possible to settle down with, to ensure the health of his children. So as a woman becomes older, even if she maintains her physical beauty, the odds of her landing a true, genuine husband go down.

9/10/2018 12:42:30 PM

pyro

Transcription (continued):

All of this, taken together, creates a cascade effect, in which the implimentation of Feminist policies undermines the economic structure of a nation, helps destroy its moral fiber by replacing family values with individual values, robs women of their freedom and ability to self-determinate, greatly incentivises the responsible men and women whom society depends upon awayfrom having families, and ultimately plunges the birth-over-death ratio below replacement level even as individualist advocation drags political policy into the mud.

And this is just from discussing the two key touchstones of Feminism, the right to vote and the right to work. I could sit here for weeks and unpack the problems caused by the advocacy for Social Justice, the peddling of alternative gender identity, and the insistence that all of society and culture be forcibly rearranged so that everyone is equal, all of which are major platforms of Third, Fourth, and Fifth Wave Feminism.

Instead, I choose to focus narrowly and deeply on these two core principles of the First and Second Wave, primarily because many women (and men) will waffle when confronted with anti-Feminist sentiment, and state something to the effect of "well, I agree that all this new stuff is strange and wrong, but the original Feminists, they were alright! What they wanted was completely reasonable, and I agree with them."

The beginning of Feminism is the most important part of Feminism, because everything that followed after it depended upon the basic assumptions they made. Prove those assumptions wrong, refute them, and you pull the bottom out from under the house of cards. Those assumptions are the most reasonable sounding of the lot, and the most likely for your average citizen to support, even if they are a Conservative. Which makes it all the more important that they be thoroughly and utterly debunked.

The harsh truth is this: countless Conservative women bemoan the loss of the family and family values, and those with the agency to be politically active debate and scheme about how to get it back, about how to stick it to those darn liberals and their shameless hussy advocates.

Little do they know that it is the policies that they supported that caused the death of the family, not the ones they opposed.

It is the solemn duty of every Conservative woman to oppose Feminism on every level, and to do so vocally, publically, and intelligently. Anti-Feminist women can damage and undermine the philosophy in ways that no male attacker, however articulate and well-versed, ever could. In this, you have something we do not, a strength we cannot muster.

You have a duty to use it, just as you have a duty to create and rear children and to stand by your beloved. This is a war for everything you hold dean Your future, your husband, your lifes, your culture. The children you hold in your arms. You can hold nothing back. Because I promise you: your enemies won't.

9/10/2018 12:45:52 PM

ScrappyB

So tell me fucknuts, if it should be one vote per family why does the man have to be the one to cast it? Why not take away men's right to vote and let the wife vote for the family instead?

Think very hard about the reasons behind your answer, then ask yourself why they shouldn't also apply to women.

Eventually, she will enter a twilight of fertility in her late thirties, and not long after, her supply of eggs will run out, bringing about the onset of menopause and rendering her infertile.

You know about as much about biology as you do about sociology. Here's a clue... A woman is born with far more eggs than will ever be used during her reproductive years.

9/14/2018 4:04:27 AM

1 | top: comments page