Liberalism and Feminism can only work on a global level

a reply to: Malak777

I wish I could believe that women will be willing to "carry the can"

Read about these societies it might change your views.
Cleopatra VII Philapator, Twosret, Hatshepsut, Nefertiti, Sobekneferu and MerNeith.
The Mosuo, the Chacoans, The Hopi. Just to list a few.

I think your issue is that you believe that our current patriarchal societies are the best and will last forever.
That is a wrong assumption. Human societies change all the time. None have been the best and none have lead to our extinction.

a reply to: Malak777

Lots of words for a failed ideology. I think it doust protest too much lol.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Malak777

Oh ok, go start that liberalism and feminist # in China and the Middle East then come back to Good Ol' Mericuh and they should let us know how it went.

The western powers telling the rest of the world what to do always works out great. Any student of history knows that.

Geezus.

Civilization is over 10,000 years old.

It's progressed pretty damn well without 'social justice warriors'.

Maybe there's an object lesson in there.

a reply to: neo96

It's progressed pretty damn well without 'social justice warriors'.

Those fighting for social justice have existed through out all human history.
www.socialjusticenews.net...

Sjw is just a new term for an old idea.

originally posted by: Malak777

originally posted by: wdkirk
TLDR

On a global level....meaning those that live in the sticks of Africa, South America or Australia would also endorse said dumbass ideologies? I'm guessing they don't have those problems, but, then again I have not studied any of those cultures that would not be considered modern by today's lofty standards.

Along came a spider...... Saving the weak and sick is only weakening the species.

Really, saving the sick insures our species' survival. Whenever we treated the weaker ones like dirt we ended up with hell holes fit for nobody. The way we treat our elderly, our weak and our sick is a measure of our civility. Getting rid of them all is not possible as we all must become sick in the end. Think about that! At the best we must get old and weak. Many of us will get diseases in our lives because of our polluted lifetsyles and environment.

Will you apply this same ideology when it is your turn? You better hope when you are old there is a nice caring face to wipe your bottom and keep you clean. Just getting real with you.

Thank you for your opinion on my avatar signature.

One of the main issues here is feminism a problem caused by
the Jezebel spirit! This spirit goes contrary to creation and
nature.Men need to be men or women will take over.

Just turn on your TV and see for yourself how the image of
men has been devolving.Men are portrayed as being dumb
while their wives are smarter.I'm not saying this couldn't be
true,a smart woman doesn't drag down her husband to look
better.

a reply to: mamabeth

when absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the system in play gives the men that much power over their wives and children, it doesn't need any kind of "spirit" to raise discontent within the women. just enough men who are abusing that absolute power!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: mamabeth

when absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the system in play gives the men that much power over their wives and children, it doesn't need any kind of "spirit" to raise discontent within the women. just enough men who are abusing that absolute power!!

Rrriigghhhttt.....(in the best Dr Evil condesending voice possible)

a reply to: Malak777

Very well said. When you take emotion out of the equation, it makes a lot of sense.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Malak777

Interesting (LOL!) premise... but as I have learned recently, not all feminism is the same. I won't pretend to understand the different factions -- "LibFem" and "RadFem" and "Third Wave" and so on -- but even the different feminists don't agree on everything, so it's impossible to make such blanket statements about "feminism" as a whole.

However, I will say that as a stay-at-home mom in the 80s and 90s, I was pretty put off that there was absolutely no support for moms, and especially stay-at-home moms. We were dismissed (and insulted) as either too dumb or too lazy to work, as exemplified by Hillary's oh-so-infamous "Well, I guess I could have stayed home and baked cookies all day" comment. Like that's all I did!!! Sure, I baked cookies... and cupcakes for class birthdays and sopapillas for Cinco de Mayo and I also volunteered at my kids' school, both in their classrooms and in the reading room. I served on committees and volunteered for events and fundraisers and went on field trips and taught kids to read and write. Things that I taught my own kids before they even started kindergarten!

But society said moms like me were just too dumb or lazy to hold a real job. (And I did it anyway, because I knew it was the right thing to do.)

And I do believe that this attitude has adversely affected our children into adulthood, and therefore our society as a whole. When we devalued mothers and mothering, we also devalued our children and their best interests and well being.

So to a great extent, I do agree with the spirit of the OP. But I won't reduce people -- especially women -- to mere "breeders." Being a parent and giving of yourself and your heart unconditionally is a very fulfilling and gratifying experience. It's a crying shame we don't value and appreciate this gift. Done right, it benefits ALL society. Ignored and neglected, it just drags the whole of society down.

As always, well said. I was a stay-at-home-mom in the 90s too, and the stigma was terrible. It made me look at feminism and think that maybe it had done as much damage as it had good. I still think that. Like so many radical political movements, the original ends were good. And it achieved what it set out to do--2 generations ago. Now it's fighting windmills and creating more issues than it solves, in my humble opinion.

a reply to: JBIZZ

Well said! Wow, so many good posts in this thread. Thanks, OP.

a reply to: wdkirk

when do you think the feminist movement began??
at least one of our founding father's wives was writing to him while he was at the constitutional convention asking him to be kinder to the women than the english governmental laws were!
go and read some of the documents of writings from those first feminists and get a clearer picture of just how much power the law gave men over their wives and children. and some of the ways it was abused...
then come back at me with the
"Rrriigghhhttt" bit.

a reply to: dawnstar


The husband is suppose to be the head of the house and has authority
over the wife.

a reply to: mamabeth
oh, I know what the bible says.. and there's plenty of examples in the bible where that authority and power was abused.
from god having to give in and allow divorce because of the "hardness of men's hearts" to abraham commanding his wife to tell only half of the truth and putting sarah in the position of almost committing adultery with the pharoah.
and tell me, how did Deborah end up being a judge? if my memory serves me right there were no men that god saw fit to be! kind of like when the men can't hit the mark, god will raise up the women to take the reigns.
so, was it that ole jezebel spirit that cause women to raise up? or was it god because too many men were abusing that authority and neglecting his responsibilities to the women?

a reply to: riiver

As always, well said. I was a stay-at-home-mom in the 90s too, and the stigma was terrible. It made me look at feminism and think that maybe it had done as much damage as it had good. I still think that.

Me too. I always felt that the movement was geared toward forcing women to compete with men on the very level that they denounced. Little -- if any -- attention was given to the issues of stay-at-home wives and mothers and women. It was all about careers and glass ceilings.

Back then, and even moreso today, I wish more effort was put into really empowering women to be resourceful and self-sufficient -- both from male domination, and from corporate domination. Don't make it easier for me to go to work... make it easier for me to make a living. Remember cottage industries? Quite often businesses run by women from their "cottage" -- the fishwives and alewives and midwives, etc. That's what we need today.

Like so many radical political movements, the original ends were good. And it achieved what it set out to do--2 generations ago. Now it's fighting windmills and creating more issues than it solves, in my humble opinion.

Again, agreed. The issues being fought are not the issues affecting most women, benefiting neither women nor society in general.

OP is predicated on the idea that Feminism and Liberalism are universal ideals which they are not. They are fairly specific mostly to Whites. By all means go do some polls and see how F & L are received in Africa, Asia or the Islamic nations. Even Hispanics aren't jumping on those bandwagons even though they tend to make political allies. Each considers the others useful idiots in getting what they want.

This is mostly an issue for Caucasians in the West.
In my mind they are the politics of last resort going for an all-or-nothing proposition.
I can only blame education for not teaching about Communism and lack of history in general.
There's a full century of atrocities one must justify just to embrace it.
How college students of all people have become their biggest proponents is rather telling.

So by liberalism you mean freedom right?

I agree