Feminism, and Secret Societies

Let's not throw out the good with the bad, but this is something that needs to be seriously looked at.

"There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women.

These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves;

it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration."

- Illuminati leader Adam Weishaupt

Henry Makow has done a great deal 'bringing to light' this issue. Any one have anything to contribute besides the word 'mysogynist' or 'you have issues'?

Does this mean Women are the key to combatting the Illuminati ?

I think a woman speaking out is in many ways more powerful than a man doing so, and in many ways I think Feminism distracts women from attacking OTHER critical issues.

Originally posted by akilles
Does this mean Women are the key to combatting the Illuminati

?

I think a woman speaking out is in many ways more powerful than a man doing so, and in many ways I think Feminism distracts women from attacking OTHER critical issues.

Why do you need to combat a bavarian political organization that no longer exists?

Originally posted by akilles
I think a woman speaking out is in many ways more powerful than a man doing so, and in many ways I think Feminism distracts women from attacking OTHER critical issues.

Can you give some examples of other critical issues that women are distracted from by Feminism?

Originally posted by parrhesia

Originally posted by akilles
I think a woman speaking out is in many ways more powerful than a man doing so, and in many ways I think Feminism distracts women from attacking OTHER critical issues.

Can you give some examples of other critical issues that women are distracted from by Feminism?

Maybe politics? It's a tragedy that young-middle aged women who are politically aware and active are almost non-existant... I don't know what social issues he could be thinking of, though...

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Maybe politics? It's a tragedy that young-middle aged women who are politically aware and active are almost non-existant... I don't know what social issues he could be thinking of, though...

sebatwerk,

If anything, I think knowledge of feminism creates an awareness of the political sphere, and promotes political activity. That's just what I see, though.

I'd have to agree with parrhesia. The whole point of feminism seems to be to break out of the historically imposed stereotype and wake up to the possibilities available.
I don't believe that Weishaupt was correct with his statement. But then one has to remember that those words were spoken nearly three hundred years ago when relationships between men and women were vastly different to those today.
For a comparison I would look to how the female place in society has changed in the West over the last couple of centuries where it seems to have stagnated or only recently been addressed in the East.

I don't believe that Weishaupt's words have any significance in Western society. History has made them redundant.

War of the Sexes is actually a very recent phenomenon.

I think what Leveller said is funny, breaking out of the stereotypes, achieving the possibilities.

Stereotype, is that anything that nature considers a role?

Should we do polling on how many people on ATS are married?

Feminism only veiled itself as being about equality, it doesn't take long to see the disinformation, "Anything a man can do, a woman can do better."

I am not disagreeing with the statement, I am saying it quite obviously is not equality-motivated 'education' that Feminism has spread over the century.

Any one who wants to legitimately discuss this, please take a look at:
www.savethemales.ca

Originally posted by akilles

"There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women.

This, in my opinion, is probably pretty accurate.

- Illuminati leader Adam Weishaupt

I don't remember ever reading that from Weishaupt. Could you provide a reference? I'd find it strange that he would have written that because, in the late 18th century, men didn't take women very seriously, and women were not admitted into the Illuminati.

Henry Makow has done a great deal 'bringing to light' this issue. Any one have anything to contribute besides the word 'mysogynist' or 'you have issues'?

I'm not a fan of Makow at all. His ideology seems very fascistic to me. He seems to be very insecure about being thought of as equal to women; I'm no psychologist, but he seems to have some real issues. He even married a woman from the Phillipines because in their culture, women are trained to be subservient to men.

Originally posted by akilles
Stereotype, is that anything that nature considers a role?

I never said that and I don't believe that this is a relevant point in the case of feminism in your statement.
Stereotyping in this context is man-made. There are obviously natural differences between male and female, but you aren't discussing nature here - rather politics.

Hit the history books, akilles. Whilst you're at it you might like to go and have a look at the religious elements that have constrained and stereotyped women.

well, first off, the first feminists date back to the 1800's, and they played a central part in the abolition of slavery, the newly freed black male getting the right to vote, and well, then after that, they went after their own right to vote....

this statement is interesting though....

"These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; "

since in so many ways, that all that has been given....hints....

although the church, took much of the bite our of their "man is the head of women" bit, they never really removed him from his place as lord and high preist.

and the easy divorces, the child care centers, and the government handouts, really didn't address the main issues of equality, since they just served to not only allow men to continue to place an unequal load of the household and child care responsibilities onto the women, but also alleviated them of many of the responsiblities that they were willingly taking on.

and, well, although the women's wages did equalize somewhat, their influx into the workforce caused many men's wages to drop, thus spreading the economic inequality around, so it could be shared by both sexes.

and well, Now we have many couples, both working, and still depending on the government handouts (or credit cards) to meet their families needs. if you look in the history books, you will find that those who can't pay their bills they owe, often ended up in debtor's prisons, or being indentured servants. and well, all those who are having to take the handouts from the government, will also have to jump through whatever hoops the government decides to set out for them to get it.....

both, to me, equate to slavery....
as does the original idea of marriage, with the husband as the head of the household.

by the way, I don't get into the secret society bit much either...
just telling what my observations are.

Originally posted by akilles

Stereotype, is that anything that nature considers a role?

Well that depends. Tell me what you think is natural for a woman to do and be, then we can talk stereotypes.

Should we do polling on how many people on ATS are married?

Are you implying that feminist women don't get married or oppose it? I'm not sure what the purpose of this would be, as not all feminists disagree with the institution of marriage, just like not all feminists support it...

Feminism only veiled itself as being about equality, it doesn't take long to see the disinformation, "Anything a man can do, a woman can do better." I am not disagreeing with the statement, I am saying it quite obviously is not equality-motivated 'education' that Feminism has spread over the century.

That's not really a slogan feminists use, and I don't think many people who may use it use it seriously, as it's far from true.
As for equality-motivated education, I think you're wrong in insinuating that rather than making things equal women want to turn the tables. That's not true.

Man i hate feminism. Women have equal rights RIGHT now! why would they continue to argue for the rights of women if they already have it? And they always argue that Women can do EVERYTHING men can but i do not think that is true- men are born with a different body structure and our brains our wired differently.

Originally posted by PtballDan
Man i hate feminism. Women have equal rights RIGHT now! why would they continue to argue for the rights of women if they already have it? And they always argue that Women can do EVERYTHING men can but i do not think that is true- men are born with a different body structure and our brains our wired differently.

Women have the same rights as men formally (on paper), but not substantively.
That's the need for feminism. While according to law men and women are both equal, it is not so within society. There are many men and women alike who think there is an inherent inequality there.... That's the reason for feminism, because until people really think that men and women are equal then there is a chance of falling back into old ways, where women get the short end of the stick.

True enough, women can't do everything men can do, but that's not universally true. Some women can! Just as there are things men can't do, but women can.

If woman are so equal then lets vote one in as a president...i think its about time to turn the tables..

Originally posted by greenmansmind
If woman are so equal then lets vote one in as a president...i think its about time to turn the tables..

We may see something to this effect in 2008. Rumblings are being heard from Hillary Clinton and Liz Dole.

We may see something to this effect in 2008. Rumblings are being heard from Hillary Clinton and Liz Dole.

God help us...

IMHO we're screwed no matter what. Different people, same corrupted system.

hope so..i think we are ready for a balance between the masculine and femenine..it would be at least interesting to see..if anything would be different...thou something is telling me it does not matter if your male or female..or if your president..to me being a president seems like being a puppet ..now the string pullers should be female perhaps rather then the old fogies stuck in their narrow ways

so would a female president just be superficial and not worth a rats ass or a fiddlers fart?

meant to write ass after rat..what a jackass

Originally posted by greenmansmind


so would a female president just be superficial and not worth a rats ass or a fiddlers fart?

I don't know, but even if they were, it would be no worse than the last few men who've occupied the White House, who were and are certainly superficial, etc.

The current government is decadent, and both parties are to blame. And, IMO, it's only going to get worse until there is some real campaign finance reform, and the populace decides to educate itself on the issues that it's supposedly voting for (and against).

My favorites for 2008 are John Edwards and John McCain. I'd like to see a female contender, but I don't think Hillary or Liz are going to get enough support. Look for Obama to run in the near future, if not in 2008; if he decides to try, he'll be a favorite for the nomination.

Originally posted by parrhesia
.... That's the reason for feminism, because until people really think that men and women are equal then there is a chance of falling back into old ways, where women get the short end of the stick.

While there should be parity in the workplace, for example, I really don't think men and women are equals.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~

Akilles said:

and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration."

..........when pig's fly