It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Women need to shut up and sit down
page: 9share:
Originally posted by LDragonFire
I’m not posting this to offend women. I don’t in anyway agree with the title of this thread, but from my research this is the opinion of the holy bible towards women. The conspiracy is that millions of women believe in the bible, but just how many know it’s view of them. I’m interested in the opinion of members and of women and of Christian women members regarding what the bible states.
This IMHO is disturbing to say the least. I personally enjoy a strong willed woman, that will not submit to me easily, but has a mind of her own, with her own opinions and strengths. To me the bible wishes you to be mindless and weak.
i don't find the bible's view disturbing in the least to be honest. if a woman is comfortable in her feminimity, she can understand that in some circumstances, it is best to sit down and shut up.
that is also where the husband/wife team is a beautiful idea. see, women tend to run off emotions and sometimes if we are lucky, this can work for good, but often it does not. this is why women should select a mate in which she can confide and trust to listen to her thoughts while helping her to apply those thoughts w/ wisdom.
in the bible, i personally took the "not wearing mens clothes" to be a figurative order. meaning that she should submit to her husband.
being submissive to a wise and thoughtful male is not a dishonor to women. we do not have the genetic make up to lead logically. we were meant to appreciate and honor which means that we can very much be biased in situations.
also, i think the having long hair is figurative as well, representing the submissiveness to your husband; however, i have longer hair literally bc it does represent my feminimity that i am not ashamed of, but rather proud of. i have my strengths, but my strengths all stem from me being female. i have no desire to take on the responsibility of a male (although being a single mother, i have HAD to do so in a sense..... but i maintain my humbleness as a woman).
all this to say though, i am not a christian, but just as w/ anything, i look beyond the surface writing to learn the deeper meanings.
Originally posted by dawnstar
that's funny, ain't never seen momma bear listen to papa bear tell her how to raise the cubs.
maybe I missed it?
really,
"papa bear" doesn't care how "moma bear" raises her cubs; it's not in his nature to. There's nothing to miss here, because it wouldn't happen.
. . . i've had several pets; ranging from tiny lizards, to bigger cats and dogs. With all these animals i observed the females being physically submissive to the males. With no exceptions. There are exceptions in the wild and amongst some creatures. But they are few and far between.
I think that if papa bear ever did try to spank the cub, momma bear would tear him apart, or die trying to!
Probably the latter because male bears are significantly stronger than the females; and she'll only try to protect them until her next hormone swing; when that happens, she'll actually force the cubs away from her.
[edit on 7/17/2008 by JPhish]
This certainly isn't practiced in any of the mainstream Christian churches which consider trying to practice 2000 year old,plus, abuses against the
human rights codes and know that not too many people would be attending. What I am questioning is your post. You stated you didn't wish to offend,
but I've just read 3 posts against women. Is this some kind of trend, with the possible election of Obama, and Canada, UK contending suddenly with
Sharia Law. In Canada it was slam dunked, but the nazi UK government allowed this barbaric, old-testament style crap that people should never have
faced even in millions of years of human history, to co-exist with their own laws though it violates their constitution. Give your head a freaking
shake, man.
[edit on 17-7-2008 by mystiq]
[edit on 17-7-2008 by mystiq]
reply to post by Copernicus
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
In "Commander in Chief," a new TV-series, President "Mackenzie Allen" (Geena Davis) juggles her responsibilities as Leader of the Free World and mother of teenage twins and a six-year-old-daughter. Her husband has a supporting role, her Chief-of-Staff.
This show prepares the public for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential bid. It also contributes to the false sense of entitlement young women have today, making it harder for them to form successful families.
The success of this behavior modification campaign in the media and education is confirmed by recent British statistics showing the rapid disintegration of the nuclear family. It is also confirmed by unprecedented sexual depravity exhibited by young women today, expressing their total confusion and despair. (I will elaborate below.)
The White House Project, a lobby dedicated to putting a woman in the White House, sponsored an advance screening of "Commander in Chief" in New York with the lead writer Stephen Cohen and prominent women journalists in attendance. The President of this organization, located at 110 Wall Street, Marie Wilson, is also co-founder of "Take Your Daughter to Work" organization.
Nearby at 120 Wall Street, you'll find "Girls Inc." an organization with chapters all over the US dedicated to making girls "strong, smart and bold." It encourages young girls to be self absorbed and ambitious and to make marriage and family their second priority.
Search "Girl Power" in Google and you'll get an assortment of these elite-sponsored projects. Type "Boy Power" and you'll find, "Lawn Boy Recalls Power Mower" and "Lazy Boy Introduces Power Recliner."
Only a subverted nation empowers its young females at the expense of its males. International finance is dedicated to destroying the nuclear family and submerging the US in a world dictatorship. As I will show later, this has been the Illuminist banker goal for 200 years. But first I will explain why "empowering" females leads to a breakdown of heterosexual marriage and family.
THE HETEROSEXUAL DYNAMIC
I do not believe that all young women must marry and have children. However this is the healthy and natural instinct of the vast majority, and is necessary for the perpetuation of society. To encourage them to pursue high-powered careers before they establish strong families is doing them and society a deliberate injustice.
Henry Kissinger once said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac."
Women are attracted to powerful men.
Powerful women repulse men.
Heterosexual marriage is based on a woman surrendering worldly power to a man who is dedicated to her and their children's welfare. Trust and surrender is the way a woman empowers and loves a man. This is the essence of heterosexual marriage. The man earns this trust through a patient process of courtship. The woman must consider her choice carefully.
When women challenge and usurp male leadership, marriages fall apart. Masculinity is defined by power. Give women power in an intimate relationship and you have "phallic" women and emasculated men. The glue is dissolved.
Femininity is defined by love and nurturing. To a degree, a woman sacrifices worldly ambition for her husband and children. Women get love by making this sacrifice. Men get love by accomplishments.
Young women no longer know how to sacrifice. By "empowering females" young women are conditioned to behave as males.
Everyone suffers as a consequence but women suffer most. Their lifespan averages 80 years yet their peak years of fertility (and sexual attraction) end around age 32. In other words, they have approximately 12 years to marry and start a family or they may be alone for almost 50 years. Men whose sexual attraction increases with age and confidence have more time.
A British actuarial study reported Friday that marriage is in terminal decline. In the period from 2003 until 2031, the proportion of those never married by age 45 is expected to rise from 14 to 40 per cent for males and nine to 35 per cent for females.
The statistics for children born-out-of-wedlock are devastating. "More than 42 of every 100 babies were born outside marriage last year...in 1994 the figure was 32 per cent and in the early 1970s it was less than 10 per cent."
According to the report, children brought up by married parents fare better than those raised by cohabiting or single parents. Yet the Illuminist UK government has abolished the married couples allowance and its tax credit system favors single parents.
FEMALE SEXUAL DESPAIR
"Girls Gone Raunch" a thoughtful article in Canada's Macleans magazine confirms that young women today equate female empowerment with sexual depravity. Encouraged to compete with men, and spurred by examples like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they have adopted a promiscuity more common to single males.
"I was pretty stunned by what I saw in high school students," said Ariel Levy, the author of a study. What she observed was girls everywhere, even at the most progressive schools, doing their best to look the "skankiest," trying to "look as slutty, willing and wanton" as they could. Snapping their thongs and baring their cleavages, these girls had astoundingly gone any sexist male one step better: they were treating themselves and each other like pieces of meat.
When Levy asked one high school student why she was dressed like that and told her that in her own day, "you would have been embarrassed, ostracized to look like that," she looked at me like I was absolutely from Mars and said, 'How did you get the guy? Charm?' "
If anything, admits Levy, women caught up in the "liberating" aspects of raunch "think of men as superior. Over and over again these women are telling me they want to be like a guy. It's really fascinating. It's fetishizing masculinity in the sense that maleness in this equation means smart, funny, capable, brave, sexually adventurous, all of that."
Levy is mystified that feminism which ostensibly aimed to give young women self-respect has resulted in their selling themselves like meat.
She shouldn't be surprised. Feminism was always about rejecting femininity and usurping the masculine role. Femininity is based on women's consecration to a future husband and family. Feminism taught them to be like men and have sex without love or commitment.
THE ILLUMINATI PROGRAM
"Free love" and the abolition of the family are main tenets of the Communist Manifesto(1848). The success of the Communist subversion of America is shown by our inability to comprehend that this has already taken place. Communism is a front for a scheme to assume control of the world by an ancient satanic cult backed by international bankers. They sponsor most of what ails the world today, including female empowerment.
The Rothschilds formed the modern form of this cult, the Illuminati, in 1776. Shortly afterward, defectors revealed the secret plans to subvert Western (Christian) civilization. On the subject of women, one Illuminati document explained:
"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...of standing up for themselves...it will cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration." (James Wardner, Unholy Alliances 1996, p.35)
Another Illuminati document, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1905) talks about eliminating the family and using democracy to manipulate and control the masses. "By cultivating in all a sense of self-importance, we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and its educational value...In this way we shall create a blind mighty force which will never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents..." (Protocol 10-5)
CONCLUSION
Obviously many people will do whatever they are told and imitate whatever is presented as "cool." They have not yet learned to distrust the media, government and education.
Female empowerment is a cruel hoax. It flatters and lures young women with money and recognition and paints marriage and family in a dreary light. Thus many women are deprived of a lifetime of love from husband and children.
The Illuminati-Communists advance their plan by a policy of divide-and-
rule: world war, class war, race war and now gender war. Crime, corruption, dysfunction and decadence are other weapons in their secret war waged on humanity.
The purpose of female empowerment is to dissolve the family and to increase our dependence on the media and government, which are both owned and controlled by agents of Illuminist bankers.
---
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
In "Commander in Chief," a new TV-series, President "Mackenzie Allen" (Geena Davis) juggles her responsibilities as Leader of the Free World and mother of teenage twins and a six-year-old-daughter. Her husband has a supporting role, her Chief-of-Staff.
This show prepares the public for Hillary Clinton's 2008 Presidential bid. It also contributes to the false sense of entitlement young women have today, making it harder for them to form successful families.
The success of this behavior modification campaign in the media and education is confirmed by recent British statistics showing the rapid disintegration of the nuclear family. It is also confirmed by unprecedented sexual depravity exhibited by young women today, expressing their total confusion and despair. (I will elaborate below.)
The White House Project, a lobby dedicated to putting a woman in the White House, sponsored an advance screening of "Commander in Chief" in New York with the lead writer Stephen Cohen and prominent women journalists in attendance. The President of this organization, located at 110 Wall Street, Marie Wilson, is also co-founder of "Take Your Daughter to Work" organization.
Nearby at 120 Wall Street, you'll find "Girls Inc." an organization with chapters all over the US dedicated to making girls "strong, smart and bold." It encourages young girls to be self absorbed and ambitious and to make marriage and family their second priority.
Search "Girl Power" in Google and you'll get an assortment of these elite-sponsored projects. Type "Boy Power" and you'll find, "Lawn Boy Recalls Power Mower" and "Lazy Boy Introduces Power Recliner."
Only a subverted nation empowers its young females at the expense of its males. International finance is dedicated to destroying the nuclear family and submerging the US in a world dictatorship. As I will show later, this has been the Illuminist banker goal for 200 years. But first I will explain why "empowering" females leads to a breakdown of heterosexual marriage and family.
THE HETEROSEXUAL DYNAMIC
I do not believe that all young women must marry and have children. However this is the healthy and natural instinct of the vast majority, and is necessary for the perpetuation of society. To encourage them to pursue high-powered careers before they establish strong families is doing them and society a deliberate injustice.
Henry Kissinger once said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac."
Women are attracted to powerful men.
Powerful women repulse men.
Heterosexual marriage is based on a woman surrendering worldly power to a man who is dedicated to her and their children's welfare. Trust and surrender is the way a woman empowers and loves a man. This is the essence of heterosexual marriage. The man earns this trust through a patient process of courtship. The woman must consider her choice carefully.
When women challenge and usurp male leadership, marriages fall apart. Masculinity is defined by power. Give women power in an intimate relationship and you have "phallic" women and emasculated men. The glue is dissolved.
Femininity is defined by love and nurturing. To a degree, a woman sacrifices worldly ambition for her husband and children. Women get love by making this sacrifice. Men get love by accomplishments.
Young women no longer know how to sacrifice. By "empowering females" young women are conditioned to behave as males.
Everyone suffers as a consequence but women suffer most. Their lifespan averages 80 years yet their peak years of fertility (and sexual attraction) end around age 32. In other words, they have approximately 12 years to marry and start a family or they may be alone for almost 50 years. Men whose sexual attraction increases with age and confidence have more time.
A British actuarial study reported Friday that marriage is in terminal decline. In the period from 2003 until 2031, the proportion of those never married by age 45 is expected to rise from 14 to 40 per cent for males and nine to 35 per cent for females.
The statistics for children born-out-of-wedlock are devastating. "More than 42 of every 100 babies were born outside marriage last year...in 1994 the figure was 32 per cent and in the early 1970s it was less than 10 per cent."
According to the report, children brought up by married parents fare better than those raised by cohabiting or single parents. Yet the Illuminist UK government has abolished the married couples allowance and its tax credit system favors single parents.
FEMALE SEXUAL DESPAIR
"Girls Gone Raunch" a thoughtful article in Canada's Macleans magazine confirms that young women today equate female empowerment with sexual depravity. Encouraged to compete with men, and spurred by examples like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, they have adopted a promiscuity more common to single males.
"I was pretty stunned by what I saw in high school students," said Ariel Levy, the author of a study. What she observed was girls everywhere, even at the most progressive schools, doing their best to look the "skankiest," trying to "look as slutty, willing and wanton" as they could. Snapping their thongs and baring their cleavages, these girls had astoundingly gone any sexist male one step better: they were treating themselves and each other like pieces of meat.
When Levy asked one high school student why she was dressed like that and told her that in her own day, "you would have been embarrassed, ostracized to look like that," she looked at me like I was absolutely from Mars and said, 'How did you get the guy? Charm?' "
If anything, admits Levy, women caught up in the "liberating" aspects of raunch "think of men as superior. Over and over again these women are telling me they want to be like a guy. It's really fascinating. It's fetishizing masculinity in the sense that maleness in this equation means smart, funny, capable, brave, sexually adventurous, all of that."
Levy is mystified that feminism which ostensibly aimed to give young women self-respect has resulted in their selling themselves like meat.
She shouldn't be surprised. Feminism was always about rejecting femininity and usurping the masculine role. Femininity is based on women's consecration to a future husband and family. Feminism taught them to be like men and have sex without love or commitment.
THE ILLUMINATI PROGRAM
"Free love" and the abolition of the family are main tenets of the Communist Manifesto(1848). The success of the Communist subversion of America is shown by our inability to comprehend that this has already taken place. Communism is a front for a scheme to assume control of the world by an ancient satanic cult backed by international bankers. They sponsor most of what ails the world today, including female empowerment.
The Rothschilds formed the modern form of this cult, the Illuminati, in 1776. Shortly afterward, defectors revealed the secret plans to subvert Western (Christian) civilization. On the subject of women, one Illuminati document explained:
"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...of standing up for themselves...it will cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration." (James Wardner, Unholy Alliances 1996, p.35)
Another Illuminati document, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1905) talks about eliminating the family and using democracy to manipulate and control the masses. "By cultivating in all a sense of self-importance, we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and its educational value...In this way we shall create a blind mighty force which will never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents..." (Protocol 10-5)
CONCLUSION
Obviously many people will do whatever they are told and imitate whatever is presented as "cool." They have not yet learned to distrust the media, government and education.
Female empowerment is a cruel hoax. It flatters and lures young women with money and recognition and paints marriage and family in a dreary light. Thus many women are deprived of a lifetime of love from husband and children.
The Illuminati-Communists advance their plan by a policy of divide-and-
rule: world war, class war, race war and now gender war. Crime, corruption, dysfunction and decadence are other weapons in their secret war waged on humanity.
The purpose of female empowerment is to dissolve the family and to increase our dependence on the media and government, which are both owned and controlled by agents of Illuminist bankers.
---
wanted to say as a woman and having come, through experience, to learn what is my nature, i concur w/ the following things whole heartedly!!
written by swingarm btw:
no doubt women are manipulative and the source of much trouble when they don't understand first the true nature of their female selves.
VERY TRUE!!! for me, this "dating" scene the 2nd time around has taken on a whole new meaning. as i have stated before, the falling apart of my marriage does not fall squarely on my shoulders, but i would be stupid to waste my time blaming him and not recognizing where I WENT WRONG. and where i went wrong was to think that i had the emotional capability to take on leadership qualities w/in my family.
this time around, i will not settle for what i think i know, but rather i will remain single until i find someone who exerts authority in a quiet manner. someone who is willing to lead and someone i will be willing to follow.
i realize my vulnerabilities as a woman and actually take quite pride in them bc those vulnerabilities are also what will (and should have the first time around) make me a good wife. i am by no means stupid and lacking good opinions, but i am also extremely passionate and need to keep those passions (although legit as they may be) in check w/ logic and rationality (which is hard for a woman bc we are all about emotions).
absolutely!! as someone said in the thread that has since vanished, women help to dissolve apathy in men. why has this become something to be so ashamed of in this society?
being in submission to a man of wisdom and true strength is hardly a failure for a woman, but rather it is a fulfilling of our purpose in life.
sad but true, especially in light of modern day feminism. to pursue a successful career rather than a family is something that has left women (the honest ones will testify to this) feeling empty and unfulfilled in the long run. why would i want to have to compete w/ a man when i have my "duties" to fulfill?
i may have been "right" in my failed marriage, but am i happy w/ the results? no...... i am left to not only fulfill my duties, but now left to fulfill his duties. hardly worth "proving a point."
THE TRUTH!! if you are a young woman, do not be offended by this, but rather take these words to heart and understand where your beauty as a female lies; not in proving you can have power, but by teaching the next generation where their power lies!!
written by swingarm btw:
To encourage them to pursue high-powered careers before they establish strong families is doing them and society a deliberate injustice.
no doubt women are manipulative and the source of much trouble when they don't understand first the true nature of their female selves.
Heterosexual marriage is based on a woman surrendering worldly power to a man who is dedicated to her and their children's welfare. Trust and surrender is the way a woman empowers and loves a man. This is the essence of heterosexual marriage. The man earns this trust through a patient process of courtship. The woman must consider her choice carefully.
VERY TRUE!!! for me, this "dating" scene the 2nd time around has taken on a whole new meaning. as i have stated before, the falling apart of my marriage does not fall squarely on my shoulders, but i would be stupid to waste my time blaming him and not recognizing where I WENT WRONG. and where i went wrong was to think that i had the emotional capability to take on leadership qualities w/in my family.
this time around, i will not settle for what i think i know, but rather i will remain single until i find someone who exerts authority in a quiet manner. someone who is willing to lead and someone i will be willing to follow.
i realize my vulnerabilities as a woman and actually take quite pride in them bc those vulnerabilities are also what will (and should have the first time around) make me a good wife. i am by no means stupid and lacking good opinions, but i am also extremely passionate and need to keep those passions (although legit as they may be) in check w/ logic and rationality (which is hard for a woman bc we are all about emotions).
When women challenge and usurp male leadership, marriages fall apart. Masculinity is defined by power. Give women power in an intimate relationship and you have "phallic" women and emasculated men. The glue is dissolved.
Femininity is defined by love and nurturing. To a degree, a woman sacrifices worldly ambition for her husband and children. Women get love by making this sacrifice. Men get love by accomplishments.
absolutely!! as someone said in the thread that has since vanished, women help to dissolve apathy in men. why has this become something to be so ashamed of in this society?
being in submission to a man of wisdom and true strength is hardly a failure for a woman, but rather it is a fulfilling of our purpose in life.
Everyone suffers as a consequence but women suffer most. Their lifespan averages 80 years yet their peak years of fertility (and sexual attraction) end around age 32. In other words, they have approximately 12 years to marry and start a family or they may be alone for almost 50 years. Men whose sexual attraction increases with age and confidence have more time.
sad but true, especially in light of modern day feminism. to pursue a successful career rather than a family is something that has left women (the honest ones will testify to this) feeling empty and unfulfilled in the long run. why would i want to have to compete w/ a man when i have my "duties" to fulfill?
i may have been "right" in my failed marriage, but am i happy w/ the results? no...... i am left to not only fulfill my duties, but now left to fulfill his duties. hardly worth "proving a point."
Female empowerment is a cruel hoax. It flatters and lures young women with money and recognition and paints marriage and family in a dreary light. Thus many women are deprived of a lifetime of love from husband and children.
THE TRUTH!! if you are a young woman, do not be offended by this, but rather take these words to heart and understand where your beauty as a female lies; not in proving you can have power, but by teaching the next generation where their power lies!!
reply to post by justamomma
Your post was great. Thank you for your beautiful feminine articulation . Many men are looking for a good woman like yourself.
As far as the bible goes it seems to me you can bring up many examples of eye for an eye type stuff being said. Things said getting right to the lowest common denominator. I don't think it's anything to get to excited about.
example , Jesus said
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
-Luke 19:27
Yikes, what is this all about ? sounds barbaric. shall we throw away his teachings ?
There are all kinds of weird things going on in the bible. Lots of UFO references and possible genetic manipulation. It's no surprise why the book of Enoch was removed from the books of the bible there's loads of interesting stuff in there. Thats a book worth reading.
[edit on 17-7-2008 by Swingarm]
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
Your post was great. Thank you for your beautiful feminine articulation . Many men are looking for a good woman like yourself.
As far as the bible goes it seems to me you can bring up many examples of eye for an eye type stuff being said. Things said getting right to the lowest common denominator. I don't think it's anything to get to excited about.
example , Jesus said
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
-Luke 19:27
Yikes, what is this all about ? sounds barbaric. shall we throw away his teachings ?
There are all kinds of weird things going on in the bible. Lots of UFO references and possible genetic manipulation. It's no surprise why the book of Enoch was removed from the books of the bible there's loads of interesting stuff in there. Thats a book worth reading.
[edit on 17-7-2008 by Swingarm]
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
Female empowerment is a cruel hoax. It flatters and lures young women with money and recognition and paints marriage and family in a dreary light.
Thus many women are deprived of a lifetime of love from husband and children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and many women have been deprived of much more by overly male-dominated society throughout the ages.
what don't yous get....."Obey your husband in ALL THINGS."....
if he tells you you should never go outside again, then you should never go outside again.
if he says that he doesn't want you going to church anymore, then you should not be going to church.
if he says that he doesn't want you on the internet, then you shouldn't be posting posts here!
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
another thing Jesus said...
His sheep know his voice, and only him do they follow. Who are you following? Him, or your husband?
women are born into the world with just as much power as the men, unfortunately, they are surrendering it to the wrong person!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and many women have been deprived of much more by overly male-dominated society throughout the ages.
what don't yous get....."Obey your husband in ALL THINGS."....
if he tells you you should never go outside again, then you should never go outside again.
if he says that he doesn't want you going to church anymore, then you should not be going to church.
if he says that he doesn't want you on the internet, then you shouldn't be posting posts here!
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
another thing Jesus said...
His sheep know his voice, and only him do they follow. Who are you following? Him, or your husband?
women are born into the world with just as much power as the men, unfortunately, they are surrendering it to the wrong person!
Originally posted by dawnstar
what don't yous get....."Obey your husband in ALL THINGS."....
if he tells you you should never go outside again, then you should never go outside again.
if he says that he doesn't want you going to church anymore, then you should not be going to church.
if he says that he doesn't want you on the internet, then you shouldn't be posting posts here!
I guess women should choose their husbands more wisely, instead of just marrying the first guy that knocks them up? Because where I live, it seems to be the trend. It’s really sad. I wouldn’t want to trust someone either, if the only reason I was married to them was because I thought they were a hot number one night . . . This of course is an extreme (yet HIGHLY common) example of people being married when they shouldn't be.
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
G*d gave everything free will . . . it’s not a big deal. If you choose to obey someone, you are willingly obeying that person. Your free will is still there.
another thing Jesus said...
His sheep know his voice, and only him do they follow. Who are you following? Him, or your husband?
Again . . . if you’ve married someone whom you would not trust to direct your life, there is already an inherent problem . . .
women are born into the world with just as much power as the men, unfortunately, they are surrendering it to the wrong person!
No, they’re not actually. A don't believe a man could ever bear a child . . . therefore men do not have as much power as women, in this regard. And if you don't think that is power, watch the movie "Children of Men". It paints a pretty good picture of what would happen to the world if women no longer possessed this power . . .
Please lose this PC bit that everyone is equal, because quite frankly, it’s BS. Neither the sexes, nor the individuals that compose them are equal . . .
[edit on 7/18/2008 by JPhish]
I've always been amused by the belief that women are weaker because Eve gave in to the Devil.
I look at the seduction like this.
Adam and Eve are created innocent,they know nothing of evil so therefore they have no understanding of how to resist it.
The Devil,Lucifer,one of the most powerful Angels tempts Eve.Her,having no knowledge of evil and facing a supremely powerful being,decides to follow his suggestion.
Enjoying the fruit of the tree Eve decides to share with Adam.
Adam is a man,and therefore superior to the Eve.She is weak,lives off her emotions etc,but that doesn't stop Adam from following her suggestion to try the fruit.
So,who is the stronger?
Eve,in the face of a powerful being,or Adam in the face of woman?
To give into a stronger opponent is not weakness,but giving into a weaker opponent is.
Another way to look at it,if Eve hadn't eaten the fruit we wouldn't be where we are now.We would have no free will,Jesus would be obsolete,we wouldn't know real joy because we wouldn't know sorry so therefore we would have no comparison,our love for God would be shallow because we didn't choose to love him we were created that way....the list is endless.
I agree with dawnstar's statement;
It is impossible to have free will if you submit yourself to another person.
And if we are all created equal then no one should be made to submit to another.
Galatians 3:26-29
1 Corinthians 12:13-14
As Paul is the author behind some of the quotes in the OP,some of you may find this link interesting.
www.fordham.edu...
Its the full apocryphal text of the Acts of Paul & Thecla.
Thecla was a apostle,thats right,apostle and she was also a martyr.She traveled with Paul and she taught men and women alike.She was just 1 of many.
Its also interesting to note that in 352-Council of Laodicea decreed that women were no longer to be ordained.Up to that point it was obviously acceptable to have female priests and have them teach.
But sometime in the 14th century Bishop Pelagio complains to the Vatican that women are still being ordained and hearing confessions.
So,it looks like we have possible mis-translation,mis-understanding and manipulation of several Bible verses pertaining to women.For if women were to remain silent and were have no authority over men,why did the ordaining of women start and last for so long? (and originally with the support of the Holy See.)
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
I look at the seduction like this.
Adam and Eve are created innocent,they know nothing of evil so therefore they have no understanding of how to resist it.
The Devil,Lucifer,one of the most powerful Angels tempts Eve.Her,having no knowledge of evil and facing a supremely powerful being,decides to follow his suggestion.
Enjoying the fruit of the tree Eve decides to share with Adam.
Adam is a man,and therefore superior to the Eve.She is weak,lives off her emotions etc,but that doesn't stop Adam from following her suggestion to try the fruit.
So,who is the stronger?
Eve,in the face of a powerful being,or Adam in the face of woman?
To give into a stronger opponent is not weakness,but giving into a weaker opponent is.
Another way to look at it,if Eve hadn't eaten the fruit we wouldn't be where we are now.We would have no free will,Jesus would be obsolete,we wouldn't know real joy because we wouldn't know sorry so therefore we would have no comparison,our love for God would be shallow because we didn't choose to love him we were created that way....the list is endless.
I agree with dawnstar's statement;
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
It is impossible to have free will if you submit yourself to another person.
And if we are all created equal then no one should be made to submit to another.
Galatians 3:26-29
All are equal.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
1 Corinthians 12:13-14
All are equal.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.14 For the body is not one member, but many.
As Paul is the author behind some of the quotes in the OP,some of you may find this link interesting.
www.fordham.edu...
Its the full apocryphal text of the Acts of Paul & Thecla.
Thecla was a apostle,thats right,apostle and she was also a martyr.She traveled with Paul and she taught men and women alike.She was just 1 of many.
Its also interesting to note that in 352-Council of Laodicea decreed that women were no longer to be ordained.Up to that point it was obviously acceptable to have female priests and have them teach.
But sometime in the 14th century Bishop Pelagio complains to the Vatican that women are still being ordained and hearing confessions.
So,it looks like we have possible mis-translation,mis-understanding and manipulation of several Bible verses pertaining to women.For if women were to remain silent and were have no authority over men,why did the ordaining of women start and last for so long? (and originally with the support of the Holy See.)
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
Originally posted by dawnstar
and many women have been deprived of much more by overly male-dominated society throughout the ages.
what don't yous get....."Obey your husband in ALL THINGS."....
if he tells you you should never go outside again, then you should never go outside again.
if he says that he doesn't want you going to church anymore, then you should not be going to church.
if he says that he doesn't want you on the internet, then you shouldn't be posting posts here!
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
another thing Jesus said...
His sheep know his voice, and only him do they follow. Who are you following? Him, or your husband?
women are born into the world with just as much power as the men, unfortunately, they are surrendering it to the wrong person!
you should be wise in choosing a husband. of course you don't want to end up w/ a man who would abuse your submission (if you so choose to follow your true female self) to him. a wise and thoughtful man is a good leader and a wise and humble woman a good chooser .
You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership. ~ eisenhower
i have male friends and i always ask for advice before pursuing anything of interest bc men are better able to assess the pros and cons better than women.
take for example rosa parks. everyone thinks of her as a "great leader" and even she said that day she refused to move on the bus was not a decision she weighed out thoughtfully in her head. she was NOT thinking "i am making a statement." she was tired and cranky and although her emotionally based act brought about good changes, she herself admitted that it VERY easily could have gone a negative route and only thanks God for the results that happened.
esther in the bible was another prime example of a misunderstood woman who most cite as a "savior of the jews." yes AND no, if you read the story, you will see was following the orders of her cousin, mordecai. she also didn't just ACT OUT HER PASSIONS (as she would have done if she had been a typical modern day woman), but rather she appealed to her husband in a humble and unassuming manner. it was because she recognized her role as a female and conformed to that role that the jews were saved.
understand your place and LOVE your place. women DO have the capacity to change the world, but this new path chosen by our predecessors, although it HAS ushered in change, has ushered in change for the worse.
there is confusion in both genders as to what the roles are now. women challenge men thus knocking out their basic desire to be "leader of the pack" and the whole system is falling apart.
consider the following if you will:
I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career. ~ gloria steinem
The basic discovery about any people is the discovery of the relationship between its men and its women. ~ pearl s buck
Campaign behavior for wives: Always be on time. Do as little talking as humanly possible. Lean back in the parade car so everybody can see the president. ~ eleanor roosevelt (this is a beautiful depiction of a humble wife who understood her role... nothing to be ashamed of as you are being brainwashed to be)
and as jaqueline kennedy onassis said "I am a woman above everything else."
one more piece of food for thought........ i hear a lot of women complaining that men are only looking at them as a "sex object."
this is true overall in society bc it is all that we are giving to them now that has any meaning to them. we take away the value of what a man is by trying to compete. if we are getting everything ourselves (money, career, power, blah blah), what is left for them to give us? resentment and sex.
women have turned the tables on men. some felt their "womanly value" had been detracted from, so rather than handling it in a sufficient and wise manner that didn't deter from their feminimity, we have in a sense devalued men in their roles becoming more masculine in the process .
thus again, the whole system is corrupt and it is time for a do over in the right way not only for the sake of each gender, but for the sake of our children and their future!!
[edit on 18-7-2008 by justamomma]
Originally posted by jakyll
I agree with dawnstar's statement;
God gave men and women free will! ain't no one ever gonna tell me that he would then expect women to surrender that free will over to another human being.
It is impossible to have free will if you submit yourself to another person.
And if we are all created equal then no one should be made to submit to another.
this is an absurd line of logic. (and this stated by a woman )
the act of submission is itself an act of free will. i am not advocating "forced submission" (although i really don't even believe there is such a thing..... sometimes the consequences though make ppl think they have no choice but there is ALWAYS a choice).
what i am advocating is for women to wise up to their role in nature and freely submit, not to EVERY man and not to just ANY man, but to ONE man that will lovingly guide her and his family.
look at the consequences of choosing through free will not to submit as women to our husbands and choosing to PROVE we can do everything they can.
not only do we have our roles, but now we have ADDED roles. there are more stressed out women on the verges of melt downs trying to keep up w/ this ideal we have placed on ourselves. men as a whole are reacting in two ways, both of which are dangerous to our society as a whole
either they are giving up and being submissive thus taking away from the backbone we need in this country or they are becoming overly aggressive which is more of a danger to women than just submitting to there role as a female.
free will still exists for the submissive wife who was wise in choosing a patient but decisive husband..... the difference btw the smart submissive woman and the woman who is proving that she can do it all is the submissive woman is content and less stressed.
a woman who is patient in waiting for a man of true character and then is submissive to her husband has greater strength and courage than a woman who claws and fights her way to the top.
men and women alike value her character far more than the woman who proves she can do what a man can do.
we have men to fill the roles of men........ what we really need are women who are WILLING to fill the role of being a woman.
reply to post by justamomma
Brilliant!! Star here, your very much more than just a momma in my books.
This is the solution to battle of the sexes. There is no battle, only manipulation from the PTB. It's well known Gloria Steinman former CIA used feminism to destabilize society.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
Brilliant!! Star here, your very much more than just a momma in my books.
This is the solution to battle of the sexes. There is no battle, only manipulation from the PTB. It's well known Gloria Steinman former CIA used feminism to destabilize society.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
reply to post by justamomma
As soon as you submit your will is not your own.
The only way to get it back is to say,i will no longer submit.
If Jesus tells us we are all equal,who is Paul,Timothy or any of us to go against that?
Men and women should be allowed to choose what they want to do in life.
If they have the ability,intelligence,strength etc then no one has any right to hold them back.
I know many women who are "smart submissive" and they get stressed just as much as any other woman.
The only way men and women differ is in the physical.Sexual organs,ability to bear children and body strength.Brain wise we are exactly the same.We can learn and understand the same things,we all have the same abilities and mental capacity.What matters is those who get to use it/have the oppertunity to use it,and those who don't.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
the act of submission is itself an act of free will.
As soon as you submit your will is not your own.
The only way to get it back is to say,i will no longer submit.
If Jesus tells us we are all equal,who is Paul,Timothy or any of us to go against that?
Men and women should be allowed to choose what they want to do in life.
If they have the ability,intelligence,strength etc then no one has any right to hold them back.
free will still exists for the submissive wife who was wise in choosing a patient but decisive husband..... the difference btw the smart submissive woman and the woman who is proving that she can do it all is the submissive woman is content and less stressed.
I know many women who are "smart submissive" and they get stressed just as much as any other woman.
i have male friends and i always ask for advice before pursuing anything of interest bc men are better able to assess the pros and cons better than women.
The only way men and women differ is in the physical.Sexual organs,ability to bear children and body strength.Brain wise we are exactly the same.We can learn and understand the same things,we all have the same abilities and mental capacity.What matters is those who get to use it/have the oppertunity to use it,and those who don't.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
Originally posted by jakyll
As soon as you submit your will is not your own.
The only way to get it back is to say,i will no longer submit.
If Jesus tells us we are all equal,who is Paul,Timothy or any of us to go against that?
fine... i won't argue the first point. everyone will submit to something so ultimately it all just a choice of who you will submit to.
and i am not saying that woman are not equal as human beings, but our roles are so obviously not equal. each role is significant in its own right. so the fact that women want to prove they can fill a man's role is to me more of an offense to my feminimity than a woman who understands and fulfills her roles.
yes, we have the choice to pursue outside of our roles, and we HAVE....... has this really been a good thing? tell me the positive things that have come out of this modern day feminism please.
seems to me there are a bunch of stressed out bitchy women and men who are weak pansies or arrogant *snip*holes.
my qualm has nothing so much to do w/ a woman, whose husband is in agreeance to help her in her pursuing a career or a woman who has to work to help her family.... it is the overall mentality that women are just as good in filling the roles of male leadership as a man is.
a man cannot fill the role of woman in the same way as her. obviously he can't have kids and generally he isn't as nurturing.
there are exceptions to this rule, but the exceptions are being crammed down society's throat to BECOME the rule.
we are weaker and things will get worse if we are feeding and buying into this idea that our roles are equal to that of men.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by justamomma]
Originally posted by jakyll
I know many women who are "smart submissive" and they get stressed just as much as any other woman.
i have male friends and i always ask for advice before pursuing anything of interest bc men are better able to assess the pros and cons better than women.
The only way men and women differ is in the physical.Sexual organs,ability to bear children and body strength.Brain wise we are exactly the same.We can learn and understand the same things,we all have the same abilities and mental capacity.What matters is those who get to use it/have the oppertunity to use it,and those who don't.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by jakyll]
snuck some more points in on me lol
to your first point: i do as well i will admit. my sister being one of them. and this is bc her husband doesn't value her role as a woman either. he thinks she should stay in the career that she was building (using good ethics mind you) before he came along w/ his two children.
she is first to admit that she was only building that career bc she hadn't met anyone she wanted to be with until him. now she wants to take care of her new family and yet he is still buying into the modern day feminism.
she is very stressed trying to do it all. however, she is being wise and submitting while trying, in the right way to show him how effective and less stressed she would be as a wife and mother were she allowed to let go of the career.
i didn't say they would never NOT experience stress, but overall they will be less stressful and more content.
and to your 2nd point. often time women are actually MORE intelligent than men...... but you missed a key difference.... hormones!! lol
that is why women are best running their thoughts through the eyes of a man they trust and admire bc quite often women can act irrationally despite our intelligent nature.
what you seem to be missing in understanding is the balance that men and women bring to each other in their designed roles.
reply to post by justamomma
Thats just an idea forced onto society.Men can be just as nuturing as women,but for so long they have been told they can't.They can also be just as good at raising kids as women can be.
It was once believed that women's brains were smaller than mens,that they didn't have the capacity for knowledge like men.But once given the oppertunity it was proved that women were just the same when it came to learning.
Ideas that come from the minority have always been pushed/forced onto the majority,but it doesn't make them right.
Men and women are both capable of wonderful things,but society keeps them apart by defining roles that don't need to be there,some of them anyways.
No one needs to submit to anyone.
As soon as mankind realises that life and marriage are equal,that we can break down the barriers that seperate the sexes,that men and womens opinions and decisions are of equal value etc,the better the world will be.
As the saying goes;Women are from Earth,Men are from Earth,Get used to it.
a man cannot fill the role of woman in the same way as her. obviously he can't have kids and generally he isn't as nurturing.
Thats just an idea forced onto society.Men can be just as nuturing as women,but for so long they have been told they can't.They can also be just as good at raising kids as women can be.
It was once believed that women's brains were smaller than mens,that they didn't have the capacity for knowledge like men.But once given the oppertunity it was proved that women were just the same when it came to learning.
Ideas that come from the minority have always been pushed/forced onto the majority,but it doesn't make them right.
Men and women are both capable of wonderful things,but society keeps them apart by defining roles that don't need to be there,some of them anyways.
No one needs to submit to anyone.
As soon as mankind realises that life and marriage are equal,that we can break down the barriers that seperate the sexes,that men and womens opinions and decisions are of equal value etc,the better the world will be.
As the saying goes;Women are from Earth,Men are from Earth,Get used to it.
reply to post by justamomma
Yes,men have them too.
There is no difference.
Again,societies perceptions effect are attitudes.
and to your 2nd point. often time women are actually MORE intelligent than men...... but you missed a key difference.... hormones!! lol
Yes,men have them too.
There is no difference.
Again,societies perceptions effect are attitudes.
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 27, 2003
(Reader's Note: This summer I am revising important articles that predated my web site.)
"Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy ... The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp."
--George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.
Betty Friedan, the "founder of modern feminism" pretended to be a typical 1950's American mother who had a "revelation" that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.
What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn't say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See "The Communist Manifesto" (1848).
Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States." In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority "seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals."
Betty Frieden doesn't want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her "revelation." She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of "Red-baiting."
Why? Because her book "The Feminist Mystique" (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge -- pretending to be just like us. This is the "Popular Front" strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.
Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920's and 1930's and referred to them as "my innocents clubs". He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities ("fellow travellers.")
In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg "was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the 'enlightened' moral agenda of his era." (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)
In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:
"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break." (Koch, p. 220)
Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic "Popular Front." The very name, "the woman's movement" and claim to be for "equality" are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family "a cornerstone of women's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." ("Feminist Politics and Human Nature," 1988)
The "Congress of American Women," a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a "foreign agent" by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the "CAW's agenda prefigured much of the modern women's movement that emerged in the sixties." (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)
The FBI kept tabs on the "Women's movement" but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.
"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive." (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, "The Broken Hearth" p.13)
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?
The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.
Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a "new world order" (a.k.a. "globalization") in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
July 27, 2003
(Reader's Note: This summer I am revising important articles that predated my web site.)
"Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy ... The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp."
--George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.
Betty Friedan, the "founder of modern feminism" pretended to be a typical 1950's American mother who had a "revelation" that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.
What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn't say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See "The Communist Manifesto" (1848).
Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States." In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority "seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals."
Betty Frieden doesn't want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her "revelation." She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of "Red-baiting."
Why? Because her book "The Feminist Mystique" (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge -- pretending to be just like us. This is the "Popular Front" strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.
Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920's and 1930's and referred to them as "my innocents clubs". He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities ("fellow travellers.")
In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg "was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the 'enlightened' moral agenda of his era." (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)
In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:
"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break." (Koch, p. 220)
Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic "Popular Front." The very name, "the woman's movement" and claim to be for "equality" are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family "a cornerstone of women's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." ("Feminist Politics and Human Nature," 1988)
The "Congress of American Women," a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a "foreign agent" by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the "CAW's agenda prefigured much of the modern women's movement that emerged in the sixties." (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)
The FBI kept tabs on the "Women's movement" but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.
"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive." (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, "The Broken Hearth" p.13)
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?
The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.
Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a "new world order" (a.k.a. "globalization") in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.
[edit on 18-7-2008 by Swingarm]
The bible was written in those ancient times and the stories were portrayed in that era or time. Time has changed and so have women and to use bible
logic of a different age in 2008 is absurd and for all women out there, " shout it! shout it out loud that you will not be denied freedom of speech
whether it be in a church or on the street.
American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
October 3, 2001
"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men." Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's
movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movementwas becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
October 3, 2001
"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men." Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's
movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movementwas becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and is obsessed with imposing a political concept like "equality" on a personal, sexual and mystical relationship.
Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination ("education") and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
Why they don't believe in free speech, refuse to debate, and suppress dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
new topics
-
A Flash of Beauty: Bigfoot Revealed ( documentary )
Cryptozoology: 5 hours ago -
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago, 7 flags -
A Flash of Beauty: Bigfoot Revealed ( documentary )
Cryptozoology: 5 hours ago, 5 flags -
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics: 15 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Steering the Titantic from the Drydock.
Rant • 47 • : andy06shake -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 87 • : bastion -
Planned Civil War In Britain May Be Triggered Soon
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 30 • : andy06shake -
Regent Street in #London has been evacuated due to a “bomb threat.”
Other Current Events • 8 • : TimBurr -
A Flash of Beauty: Bigfoot Revealed ( documentary )
Cryptozoology • 3 • : BeyondKnowledge3 -
Fire insurance in LA withdrawn months ago
General Conspiracies • 23 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial
US Political Madness • 86 • : Flyingclaydisk -
The Truth about Migrant Crime in Britain.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 44 • : angelchemuel -
My personal experiences and understanding of orbs
Aliens and UFOs • 41 • : WeMustCare -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3982 • : WeMustCare