Feminism & The Downfall Of The Traditional Family

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
I think what this really comes down to is a point that was already made in this thread. The "traditional" way has worked for thousands of years because it is based on the evolution of every other animal on this planet. The male has his role and so does the female. Both are equally as important. Evidence of this is the fact that the family really is falling apart simply because both roles are not being met.

The female lion hunts. The male lion protects the pride. If the female lion did not hunt, the pride would fall apart. If the male lion did not protect the pride, there would be no pride. People need to understand the males and females are not and will never be equal. Both play crucial roles based on what they're wired to do.

To all these femnazis that want to wear the pants in the relationship, and all these guys that allow their women to do so, I suggest homosexual relationships for both parties. It's more your place.

Well put

Not really. It is an appalling point, poorly made. Unless you are both advocating polygamy. Mammals HAVE NOT evolved to form pair bonds. All evidence indicates the contrary. And if you want to use the animal kingdom for your examples, then you boys had better roll your sleeves up and assume a fighting stance in order to obtain your mating rights, because that is how it is done in the animal kingdom. Deary me!

And, in polygynous groups, there is also, always, a dominant female that needs to assert her authority over the other females, for she is the real group leader. The male is merely there to deter other males. And, since we are using lions as an example, when that male is usurped, he will kill all the off-spring of the previous male. So I for one, have no wish to emulate animals. We developed sapience for a reason. Or at least some of us did

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


My God, you mean, both males and females have their own separate roles? And polygamy! Oh the horror!

Fact: women out number men 3 to 1. That means, for every "happily married" woman, 2 go home and learn how to be men hating fem nazis. And since when have men not "rolled up their sleeves" and assumed their fighting stance? Sure they may wobble a bit, but I'm guessing you've never been to a bar past midnight? Deary me!

Like it or not, we're still actually very close to the animal kingdom. We just do things a bit different now that we learned how to build things.

reply to post by galadofwarthethird


Exactly, so we must surmise this thread's sole purpose is to bash women seeking equality and vent dysfunctional misogynist feelings anonymously because he/she/they can. I'm outta here...where's the guy crashing through the window emote? LOL

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by resoe26

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
I think what this really comes down to is a point that was already made in this thread. The "traditional" way has worked for thousands of years because it is based on the evolution of every other animal on this planet. The male has his role and so does the female. Both are equally as important. Evidence of this is the fact that the family really is falling apart simply because both roles are not being met.

The female lion hunts. The male lion protects the pride. If the female lion did not hunt, the pride would fall apart. If the male lion did not protect the pride, there would be no pride. People need to understand the males and females are not and will never be equal. Both play crucial roles based on what they're wired to do.

To all these femnazis that want to wear the pants in the relationship, and all these guys that allow their women to do so, I suggest homosexual relationships for both parties. It's more your place.

Well put

Not really. It is an appalling point, poorly made. Unless you are both advocating polygamy. Mammals HAVE NOT evolved to form pair bonds. All evidence indicates the contrary. And if you want to use the animal kingdom for your examples, then you boys had better roll your sleeves up and assume a fighting stance in order to obtain your mating rights, because that is how it is done in the animal kingdom. Deary me!

And, in polygynous groups, there is also, always, a dominant female that needs to assert her authority over the other females, for she is the real group leader. The male is merely there to deter other males. And, since we are using lions as an example, when that male is usurped, he will kill all the off-spring of the previous male. So I for one, have no wish to emulate animals. We developed sapience for a reason. Or at least some of us did

I'm down for rolling up my sleeves there bub.
I was agreeing with the very last sentence in the other post.
I could care less how Lions conduct thier "relations". We are talking about HUMAN relations. Only the previous post from Heisenberg mentioned the Lions.

Many of you have missed what I was trying to say in the thread.
I was asking questions, questions about the future relations of the next generation. And what could possibly be the reasoning behind the downfall of traditional family. Why are there so many divorces now and why do men bend over for women so much now in days.
Thats all.

reply to post by votan


Agreed. I'm glad you found a western woman not tainted by the stench of feminism. I'm guessing western men will be looking for eastern women more often now. The schools here are just brainwashing centers and one day it just clicks in their brain "abort unborn child makes me hate men and i am in control because i am superior because i am woman" and they're never happy again.

It's a tragic story of love.

reply to post by resoe26


You might not enjoy lion talk, but your name sure does make me think of chicken and waffles.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
reply to post by resoe26

 

You might not enjoy lion talk, but your name sure does make me think of chicken and waffles.

How's that?
oh I see... because of the spelling no?
Yeah, use to write graff all the time.
Resoe is what I wrote

(knew I should have chose HadesOccult as my screen name)

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
My God, you mean, both males and females have their own separate roles? And polygamy! Oh the horror!

I wasn't making any judgement against polygamy, but how many of the stay at home Mums that have commented on this thread would consider a polygynous relationship to comprise a 'traditional' family do you think? No horror from me, I can see the advantages in some respects, in others, not so.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
Fact: women out number men 3 to 1. That means, for every "happily married" woman, 2 go home and learn how to be men hating fem nazis.

That may be the case in your little corner of the world...but not even approaching 'fact' on the global scale. There is very, very little disparity in terms of the ratio between men and women. Check your 'facts'.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
And since when have men not "rolled up their sleeves" and assumed their fighting stance? Sure they may wobble a bit, but I'm guessing you've never been to a bar past midnight? Deary me!

I have worked in one or two bars, or pubs as we call them over here, and am well aware of the effect alcohol has on men and women's inability to rationalise so that they resort to violent expression, but that has very little to do with fighting for mating rights.

Originally posted by Heisenberg59
Like it or not, we're still actually very close to the animal kingdom. We just do things a bit different now that we learned how to build things.

Not to mention the development of complex communication systems, which probably has a little more to do with our expecting more from our mates than an ability to kick the # out of the other guy. You see, women can choose, they don't have to stand back and wait for the guys to fight it out to see who gets to impregnate her, most likely because we know that there is much more to a good mate than brawn. And that seems to have worked very well for us, Australopithecus, who exhibited greater sexual dimorphism (which is associated with competition for mating rights), certainly cannot say the same thing.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Not to mention the development of complex communication systems, which probably has a little more to do with our expecting more from our mates than an ability to kick the # out of the other guy. You see, women can choose, they don't have to stand back and wait for the guys to fight it out to see who gets to impregnate her, most likely because we know that there is much more to a good mate than brawn. And that seems to have worked very well for us, Australopithecus, who exhibited greater sexual dimorphism (which is associated with competition for mating rights), certainly cannot say the same thing.

I am guessing the UK?

Single-parent families so common in today's Britain that couples are now a minority
www.dailymail.co.uk...

The figures, from a Freedom of Information request to the Office for National Statistics, were greeted with concern yesterday.

Jill Kirby, a social policy expert and former director of the Centre for Policy Studies, said: ‘Children need input from both parents in order to thrive.

‘Research shows children growing up in fatherless homes are much less likely to do well at school and are at twice the risk of getting into problems with drink or drugs, or involved in crime. The UK welfare system has been partly to blame, by providing a substitute breadwinner rather than encouraging parents to stick together.’

Two years ago a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents industrialised nations, exposed Britain’s shocking record on broken homes.

It found we have more children living in one-parent families than any other European country and more of our single mothers are unemployed and on benefit than anywhere else on the Continent.

The study revealed 23 per cent of British children up to the age of 14 live in single-parent families, behind the US on 26 per cent. And 48 per cent of single mothers in Britain are unemployed, the highest rate in the OECD apart from Turkey.

Seems everyone is doing a great job of choosing these days, that goes for both men and women.

Originally posted by resoe26
I'm down for rolling up my sleeves there bub.

I was agreeing with the very last sentence in the other post.
I could care less how Lions conduct thier "relations". We are talking about HUMAN relations. Only the previous post from Heisenberg mentioned the Lions.

So because I do not conform to your preconceptions of what a woman should be, then I should turn to lesbianism...but I don't find women sexually attractive?

Originally posted by resoe26
Many of you have missed what I was trying to say in the thread.
I was asking questions, questions about the future relations of the next generation. And what could possibly be the reasoning behind the downfall of traditional family. Why are there so many divorces now and why do men bend over for women so much now in days.
Thats all.

Perhaps there are more divorces nowadays because women are actually allowed to divorce. As are men. In the 'good old days', you had to stick with it, no matter how miserable you and your family were. Just as if a woman got pregnant in the old days she was forced to get married, or be socially stigmatised, or worse. I don't know where you hang out, but I see plenty of very happy marriages and I don't blame others for my own singledom. That is based on the choices that I have made, and in some cases that were forced upon me.

There never has been what you perceive to be a 'traditional' family. Family structure, in humanity, has taken many forms, depending much upon locality and environment. In Latin and other Roman Catholic countries, that structure generally involves a strong matriarch...do you want your mother-in-law living with you? I wouldn't. As Galad, says, much of what you are wishing for, or comparing to, is a fantasy that never existed. Either way, that is not my tradition so I am in no way bound to it. So perhaps you could clarify what exactly your tradition is, or what tradition it is that you aspire to.

Either way, the primary reason that more marriages break down is because a) it is hard to maintain a relationship and some don't appreciate that when they enter into them, b) divorce is obtainable, whereas it was not in the past, and c) very few cultures now, thankfully, carry the death penalty for adultery and ci) few men and women are tolerate of infidelity.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yeah...well umm...the Daily Mail! 'Nuff said

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Yeah...well umm...the Daily Mail! 'Nuff said

Fair enough however I was merely providing the quote form your public officials here are some reputable sources;

Single-parent families reach two million
The number of single-parent families in Britain has reached the 2 million mark for the first time, official figures show.
www.telegraph.co.uk...


Families and Households, 2012
www.ons.gov.uk...

Key findings

In 2012 there were 18.2 million families in the UK. Of these, 12.2 million consisted of a married couple with or without children.
The number of opposite sex cohabiting couple families has increased significantly, from 1.5 million in 1996 to 2.9 million in 2012. The number of dependent children living in opposite sex cohabiting couple families doubled from 0.9 million to 1.8 million over the same period.
In 2012, 38 per cent of married couple families had dependent children, compared with 39 per cent of opposite sex cohabiting couple families.
There were nearly 2.0 million lone parents with dependent children in the UK in 2012, a figure which has grown steadily but significantly from 1.6 million in 1996.
There were 26.4 million households in the UK in 2012. Of these, 29 per cent consisted of only one person and almost 20 per cent consisted of four or more people.

One-parent families on the rise
news.bbc.co.uk...

David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


GOOD ANSWER!!
Thank you for knowing all. Helps!

Meh, when someone is treated equally, those who wish to subjugate them see it as them being treated better.

The problem is with the men who don't want to give up control. I treat men and women equally with the same respect and the SAME responsibility.

From your post, you are saying that women are the ones who kept the family together and the men played no part at all since it's declining with their treatment as equals instead of property. So you're actually angry because you can no longer hold slaves.

There are bossy and controlling women for the same reason there are bossy and controlling men. You just look at them differently because you are biased.

...how dare them wanting to be treated as humans...

A buddy of mine that never makes it to a second date for various reasons always blames feminism. It's all feminism's fault that he can't find a wife (or a second date). Feminism is the curse of the world and is destroying everything.

He never stops to think that he can't find somebody because he's an A-hole. Nobody wants to be around him because he's a chauvinist pig. It's not the women who are the problem, it's him. I don't blame the women for not going out with him, heck, I can barely stand to be around him most of the time.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

Exactly, so we must surmise this thread's sole purpose is to bash women seeking equality and vent dysfunctional misogynist feelings anonymously because he/she/they can. I'm outta here...where's the guy crashing through the window emote? LOL

Sorry but ATS is not yet advanced enough to have a guy crashing through the window emoticon.

Though believe me I wished they had more emotes, something like 20 different versions of the dancing banana.

I even have ideas one can be a dancing banana wearing a sombrero, complete with a mustache and everything. Another can be the whole western motif dancing banana shooting his guns in the air. We can even have a Afro brake dancing banana, the possibilities are literally endless. And why stop at emoticon crashing through windows, they should add emoticons crashing through all kinds of stuff, like doors, and...well other stuff.

However I think this little guy sums up things in these type of threads pretty nicely. An emoticon says a thousands words, much like a picture says something or other.

Look at him go---> :bnghd:

Anyways, don't mind me, I didn't even read this whole thread, carry on people.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by galadofwarthethird

 

Exactly, so we must surmise this thread's sole purpose is to bash women seeking equality and vent dysfunctional misogynist feelings anonymously because he/she/they can. I'm outta here...where's the guy crashing through the window emote? LOL

Sorry but ATS is not yet advanced enough to have a guy crashing through the window emoticon.

Though believe me I wished they had more emotes, something like 20 different versions of the dancing banana.

I even have ideas one can be a dancing banana wearing a sombrero, complete with a mustache and everything. Another can be the whole western motif dancing banana shooting his guns in the air. We can even have a Afro brake dancing banana, the possibilities are literally endless.

And why stop at emoticon crashing through windows, they should add emoticons crashing through all kinds of stuff, like doors, and...well other stuff.

However I think this little guy sums up things in these type of threads pretty nicely. An emoticon says a thousands words, much like a picture says something or other.

Look at him go---> :bnghd:

Anyways, don't mind me, I didn't even read this whole thread, carry on people.

edit on 21-1-2013 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2013 by galadofwarthethird because: Add stuff.

Of course, forum discussions are visually based...hence, emoticons that say a thousand words.

reply to post by eletheia


Eletheia

Thank you - I remember those times very very well. I am so grateful to feminism. It gave me the strength to fight for the right to support my children (completely abandoned by their father). It opened doors for me that would have remained closed.

Thanks to feminism, I was able to carry my daughters from welfare class to middle class and change the entire expections of their lives.

I have lived in both worlds. Grew up with my mother standing behind my father while he ate (just in case he wanted something, like more bread or some pickles). Grew up standing behind my brother and making do with what was left over (very little). Married and lived under the thumb of my husband until I couldn't take the abuse any longer and certainly did not want my daughters to live the same life.

Thank God for feminism that allowed me to escape!

I think there are many many woman in other countries who wish they were in our shoes. I do believe that the pendulum as swung too far but that it will slowly swing back, hopefully to somewhere in the middle.

And to all the men who are looking for submissive females - good on you! Go get them! Cause I sure don't want you. If you can't see me as a partner, you can't have me!

Tired of Control Freaks

Change the title to:

Without feminism will be the Downfall of Humanity.

Originally posted by InTheLight
Change the title to:

Without feminism will be the Downfall of Humanity.

edit on 21-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

Could we possibly push for "Without egalitarianism will be the Downfall of Humanity"?

Sorry, it's just that the word seems to have so much baggage? :/