It's obvious that there is a pro-female agenda....but why?

First things first. I think I need to say right off the bat that I don't hate women. I don't think women belong in the kitchen (or whatever) and I am not trying to keep women down or any of that. I actually do think it's good that women are more involved in places where they weren't not so long ago.

Here is my thing. It's completely obvious that there is a huge pro-female agenda in the world today and the problem I'm having with it is that despite the fact that it's doing some good things, I'm not entirely sure that's it's only purpose.

To put it another way, many of the people who are prominently involved are just not good people. They can't convince me they're doing what they're doing for all the right reasons and for those reasons only. Among these people we have many of the prominent activists on the extreme left. These are typically people who have a bad habit of abusing worthy causes for much more sinister purposes. If you know what I mean, I don't think I have to type up 20 pages of examples for you. If you don't know what I mean, you should google it and start doing some serious research.

So, for those of you who are on the same page, I just have a really simple (but very important) question. Maybe the answer to that question is already here. I will admit that I am not as well read as I should be and would like to be. Especially here and especially on general conspiracy topics. But it's an honest question and I think the answer to it needs to be stated whenever we're talking about this agenda.

Why does it need to be stated? Because we can talk about WHAT they're doing until the cows come home and that's all well and good. But we need to describe a clear and reasonably simple motive for this specific agenda.

WHY are they doing this? What do they have to gain by advancing women and basically elevating them above men? What are they trying to achieve by turning gender inequality upside down (notice that I didn't claim discrimination and gender inequality didn't exist)?

Again, I know things were not exactly good for women and I'm not pining for the good old days when I could tell her to make me a sandwich. I believe there are people who have taken this issue and abused it. They are using people's natural sense of injustice for something a little darker than they will admit. I'm just not sure what that thing is.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


Just as there are causes for anything and everything there are causes for, there will be conservatives, moderates, liberals, and fanatical militants.

I very much doubt there's much to be concerned about with any causes promoting women's rights.

BrianFlanders
First things first. I think I need to say right off the bat that I don't hate women. I don't think women belong in the kitchen (or whatever) and I am not trying to keep women down or any of that. I actually do think it's good that women are more involved in places where they weren't not so long ago.

Here is my thing. It's completely obvious that there is a huge pro-female agenda in the world today and the problem I'm having with it is that despite the fact that it's doing some good things, I'm not entirely sure that's it's only purpose.

To put it another way, many of the people who are prominently involved are just not good people. They can't convince me they're doing what they're doing for all the right reasons and for those reasons only. Among these people we have many of the prominent activists on the extreme left. These are typically people who have a bad habit of abusing worthy causes for much more sinister purposes. If you know what I mean, I don't think I have to type up 20 pages of examples for you. If you don't know what I mean, you should google it and start doing some serious research.

So, for those of you who are on the same page, I just have a really simple (but very important) question. Maybe the answer to that question is already here. I will admit that I am not as well read as I should be and would like to be. Especially here and especially on general conspiracy topics. But it's an honest question and I think the answer to it needs to be stated whenever we're talking about this agenda.

Why does it need to be stated? Because we can talk about WHAT they're doing until the cows come home and that's all well and good. But we need to describe a clear and reasonably simple motive for this specific agenda.

WHY are they doing this? What do they have to gain by advancing women and basically elevating them above men? What are they trying to achieve by turning gender inequality upside down (notice that I didn't claim discrimination and gender inequality didn't exist)?

Again, I know things were not exactly good for women and I'm not pining for the good old days when I could tell her to make me a sandwich. I believe there are people who have taken this issue and abused it. They are using people's natural sense of injustice for something a little darker than they will admit. I'm just not sure what that thing is.

I'm not sure what you're on about, I've never had a woman supervisor that didn't deserve the position.
I think you are going a bit more 1950's rather than admit you haven't been able to further your own ambitions.

This is only the opinion of a 33 year old man, working professionally in the same career since he was 14.

So at least for myself I would like your 20 pages of notes, because your constant referral to "in the kitchen" and "make me a sandwich" tells me exactly where you are coming from.

There's a pro-female agenda? Really? That's news to me. I want in on the action....

Especially when there is still a wage gap for males and females in the same exact positions...

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I think your onto the truth of it,
for instance lets take Hillary Clinton.

She is supposed to be the champion of women,
but it is actually the other way around.

Hillary Clinton embodies the war ON women.
I am sure there are other examples.

randomtangentsrme


I'm not sure what you're on about, I've never had a woman supervisor that didn't deserve the position.
I think you are going a bit more 1950's rather than admit you haven't been able to further your own ambitions.

This is only the opinion of a 33 year old man, working professionally in the same career since he was 14.

So at least for myself I would like your 20 pages of notes, because your constant referral to "in the kitchen" and "make me a sandwich" tells me exactly where you are coming from.

Did you even read my post? It looks like you only read the parts you wanted to see. This thread didn't have anything to do with me. I merely wanted to point out there are a lot of theories out there that don't go far enough into exploring the potential motives.

Whatever is happening, divide and conquer is a technique used by the ones in power all the time.

I do tend to see a pro-female agenda when it comes to education ; the removal of physical education comes to mind as it is proven that men need more physical exercise in order for cognitive abilities to be optimal.

Another example, I see a push for women to pursue careers usually held by men, yet no push for men to pursue careers usually held by women. I would even say it's ridiculed by the masses...I don't feel it should be.

Messages empowering women above men are socially acceptable, yet messages empowering men are seen as sexist...

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I agree that there is a push to advance women in both politics and corporate environments. I've had supervisors (corporate) who were female and honestly they were better than the men. Actually every one was better in my case but that may (or not) have just been statistical.

When I look at the political mess of the world I'd like to think women could bring something better to the world than we've had for the last century. Unfortunately those like Hillary aren't going to cut it.

Just for the record I also believe we have a ways to go before there is real equality across the board.

reply to post by BrianFlanders

First things first. I think I need to say right off the bat that I don't hate women

Isn't that like starting a racist comment with the disclaimer "I'm not racist, but..." Usually nothing good follows that.

Maybe, if you feel there is a "pro-female agenda" you can elaborate on what that agenda is, clue us in on what you view as a "pro-female agenda." Otherwise we're all scratching our heads over what your rant is about.

BrianFlanders

randomtangentsrme


I'm not sure what you're on about, I've never had a woman supervisor that didn't deserve the position.
I think you are going a bit more 1950's rather than admit you haven't been able to further your own ambitions.

This is only the opinion of a 33 year old man, working professionally in the same career since he was 14.

So at least for myself I would like your 20 pages of notes, because your constant referral to "in the kitchen" and "make me a sandwich" tells me exactly where you are coming from.

Did you even read my post? It looks like you only read the parts you wanted to see. This thread didn't have anything to do with me. I merely wanted to point out there are a lot of theories out there that don't go far enough into exploring the potential motives.

edit on 17-2-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Yes I read it, and disagree to the core. That's why I quoted it in it's entirety. You claim a lot, while protesting to much. To paraphrase Shakespeare.
I do not see what you see, which is why I responded as I did. I personally do not see what you see, while working in a male dominated industry.
So again, I would like your 20 pages of notes, or maybe a web link to start me understanding where you are coming from.

If you know what I mean

No, I don't.

you should google it and start doing some serious research.

Google is serious research?

So, for those of you who are on the same page

Curious as to how many are.

But we need to describe a clear and reasonably simple motive for this specific agenda.

"We" or you? It's your topic. You should be able to tell us what's up with your "serious Google research". Do elaborate? Show us what you've been reading.

make me a sandwich

Which kind?

'm just not sure what that thing is.

Me either. Maybe because there Isn't one? Hrmph.

They're rubbing it in these days.

Woman, to man, life insurance commercial:

"Honey, I want to talk to you."

"I took the garbage out...."

"I know you did, and thank you for that!"

It doesn't look like much, on paper, but when processed by the brain's ear, it is like a tank shell through a paper tea room. They all are.

I can't find the ad as quickly as I'd like but it's out there. Wait for it, but it will be pulled soon. It may have been a health insurance commercial. I only hear what I need to hear.

Then there's the insurance ad staged in the diner. All the men heads seem senile, the women fearful:

"Yeah! (paws) I picked up the phone (paws), asked for an application (paws), and filled it out. It took all of 5 minutes..."

But it's the look on the guy's face that does it. Like he's permanently lost his marbles, but was able to get 'accepted' nonetheless.
The paws are staggered slightly, diminishing in length, as he gathers a fresh head of steam, inspired by the added security from the policy.

Twenty years ago they routinely used the expression:

"...and no embarrassing health questions...." and they may still use this tactic in rural areas.

But it's the creaky, feel good voice, that really grates my cheese. This one is everywhere, mainly in food commercials. I won't even bother with my take on the voice tones used for the 'news' shows.

Yeah, they are going to be screwed when discernment runs wild in the streets, like spores from space, or something...
If you can't hear it yet, just wait. There's nothing like it. That's what the police state is on about.

When you start getting zapped with electricity, which travels through your flesh and into even your pets, consider that God is, above all things, omniscient. Initially, I feared it was man made. It started on the anniversary that my Father died. It just got better and better. Enter (name of little town where I tried to live)+police corruption=instant 4.3 earthquake that struck like lightning, and rattled the house for 20 seconds, and no, they do not happen around here. Neither did I ever think to conduct such a query until that moment.

I'll take 'God', for 1000, Alex.
You know what, eff it. 25 trillion. Yup. I'm just a voice, crying in the wilderness....

# 167

I have a pro-female agenda.

But I highly suspect we are not talking about the same goals.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
There's a pro-female agenda? Really? That's news to me. I want in on the action....

Especially when there is still a wage gap for males and females in the same exact positions...

Again, I think you should read what I wrote instead of skimming it and jumping to conclusions. I actually did acknowledge that inequality is real and that the feminist movement HAS done some good things. I also believe I acknowledged that things are still far from perfect.

The point of my post was to simply state that some suspicious characters have taken what would normally be a worthy cause and possibly exploited it for their own purposes. Because it's always easier to manipulate people when you can stir their passions. That much, I have figured out.

The other part of my purpose for this thread was that I am interested in the general conspiracy topic and whenever I am researching a particular theory, my first question is usually about motive. Because motive is the most important thing. If someone is talking about a particular theory, it doesn't matter how much evidence they can present if they can't come up with a good theory as to WHY this conspiracy is happening. I may be mistaken but in an actual investigation, the presence of plausible motive is considered to be evidence. Circumstantial evidence.

In my opinion, you don't necessarily have to have eyewitnesses if you have fingerprints and motive.

unb3k44n7


Google is serious research?

What would you suggest? For the common people, it's about as good as you're gonna get. It's at least as good as anything you're going to get from the MSM and you can't count on a university professor to be any more unbiased than he/she wants to be.

Simple reason really, the powers that be are men and employ women in positions of power because men listen to women more (when she is not the wife/gf). Men have found it is pointless to argue with women and thus, will just take the beating. Women also trust women more. Also, as long as the woman in charge is not one who is corrupt, easily controlled by fear all the while thinking she can do no wrong, then I would rather that woman over a man.

What sex would you trust more when they take freedoms away with the statment "think about the children"?

This is one of the biggest piles of nonsense I have ever read on here (and let's be honest, that's like picking the world's shortest dwarf).

There is no pro-woman agenda en masse, the world is still highly patriarchal and oppressive to women (in the West and in the East). What there is, however, is a push towards gender equality. Can you truly tell me that women are the prominent figures, in terms of numbers, in business, politics, media, religion etc? There's a huge disparity even to this day.

What I think you're explaining is that the gap is becoming smaller, gradually, and you're noticing that and as such, there's now a lot more women popping up in places that used to be nigh on exclusively male. For some reason, that worries your sense of male privilege. As such, you're labelling it as a pro-women agenda. What I'd call it is a pro-equality agenda.

If you can quote some facts and figures that show otherwise, I'll take you seriously, but otherwise, you're speaking paranoid bile.

Check out this link here and I think you'll get a better picture of just how few positions of power are held by women. Women in Government

Yours sincerely, a male who isn't scared of powerful women.

I wanted to drop in and say you are right, and this is coming from a woman. The reasoning, however, is very obvious. I am not going to play all sanctimonious with you, because you're right.

With Obama, they obviously pushed the race card. That's overwith. What have they got left? Gay marriage has played out. Immigration doesn't have the oomph it used to.

Now, ask yourself, who is the Democratic party already pushing, and have been pushing for months?

Hillary Clinton. The "First Woman President".

The next race will be all about women, the "war on women", inequality of women, you name it.

I say kudos to you for picking up on it, and you must not be a Republican or Libertarian, because this has been a talking point in conservative circles for some months now.

This very agenda appeared to work some wonders during the re-election, against Romney, and, putting Hillary at the forefront and testing the waters for a response has given them enough of a willingness to pursue.

Basically, the whole "binders of women", "war on women", and all the other memes are going to get so old, so worn out, and so overrused, most people are going to get sick of it, especially women.

Personally, I already am.

It started with the whole birth control issue, and it made me feel like I was a walking sex organ. And, that was all I was worth. With some of the messages coming from the left, Sandra Fluke, etc., I personally feel it is demeaning and demoralizing, and gaining nothing for women. In fact, it feels as if women are now being used to gain political points, and especially being used to bully other people and manipulate other people. I do know one thing, it doesn't leave me feeling good. No one enjoys feeling used.

Being a Conservative Libertarian, I found the entire Sandra Fluke incident as frustrating, nasueating, and irritating as it was maddening. She didn't speak for me, nor my genitals. I personally would like politicians to stay out of that area of my life, and I personally want to make healthcare decisions without the government. I certainly never asked the government to pay for my birth control.

I honestly feel the whole thing has been so overblown, but in the end, the outcome, the end result for all women, will end up being worse than it was before. All of this didn't just damage Sandra Fluke. It damaged me, my co-workers, and all women. They just don't know it yet.

Call me repulsed in Georgia.

BrianFlanders
....but why

for the same reason as anything else....follow the money

women control two thirds of consumer wealth and make 95 percent of the purchase decisions for their households and will be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of wealth in history

Actually, I do think feminism in the US was used to make rich richer instead of furthering rights. The focus was on trying to get women to become like men because that's what helped business.

There was a push to convince women to delay having children when there could have been a push to extend and pay for maternity leave.

Women were encouraged to enter male dominated professions instead of encouraging higher pay for traditional female jobs.