Empowering the female and the war against families – Agenda 21 at work

Empowering the female and the war against families – Agenda 21 at work

Female headed households with working women are an important element to achieve 2 main goals:

1. Government control – Female headed households are more easily influenced by forces outside the households (i.e. government, workplace, etc).
2. Population reduction – Women who work a full-time job have less children. These women often delay childbearing for advancement of their career or may simply forgo having children altogether.

How are these goals achieved?

a. Destroy the family structure by encouraging female-headed households.
b. Increase government subsidies for single parent households.
c. Destroy the earning power of men and marginalize the men.
d. Reduce the fertility of women by increasing the rates of STD's (less stable family structure means more lifetime partners, thus higher STD rates and higher rates of std related infertility).
e. Delay childbearing (fertility drops with age).
f. Encourage contraception (empower the female to take control of her reproduction).
g. Reduce tax or other incentives for traditional family units (i.e. 2 biological parents).
h. Increase acceptance of non-traditional family households (single parent, gays, lesbian)
i. Institute female-friendly rules in the workplace.
1. Stress the need for social/political correctness at the workplace. (Women are historically more social beings and have advantages in adapting to the need for political correctness).
2. Emphasize multitasking. (Women tend to be better at multitasking overall). See this article: www.telegraph.co.uk...
3. Teach that sexual advances by men are a sign of aggressive and predatory behavior and harshly discouraged at the workplace. This increase male discharge (firing) rate from work due to infractions).
4. Make advancement dependent on networking skills and “who you know.” See this article entitled “4 skills that give women an advantage over men.” : www.theheartlinknetwork.com...
5. Encourage criminal history testing before hiring – As outlined below, men have much higher rates of incarceration and their criminal history will prevent many men from being hired.
j. Imprison the men.
1. In 2008, one out of 18 men were in prison or on parole. See: en.wikipedia.org...
2. About 6.5 percent of the population has a criminal record. Considering that very few of those are women or children, that amounts to about 15 percent of the adult male population has a criminal record, therefore excluding these men from many, if not most, jobs: people.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by qver74
Empowering the female and the war against families – Agenda 21 at work

Female headed households with working women are an important element to achieve 2 main goals:

1. Government control – Female headed households are more easily influenced by forces outside the households (i.e. government, workplace, etc).
2. Population reduction – Women who work a full-time job have less children. These women often delay childbearing for advancement of their career or may simply forgo having children altogether.

How are these goals achieved?

a. Destroy the family structure by encouraging female-headed households.
b. Increase government subsidies for single parent households.
c. Destroy the earning power of men and marginalize the men.
d. Reduce the fertility of women by increasing the rates of STD's (less stable family structure means more lifetime partners, thus higher STD rates and higher rates of std related infertility).
e. Delay childbearing (fertility drops with age).
f. Encourage contraception (empower the female to take control of her reproduction).
g. Reduce tax or other incentives for traditional family units (i.e. 2 biological parents).
h. Increase acceptance of non-traditional family households (single parent, gays, lesbian)
i. Institute female-friendly rules in the workplace.
1. Stress the need for social/political correctness at the workplace. (Women are historically more social beings and have advantages in adapting to the need for political correctness).
2. Emphasize multitasking. (Women tend to be better at multitasking overall). See this article: www.telegraph.co.uk...
3. Teach that sexual advances by men are a sign of aggressive and predatory behavior and harshly discouraged at the workplace. This increase male discharge (firing) rate from work due to infractions).
4. Make advancement dependent on networking skills and “who you know.” See this article entitled “4 skills that give women an advantage over men.” : www.theheartlinknetwork.com...
5. Encourage criminal history testing before hiring – As outlined below, men have much higher rates of incarceration and their criminal history will prevent many men from being hired.
j. Imprison the men.
1. In 2008, one out of 18 men were in prison or on parole. See: en.wikipedia.org...
2. About 6.5 percent of the population has a criminal record. Considering that very few of those are women or children, that amounts to about 15 percent of the adult male population has a criminal record, therefore excluding these men from many, if not most, jobs: people.howstuffworks.com...

edit on 14-4-2012 by qver74 because: format

Are you implying that women are to blame?

a. The sex of the head of household is irrelevant. Are you saying that we're not capable of the job by virtue of having a vagina?

b. I'm a single (widowed) woman with a $89,471 check to the IRS sitting on my desk til tax day. I abhor government subsidies except in cases of extreme need. How am I a contributing factor?

c. Destroy your earning power? If you're not making enough, YOU are the problem. Don't complain, get up off your butt and do something about it if it's that much of a concern.

d. Define STD. A Sexually transmitted disease. Oh yeah, we're having sex with ourselves and speading the scourge to destroy society. It's not a female problem, it's a social problem that surrounds lax sexual practices and irresponsibility.

e. 7 billion people in this world and people still think we're going extinct. We can't even provide for or support those already here, we need to turn OFF the tap until we can properly support those that are already here.

f. What do you suggest, let someone else decide? I'm a woman, NOT some breeder animal.

g. Reduce taxes? You get tax breaks, EIC, etc. Why should you have a smaller tax liability for choosing to have a family? If anything you should have a HIGHER tax liability because your choice puts a burden on the schools, adds more people to roads, and increases the overall cost to maintain society.

h. Following the logic of the above, you want to add to the burden on society, pay less taxes, and then send a big "screw you" to all others who may be different? These people whom you would discriminate against are exactly the ones paying for your kids to go to school, etc. You should be thanking them, not flipping them off.

i. I don't think that anyone, male or female, should have special rules based on their sex. I don't advocate female friendly rules, I advocate workplace friendly rules.

1. As you can probably tell from my rant, I'm hardly one that people would classify as politically correct. Mutual respect for those that surround you seems to work well enough.

2. We all work differently. While multitasking can have huge advantages in certain circumstances, there are also times where I need my people to FOCUS on one task to ensure that it's done properly. Multitasking in those cases would be detrimental.

3. Sexual impropriety is wrong regardless of the sex of the instigator. Everyone know what is or isn't acceptable. If you break the rules you get fired. How is that any more wrong than breaking ANY workplace rule/regulation?

4. Advancement should be based on achievement, knowledge and ability, not about who you know. Funny how this is brought up about women when this is often referred to as "the good ole' boys club."

5. I believe that once you've repaid your debt for your transgression, that should (generally) not be used against you. Certain exceptions (sexual predator applying at a day care, guilty of grand theft applying as a security guard, etc) should exist, but the extent that this currently being exploited is wrong, bordering criminal.

j. Imprison the criminals. Sex is irrelevant

1. Last time I checked, the majority of judges and attorneys were men. Please explain how we are the problem to the prison population problem.

2. If you can't do the time, then think before you do the crime. The problem is people not thinking before doing stupid things.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by qver74
Empowering the female and the war against families – Agenda 21 at work

Female headed households with working women are an important element to achieve 2 main goals:

1. Government control – Female headed households are more easily influenced by forces outside the households (i.e. government, workplace, etc).
2. Population reduction – Women who work a full-time job have less children. These women often delay childbearing for advancement of their career or may simply forgo having children altogether.

How are these goals achieved?

a. Destroy the family structure by encouraging female-headed households.
b. Increase government subsidies for single parent households.
c. Destroy the earning power of men and marginalize the men.
d. Reduce the fertility of women by increasing the rates of STD's (less stable family structure means more lifetime partners, thus higher STD rates and higher rates of std related infertility).
e. Delay childbearing (fertility drops with age).
f. Encourage contraception (empower the female to take control of her reproduction).
g. Reduce tax or other incentives for traditional family units (i.e. 2 biological parents).
h. Increase acceptance of non-traditional family households (single parent, gays, lesbian)
i. Institute female-friendly rules in the workplace.
1. Stress the need for social/political correctness at the workplace. (Women are historically more social beings and have advantages in adapting to the need for political correctness).
2. Emphasize multitasking. (Women tend to be better at multitasking overall). See this article: www.telegraph.co.uk...
3. Teach that sexual advances by men are a sign of aggressive and predatory behavior and harshly discouraged at the workplace. This increase male discharge (firing) rate from work due to infractions).
4. Make advancement dependent on networking skills and “who you know.” See this article entitled “4 skills that give women an advantage over men.” : www.theheartlinknetwork.com...
5. Encourage criminal history testing before hiring – As outlined below, men have much higher rates of incarceration and their criminal history will prevent many men from being hired.
j. Imprison the men.
1. In 2008, one out of 18 men were in prison or on parole. See: en.wikipedia.org...
2. About 6.5 percent of the population has a criminal record. Considering that very few of those are women or children, that amounts to about 15 percent of the adult male population has a criminal record, therefore excluding these men from many, if not most, jobs: people.howstuffworks.com...

edit on 14-4-2012 by qver74 because: format

Are you implying that women are to blame?

I think you completely misunderstood the thread.


OP - Star & Flag. They say this is a mans world, but i strongly disagree - Its the age of the women and it seems there's been a massive role reverse this past decade. This thread should create some good debate

So, basically what you are saying is that women taking more control of their lives is just a ploy by the powers that be to take over the world. Right. Marginalize men? Female headed households? You're right the world must be coming to an end because women are now able to choose to wait to have kids until she is good and ready. So all these choices and options women have now are heralding the end of times? Who knew.

reply to post by qver74


So you are saying the rising of female empowerment is for Government Control and came about from other reasons than hard work from women? It's all some silly agenda to more easily control and influence people?
If I read your thread right...it is implying female empowerment is specificially for forms of control? And female empowerment is ruining the family? Since when..? Also I feel like firing a man for sexual advances in the work place is the right thing to do, not a conspiracy.

reply to post by qver74

Hello, good post, i'm a woman and i completely agree and understand the points you made, unfortunately, if i go back 7 months to before my ''awakening'' then this post would have really annoyed the so i imagine your going to get a few heated responses..... but not from me,

Our children are the next generation and need their mothers to teach them about life, women who are lucky enough to have a child have the most important full time job than any other job on the planet, and that is being a mum and i can only imagine that being there for your child and seeing them develop into a well rounded individual is much more important than working, although...

Unfortunately now its just not possible to go back to the way things used to be when the man would go out to work and provide for the family whilst the woman would look after the children and keep everything in order in the home, both the man and the womans role is of equal importance. Afterall, we only work so we can afford to live. Now everyday living is too expensive for the average family and only one parent working is just not an option for many families nowadays.

i hope this make sense

reply to post by ~Vixen~

I don't think he's implying anything, Vixen. I believe the OP was attempting to show how the Government is eroding the familial and financial state of the American people. Hear me out.

He starts out by saying that:

Female headed households with working women are an important element to achieve 2 main goals:

1. Government control – Female headed households are more easily influenced by forces outside the households (i.e. government, workplace, etc).
2. Population reduction – Women who work a full-time job have less children. These women often delay childbearing for advancement of their career or may simply forgo having children altogether.

He goes on to cite possibilities from the article. (Here, I will attempt to elucidate AS I SEE IT. Not that I, or the OP, or the article writer are correct, but an observation on my part.)

a. Destroy the family structure by encouraging female-headed households. - How did this start? World War One brought women out of the home and into the workplace. It gave them purpose beyond childbearing and home management. This increased in WWII when the shortage of male workers "forced" the government to seek a way to pull the women deeper into the workforce. (Hence the famous Norman Rockwell "Rosie the Riveter" campaign picture.) Depicting women as strong and independent. Women realized that they no longer had to be reliant upon men to care for them, the ones being abused didn't have to stay under the thumbs of their abusers. Divorce rates began to climb, but also among the families of women who had a good man, but took the easy way out instead of staying in the ring and working through the problem. This has become even more prevalent in today's society among BOTH men and women. Instead of working through a problem in the marriage, just get a divorce. This lead to:
b. Increase government subsidies for single parent households. - Since the mother is notoriously granted custody of minor children, alot of women have a hard time trying to maintain today's demanding work environment and care for her children. Businesses today almost demand longer hours and weekends, flexibility in shifts. It's hard for alot of women, not all grant you, but alot of them to find a reliable babysitter and maintain the work schedule. Hence, government subsidies. Welfare, daycare, food stamps, WIC, etc...
c. Destroy the earning power of men and marginalize the men. - They forced women to work for less pay, over the years, they've managed to bring the men's pay down to match what they've paid women, not bring the women's pay up to match what men were earning. It wasn't about ability or qualification, it was about destroying earning potential for families and increasing strife in the household. (How easy is it for a single earner to support a household now?)
d. Reduce the fertility of women by increasing the rates of STD's (less stable family structure means more lifetime partners, thus higher STD rates and higher rates of std related infertility). - This should be obvious. Where once the average woman would only have 1 -2 sexual partners in her life, now the trend is higher. I can't give you a statistic, but let's say a conservative 4 - 7 now? Slowly catching up with the average man. (Gene Simmons and Magic Johnson don't count! Lol!)
e. Delay childbearing (fertility drops with age). - You delay childbearing because work schedules aren't conducive to having children, maybe even to finding a quality man. So you...
f. Encourage contraception (empower the female to take control of her reproduction). - See above...
g. Reduce tax or other incentives for traditional family units (i.e. 2 biological parents) - You just cut a check to the IRS, I'm sure you're aware of tax deduction possibilities.
h. Increase acceptance of non-traditional family households (single parent, gays, lesbian) - You see this more and more. I've even seen a trend in insurance companies to offer an employee to cover a "life partner" but not a "boyfriend or girlfriend," While also forcing a spouse to seek coverage from their place of employment rather than allow one spouse to cover both, further decreasing family income. Money being the #1 destroying argument of marriage.
i. Institute female-friendly rules in the workplace. What I see this as meaning is, women will complain about sexual harrassment in the workplace long before a man will. We like sexual attention, sorry! Lol! Actually, our egos get in the way and if a man was to be harrassed, he'd most likely keep it to himself to avoid ridicule from his buddies.

I'm running out of characters so I will sum up by saying the rest of the OP's post continues to build off of the above, with the exception of male incarceration. Those are just dumbasses culling the herd for us!

reply to post by Minnie1985


Excellent response, I think you said more succinctly what I was trying to detail to Vixen in my post!

As I side note, I also agree that the breakdown of the family unit is the reason we have so much crime in our country as well. One parent is no longer at home to influence and instill morals and values in our children. In a situation where one parent is at home but receiving benefits from the government, the kids usually end up being a product of a low income environment. (I know that comment will draw some heat...)

Another thought is how we no longer socialize with our neighbors. I once heard an older gentlemen say that the problem with America is that we no longer build porches onto our homes to sit on with our neighbors. He may have a point there as well. Do you know your neighbors? I don't know any of mine except the name of one of them next door. We half heartedly wave at one another as we get in our trucks in the morning. When I was a kid I, and my parents, knew almost everbody in town. There was many a time when someone scooped me up (Sometimes with a crack on the behind!) And carried me up onto the PORCH of my house where they had sat with my parents and detailed my transgressions. Then they would sit on the porch and talk for an hour while I pouted in my room about how I wasn't really THAT BAD!

The absence of porch time could also mean that we don't sharewith our community what we see going on in our country with one another. Hence, less awakenings. Maybe I need to get to know my neighbors....

Originally posted by qver74
a. Destroy the family structure by encouraging female-headed households.

I've had direct, practical experience growing up, of why the "male-headed household," is a disastrous idea. That doesn't mean that I advocate female chauvanism either; but it does mean that neither gender should be exclusively responsible for the entire family. If the male and female in question are both adults, then there needs to be delegation. Don't bother giving me the, "that's fine, but the male should still have veto," or whatever other crap, either. Making either gender solely responsible, does nothing other than disproportionally raise the stress level of the individual in question.

Understand one thing, here.

With regards to this particular topic, the proposed value system and model of the Right, (and Semitic monotheism) benefits the long term survival of the collective, at the expense of the individual.

With regards to this particular topic, the proposed value system and model of the Left, benefits the long term survival of the individual, at the expense of the collective.

I will grant you that the overall survival of the species in this case, would tend to value the conservative model; but as I experienced with my own father, it does so without regard for the suffering of the individual in the process. What we really need is integration of the two.

b. Increase government subsidies for single parent households.

In comparison with a household where both partners are working, a single parent household is going to have less money; and is therefore likely to need (or at least want) more help.

c. Destroy the earning power of men and marginalize the men.

As far as "earning power," is concerned, I haven't seen any evidence of that. On the topic of male marginalisation, however, I will agree with you. The main reason why I stay single, is because of the amount that I have learned, about how women often feel towards my gender. Again, that doesn't mean that I want other men or myself to dominate society; it just means that I don't want to be the target of pathological hatred, either.

d. Reduce the fertility of women by increasing the rates of STD's (less stable family structure means more lifetime partners, thus higher STD rates and higher rates of std related infertility).

If a guy gets AIDS, it's just as unsafe for a woman to have sex with him, as it is for him to have sex with an infected woman.

e. Delay childbearing (fertility drops with age).

Granted.

f. Encourage contraception (empower the female to take control of her reproduction).

We could probably debate whether or not that is an entirely negative thing; but then again, it's also true that a woman ultimately always has control over her reproduction, by choosing whether or not to have sex. Celibacy is considered unthinkable in contemporary society; there is a taboo against it to the point where it isn't even spoken of. It is assumed that a person's libido is completely uncontrollable.

h. Increase acceptance of non-traditional family households (single parent, gays, lesbian)

In purely objective terms, I don't know whether gay parenthood is a negative thing or not. I haven't seen any data on the issue, one way or the other, so I can't comment. The Freudian model would tend to imply that there likely are certain negative developmental consequences, but again, I haven't seen hard evidence of that.

i. Institute female-friendly rules in the workplace.
1. Stress the need for social/political correctness at the workplace. (Women are historically more social beings and have advantages in adapting to the need for political correctness).

Political correctness is an inherently problematic element of the Marxist social/economical model in general terms. I haven't seen evidence of a strict correlation between female psychology and political correctness specifically, although I will agree that there is a visible female bias towards the Marxist model generally; just as there is a visible bias towards the Right, where male psychology is concerned.

2. Emphasize multitasking. (Women tend to be better at multitasking overall).

I'm not sure how this is negative.

4. Make advancement dependent on networking skills and “who you know.”

The prioritisation of social effectiveness over specific, job-related performance, has always existed. This does not have anything to do with an increased female presence in the workplace at all.