The "Women's Liberation Movement" is a covert population control scheme.

Soon you’ll be able to nark on you neighbor if they get an abortion after 6 weeks and earn up to $10,000.

Who’ll be paying for that??

Edit to add will be of course happening in Texas.

Yay!!

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: Lumenari

Woman ran things since the beginning of time...
So they ran the world but still let men treat them as lesser and have less rights.

Well, if women did run things then they sure hated each other more than any man!

You've never been in a klatch of women dishing on each other have you? Not much gets meaner or more petty. There's a reason I prefer the company of men.

I don't want to understand women. Women understand women and they all hate each other.

Name that quote because I can't remember where the hell I heard it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

MGTOW probably has the best sandwiches.

Only if they're toasted...

Which they probably will be because men are the masters of fire. 🔥

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Annee

So tell us , oh wise one....
I didn't climb this mountain for nothing .
And I do know2 the meaning of life , so that is right out.
What IS selfish about having children ?

What isn't?

What is the meaning of life?

So you have 0 answers.
As usual.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Annee

So tell us , oh wise one....
I didn't climb this mountain for nothing .
And I do know2 the meaning of life , so that is right out.
What IS selfish about having children ?

What isn't?

What is the meaning of life?

So you have 0 answers.
As usual.

You mean you don’t like the answer given, so you decide it’s not an answer.

I get that a lot.

I state: “There is no unselfish reason to have a child” — self explanatory.

You state: “What IS selfish about having children ?”

You answer my question.

I came from a home where my Mom stayed home with me and my Dad worked. We were a typical middle class family. I always remember they weren't big fans of women's lib. And no, my Dad didn't abuse my Mom...if anything, she wore the pants. He was just laid back and rolled with stuff.

They did choose to have me, as I am adopted. She actually was the office manager of a major insurance company in the 60s (think Joan from Mad Men)and it just coincided the office was closing when I was adopted. She had the option of moving to the Memphis office and continuing her job there, but chose to stay home. My Dad worked 6 days a week at a job that was physical, but paid well compared to most. We never wanted for anything we needed, and had enough for eating out, travel, fun things in general.

It seems that an average middle class family can not really live on one income anymore, and hasn't been able to for many years. So now we have more people working, and more taxes being collected. Not to mention the destruction of the nuclear family. Even if the parents are married for 50 years, the way of life and the dynamics of said family aren't the same.

Now that I am middle-aged and far more educated and wiser because of my experiences in life, I find the women's lib movement was insidious, and today's iteration is utterly ridiculous. I always said if I couldn't afford to stay home with my child, I wouldn't have one. And I didn't.

Even Betty Friedan didn't anticipate the fallout on the American family structure that was a direct result of books like hers...'The Feminine Mystique', the waves of feminism, and the political arm NOW. It was poor foresight on her end, and she acknowledged she did not like what was happening.

No great insight here, just a Gen X woman's take on a topic that always makes my eyes roll involuntarily.

Procreation is as natural as breathing.
Being a (good) parent is one of the most selfless acts one can do.
What we're seeing more and more is a denial and subversion of our very nature.

a reply to: BabblingBlueBook
Just curious, how old are you?

Reason I ask is, I’m 75. I remember when gender roles were still forced. There were exceptions, but working women were subject to gender discrimination (and still are, at a lesser degree).

There were simple things, like being forced to wear dresses ro school. Not being able to play Little League (I did not want to be on the side cheering for the boys).

My first job interview I was asked if I was pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant. I was threatened with firing for having a run in my nylons.

Few today have researched what women went through to just be able to vote.

Women’s Lib is not a little thing. It’s not one woman’s opinion that some feel pushed too far.

originally posted by: zosimov
Procreation is as natural as breathing.
Being a (good) parent is one of the most selfless acts one can do.
What we're seeing more and more is a denial and subversion of our very nature.

Are you against birth control? Family planning? Do you believe we should be procreating like rabbits, as many kids as possible? Do you think everyone will inherently be a good parent? If someone doesn’t have the means to care for a child, should one anyway cuz it’s as natural as breathing ?

There many more miscarriages than abortions but y’all don’t show outrage at the lack of prenatal care in our country.

Funny that.

Vilifying a women for choosing not to have kids and calling that person selfish is downright disgusting. What would make a person so angry..

a reply to: knoxie

That's a lot to assume from a few words.



Let me ask you this: do you actually believe procreation is an unnatural act?

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: knoxie

That's a lot to assume from a few words.

Let me ask you this: do you actually believe procreation is an unnatural act?

We have gone way far beyond natural/nature with technology in all fields.

It’s not a reasonable position of debate.

a reply to: Annee

Wait... are you saying that due to human (natural) innovations, procreation is no longer a natural act?

Or what are you even saying here?

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: Annee

Wait... are you saying that due to human (natural) innovations, procreation is no longer a natural act?

Or what are you even saying here?

The discussion really isn’t about what is natural. Death of women from pregnancy is also natural.

From the OP: . . . as population increases, the need for resources increases and this is bad for the earth. It is all interconnected and based on the premise that due to industrialization, life expectancy increases and fertility decreases due to better birth control and other factors, but not enough to offset the increase in life expectancy to impact population negatively.

To tell the truth, Mother Nature is not smart. She is an opportunist, but no match for man.

originally posted by: Chalcedony
In 1972, The Club of Rome, in cooperation with Potomac Associates released a book entitled "The Limits of Growth". In this book the relationship between population and many societal factors is examined. The bottom line of the book is that as population increases, the need for resources increases and this is bad for the earth. It is all interconnected and based on the premise that due to industrialization, life expectancy increases and fertility decreases due to better birth control and other factors, but not enough to offset the increase in life expectancy to impact population negatively. They needed something more effective and in my opinion, "liberating women" was the next best thing. From page 114 of the book:

"The economist J.J Spangler has explained the general response of desired birth rate to income in terms of the economic and social changes that occur during the process of industrialization. He believes that each family, consciously or unconsciously weighs the value and cost of an additional child against the resources the family has available to devote to that child."

And

"The "cost" of a child includes the actual financial outlays necessary to supply the child's needs, the opportunity costs of the mother's time, and the increased responsibility and decreased freedom of the family as a whole."

The most interesting piece of this is the seeming admission that traditional society is better for raising children than the "modern society" but that "modern society" is better for birth control as stated here:

"The cost of children is very low in a traditional society. No additional living space is added to house a new child, little educational or medical care is available, clothing and food requirements are minimal. The mother is generally uneducated and assigns no value to her time. The family has little freedom to do anything a child would hinder, and the extended family structure is there to provide child care if it should become necessary, for example, for a parent to leave home and find a job."

This is just total nonsense. What does that even mean? The "family" doesn't have freedom to do things that will be hindered by a child? How is it even a family if there are no children? That would just be a couple. Or two people in a relationship. And the assumption that a mother places no value on her time because she would rather be home, taking care of her children and family than working. But this is all just warming you up for the good stuff....

"As family income increases, however, children are given more than the basic food and clothing requirements. They receive better housing and medical care, and education becomes both necessary and expensive. Travel, recreation and alternative employment for the mother become possibilities that are not compatible with a large family. The extended family structure tends to disappear with industrialization, and substitute child care is costly."

So basically, "women's liberation" was and is actually "women's enslavement". Divide and conquer. Those darn men keeping us down. Keeping us from working. Keeping us from earning our own, equal money. We demand men's jobs. We can do it! In this book they specifically talk about how this form of population decrease through industrialization will take a VERY long time.

Meanwhile, over generations the family structure is destroyed and people have less and less children because they don't have the time or money to have children because they are constantly working to feed the system. Practically everyone has to work or you can't afford to exist in this system. Day care, baby sitters. It is all ridiculously expensive. But you have to have it, unless you have that "extended family structure" to watch your children while you work. Many people I know spend a large portion of their paycheck on day care, just to be able to work in the first place! I blame Woodrow Wilson for all of this by the way.

This essay from the Brookings Institute talks about the history of women's work and wages.
www.brookings.edu...

"In the early 20th century, most women in the United States did not work outside the home, and those who did were primarily young and unmarried. In that era, just 20 percent of all women were “gainful workers,” as the Census Bureau then categorized labor force participation outside the home, and only 5 percent of those married were categorized as such."

Just throttle the food supply and you get the same results.

originally posted by: BabblingBlueBook


It seems that an average middle class family can not really live on one income anymore, and hasn't been able to for many years. So now we have more people working, and more taxes being collected. Not to mention the destruction of the nuclear family. Even if the parents are married for 50 years, the way of life and the dynamics of said family aren't the same.

That's because people listened to Libertarian nonsense, and ditched the minimum wage. (Or well... dropped the tarrifs meant to protect it from countries that don't have a minimum wage ..... which is identical in every way to ditching it...)

The natural course of a free market is for ALL prices to negotiate down to at or near the minimum possible production requirement.

For a worker, that means the minimum income you can live on, while providing the maximum number of hours. (Minimum cost per hour = total salary divided by hours provided for that salary.)

If there are two wage earners, then the maximum number of hours you can provide in exchange for bare subsistence just doubled.


In a "one variable world", that would be true economic success. Add any more than one variable, and it's true economic failure.

But we keep doing it. We keep voting for it. And.... we keep expecting something different to happen.......

But, it's not the fault of womens' lib. Or only half its fault. "One wage earner" ethic is similar to the "Saturdays and Sundays off" ethic. It prevents employers from negotiating too many hours out of you for bare subsistence. (And minimum wage also prevents that...for the same reason, and in the same way.)

originally posted by: zosimov
Procreation is as natural as breathing.
Being a (good) parent is one of the most selfless acts one can do.
What we're seeing more and more is a denial and subversion of our very nature.

There are plenty of unwanted kids out there you can adopt.

Unselfishness of raising children is a good point, but ultimately just dodging the question of the selfishness of biologically creating them.

It's in our DNA to want at least one copy of ourselves out there, because self replicating life forms are the ones evolution selects for. (It's not survival of the strongest. Not unless they are both strong and don't age.)

That said: something being selfish doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Just do it in moderation.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A person could imagine just as many selfish reasons not to have kids as there are selfish reasons for having them.

I'd say assuming people's motivations doesn't work very well anyway.

If a person wants to have a child, he/she should be just as free from judgement as those who don't. We're all here due to our parents' sacrifices, and I'm unselfishly raising a step-daughter and a son to be productive and loving members of a community.

originally posted by: Havamal
Maybe women just don't want to be dominated by men, like the last 150,000 years.

Was just going to post something like this. Yes, as a woman this has been a pretty crap life due to male dominance so not surprising women were on board to support the "women's liberation movement" . It's also not surprising that the root of the movement was MANipulated.

originally posted by: Chalcedony
a reply to: Havamal

Lol. I would love to go back to a time when a man stood when ladies entered the room and removed their hat. I would love to be respected and treated like a lady like women of the distant past. As the heart of the home. Respecting my husband as the provider and protector and a real man, supporting his family on his broad shoulders. .

That distant past was very dark for the majority of women despite the social manners of the day.

For those who turn up their noses at the words feminists and feminism or scoff that feminism is a dirty and utterly pointless word please read this and realize the following list is of NINE things a woman couldn’t do in 1971 – yes the date is correct 1971.

In 1971 a woman could not:

1. Get a Credit Card in her own name – it wasn’t until 1974 that a law forced credit card companies to issue cards to women without their husband’s signature.

2. Be guaranteed that they wouldn’t be unceremoniously fired for the offense of getting pregnant – that changed with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

3. Serve on a jury - It varied by state (Utah deemed women fit for jury duty way back in 1879), but the main reason women were kept out of jury pools was that they were considered the center of the home, which was their primary responsibility as caregivers. They were also thought to be too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses. In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida law that exempted women from serving on juries. It wasn't until 1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states.

4. Fight on the front lines – admitted into military academies in 1976 it wasn’t until 2013 that the military ban on women in combat was lifted. Prior to 1973 women were only allowed in the military as nurses or support staff.

5. Get an Ivy League education - Yale and Princeton didn't accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn't admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). Brown (which merged with women's college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but by and large, women in the '60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold.

6. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. Indeed the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977.

7. Decide not to have sex if their husband wanted to – spousal rape wasn’t criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Read that again...1993.

8. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man. Sex discrimination wasn’t outlawed in health insurance until 2010 and today many, including sitting elected officials at the Federal level, feel women don’t mind paying a little more. Again, that date was 2010.

9. Also, take the birth control pill: Issues like reproductive freedom and a woman's right to decide when and whether to have children were only just beginning to be openly discussed in the 1960s. In 1957, the FDA approved of the birth control pill but only for "severe menstrual distress." In 1960, the pill was approved for use as a contraceptive. Even so, the pill was illegal in some states and could be prescribed only to married women for purposes of family planning, and not all pharmacies stocked it. Some of those opposed said oral contraceptives were immoral, promoted prostitution and were tantamount to abortion. It wasn't until several years later that birth control was approved for use by all women, regardless of marital status. In short, birth control meant a woman could complete her education, enter the work force and plan her own life.