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

There's a pro-female agenda because the pro-male agenda got us better pay for the same jobs, control of most of society, looser rules of conduct, sexual freedom etc- who wouldn't want to get in on that?

reply to post by BrianFlanders


I can see where you're coming from, but have to disagree with a lot of the things you wrote. I think the issue isn't the woman's movement, but rather some of the women involved. I think a few bad apples are ruining it for the good ones so to speak. I've had women leaders over me several times. For the most part, they were very knowledgeable and professional in every regards. But I have had some totally backwards thinking women leaders that made me gnash my teeth in frustration.

But then again, the same can be said for my past male leaders. The majority were knowledgeable and professional, but some felt like they were put on this earth to make you believe you were put in an exercise of futility.

As for some of the women I was talking about that make the movement seem bad, I'd just like to touch on some of those. Not too long ago was I made aware of some insane people who were in the truest form of the word, "Feminazi's". I hope to goodness they were trolls, I really do. As one of them made a video where she openly stated that all men should be castrated (a link for those who dare) in the street by a woman as the crowd gathers and cheers.

Then you have the idiots on Twitter. As I said, I can only hope these people are trolls. But it's people like them that put a strong negative view onto feminists in general who do not share the same viewpoint.

So to sum it up: Overall I think that there are a very few (and very bad) apples that are ruining it for the good people.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


It seems to be offsetting the traditional hierarchy and leadership structure of the average person's household, which may be the purpose.

There used to be a structure of the man being the leader of the household. This was the base for the family and gave the family a very clear direction (not always a good direction, but a distinct source of leadership).

By promoting female rights it naturally offsets that structure and ultimately deters the direction of a family. This is in part what leads to more divorces (which are in most cases women leaving men), because women enjoy (as men do) having the chance to have an EQUAL voice in the family. This leads to them being more confident to leave men when they feel like they are being mistreated and puts families in a much less stable condition altogether.

They have always had a voice in the family, but now they are being treated as "co" heads of house holds.

I'm not saying that having a women as head of household is bad - but having 2 people (or an unclear source of leadership) taking on the role as head of household CAN cause problems.

With less focus on the family and increasing divorces, separated families, less reproduction, etc - then you get people who are more able to focus on being productive, while simultaneously removing a major motivator (family support) for people to think outside the box and do what is right even if they are told otherwise...

I know it's a stretch

BrianFlanders
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.

I have to take issue, because in most of the world women are firmly second class. To give a few examples.

1. Across the Islamic world women have reduce human rights, reduced access to politics, education and employment. There are “honour” killings in some countries and women are certainly unseen and unheard.
2. Across most of Africa women are often treated shoddily, from genital mutilation through to direct discrimination, social exclusion and sex trafficking, etc
3. Women in India are often treated very poorly from a cultural perspective.
4. Need I go on?

In the comfy West women have at least reached parity of rights with men and we have a better society because of it. However, in general terms women and men are different and I feel that it is a mistake for feminism to push for parity across all walks of life because that would also disadvantage women. For example, those who want positive discrimination to get more women into politics are mute on the fact that some medical professions are predominantly female. Women and men, left in an equal plying field will find their own equilibrium.

Problem is that most of the world remains staunchly unequal.

REgards

I don't think there's any underhanded political reason for feminism, but as a social movement, I find it disturbing & myopic. I don't want equal pay because I'm female and have a group to back the idea. I want equal pay because we are equals doing the same work. The same wage any one individual of any color, creed or gender doing the same work equally competently. Just because I have boobs, ovaries and a uterus does not mean I deserve anything special in return, no special considerations, no special pay. Do the work, get paid. End of work day. Simple as that. I despise the notion that women are pitching that women need to be put up on a pedestal & given preferential job treatment, or demanding specialized treatment, because we're women. That's not being equal, that's milking it, you idiots. It undermines the entire idea of equality.

Let's not forget that to think more highly of yourself than others is the foundation of discrimination. I refuse to accept that's the best we can do as a species. End the stupid pendulum swing of which gender is better or more deserving, maybe we can make some actual headway in this country (I'd say planet, but that's a monumental effort over more generations, imo)

reply to post by BrianFlanders


It seems quite simple to me, in the US, anyway, where a particular woman is (already) running for office and has been for several years since her hubby lost the job. It is a new form of strategy in politics, women against men in that order, NOT the other way around as in the undeveloped world. Historically, there was two major efforts of women that determined broad national events. These were the efforts of "women's suffrage" and alcohol prohibition.

If they can organize various strata of women, be they poor retirees, soccer moms, bright school girls and even specialized groups such as lesbians, they have a more than equal advantage in political races. Never, to my knowledge, has this tactic really been pulled on such a grand, general scheme and that is what it is and very easy to do, a no brainer.

In final analysis, the movement is streaming out in various forms to form a decidedly liberal, democratic base to reach what the demos increasingly must muster to win again. It is a call to victimhood for women, a favorite tactic of the left.

reply to post by Aliensun


Bingo. You and I agree. It is nothing but a political tactic for Dems to win the next presidential election.

I just find it very disturbing after the real headway that has been made for women, and I am not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination. It is going to end with a major setback, just as I think the election of "The First Black President" turning into what many see as a monumental failure will be a setback for blacks in office.

The election of Obama has fomented race issues that brought us back to the 60's, and what's worse is, most of it came from him and the Dems. Sure, Republicans and Tea Partiers got the "blame", but the issues all started with the Administration, and all end right back there, as well. Sad thing is, the totality of the effect this will really have on ever getting another black elected. People will balk, because they remember the only president to ever be worse than Carter as being "the First Black President."

Was this by design? Leftists and progressives want to whine, "Oh, you just can't stand seeing a black man in the Whitehouse", yet, they fail to admit or acknowledge it was the white vote, by far, that GOT him there. That horse don't race.

The problem I am forseeing is Mrs. Benghazi having the same overall stigma on women. When it's all over and that witch rides her broom out, what is she going to leave in her wake? Who will go under that bus, and who will wear those tire treads? That's my fear.

This is all for elections, all for votes, because the female vote is seen as a hugely untapped, hugely Democratic, and hugely liberal voter base.

The most frightening thing of all is, they just might be right. It may well be the best, and only tactic to get another Dem in the Whitehouse after this nightmare is over.

Just depends if enough women are gullible enough to allow themselves to be used for that express purpose, exploited just like the blacks and hispanics were the last two elections.

I suppose we will have to wait and see, but, I have a feeling it's not going to go well when it's all over and "the fat lady sings".

Being a heterosexual man and loving all things beautiful, I follow a very strong pro-female agenda.

randomtangentsrme

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.

I too would like to see these 20 pages of notes, because I cannot read your mind OP. Also, there is a difference from there being a pro-female agenda by whom? the government? to women having to step up and take a leadership role in their home due to necessity.

reply to post by BrianFlanders

I haven't read anything but your OP. I want to answer this from my own perspective, and what I've come to believe.

The "pro female" agenda, is actually a calculated campaign against women and men both. Unless one lives under a rock, it is obvious who runs the households of this nation. Therefore, it should also be obvious that if you influence and deceive those who administrate the households, their men and children will fall in line behind them. This is of course, just one facet we can look at. There are many other facets.

For the purposes of this post, I'm going to use Beezzer's infamous "Fluffy Kitten Syndrome" as an example. If you don't like "Women's rights", "Women's Empowerment", "Feminism", "gender equality", and so on. You don't like women. It's that simple. Don't bother explaining that the titles don't match the movement. That's irrelevant.

My point being. Control the women of America, and you also control the men and children. Fortunately, more and more women are coming to the realization, they are being used by the establishment to emasculate their men.

So many insecure men and women here, it's quite sad, really it is. Especially the women who are frightened by the idea of their own empowerment. Seriously, ladies ? Are you aware that if it hadn't been for the so called "pro-female" agenda, you wouldn't even be recognized enough to even participate in the debate ?

What are you all so scared about ? We are all individuals, we should all be treated equally regardless of gender. Women are not treated equally in most places on this planet, and some people want to fight for that to change. What's the big deal ?

Also, to the people complaining about "the destruction of the traditional family" : I say good riddance ! The traditional family unit was a frikkin' terrible thing ! The authocratic, all powerfull, all deciding father figure, the self-effaced wife/mother who was walled into silence and sacrificed her entire personnal life for everyone else, please... Who wants that ? I'm a guy, and I sure as hell wouldn't... Living with a terrified ghost of a person... You people are the same ones who thought society would crumble when women got the right to vote. Guess what ? It didn't.

Other people's family life has got nothing to do with you, and people should have the option to live as they please. If you want to be dictator-like male powerfreaks or pathetic little submissive females, well good for you. However, women and men *should* have the right to be able to be something else, and I for one am glad that some people out there still believe in fighting for such a cause, which is not only just, but also necessary. Society evolves, just like everything else. Get with it or go extinct.

The most obvious nefarious goal I can see is the break-up of the traditional family. The Feminism movement is just one front of the war on the traditional family. Fore example, from the Feminism handbook: Women shouldn't be at home raising children! That's so old fashioned. They should be out in the workplace getting things done! Who cares who raises children. Just dump them in daycare. The Gay agenda is also one of the fronts being waged against the traditional family. Another less obvious one is Welfare/food stamps. Knock a woman up? Knock several women up? That's ok, you don't need to stay and be a father or provide for them. The government will provide for their needs so you don't have to!

You know it would probably help if you typed out just a few examples because I can't figure what in he'll you're talking about.
Possibly the fact that women were repressed for centuries in a world ruled by men and for the most part still are in many regions has something to do with it. I don't see this bias you talk about that's for sure so yeah give us some examples.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


That is because you seek a motive when most of us don't even see this agenda. We are still far far from being equal or let me rephrase that ,far far from being thought equal.

XL5
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"?

Well thanks for that. You just put the women's movement back a few centuries. Men find it pointless to try and argue with a woman? REALLY? Please explain why you made that statement.
Excuse my pretty little head for not being able to wrap my mind around that but for the most part that statement makes me angry. Very angry. Blanket statements like that always do.

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

Sorry buddy, but this is internet double speak for, "I'm not [insert intolerance of topic], but [insert hugely intolerant random muses of topic]"

Just for your information, there are people who take anything too far. Women's rights is no different, it doesn't make it wrong or sinister.

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.

We're you referring to the Pussy Riot? I agree, did you see one perform a sex act on a piece of Chicken? Putin had the right idea.
It's simple. The sexulisation of women, and the demoralisation of society.

ETA: I think many on this thread misinterpreted you.

Because we live in an unequal society where women are routinely denied the same rights, lifestyle and pay as men. If you want evidence for this, just read the posts supporting your view.

Having a pro-women agenda, making them equal to our current status is far preferable than removing all the current advantages men have don't you think?

Here are a few instance of feminization of western society. I am sure there are more but here are a some:

1. The requirement of clean shaven males.
2. Male genital mutilation - Circumcision.
3. Female titallation of superiors for advancement and promotion - it happens all the time.
4. The consistent portrayal of females as intelligent and articulate and males as unintelligent bumbling dolts.
5. The forcing of males to operate in a more feminine mode of interaction in the workplace.

eManym
Here are a few instance of feminization of western society. I am sure there are more but here are a some:

1. The requirement of clean shaven males.

What requirement? I have a beard. My chest is hairy, heck I have hair all over my body. Nobody stops me and demands I shave. I haven't been fired for having hair. so where am I required to shave?

2. Male genital mutilation - Circumcision.

Circumcision predates the feminist movement.

3. Female titallation of superiors for advancement and promotion - it happens all the time.

Does this mean females using their bodies to get ahead? Um ok... Males have a version of this too, it's called kissing ass.

4. The consistent portrayal of females as intelligent and articulate and males as unintelligent bumbling dolts.

Stop watching Lifetime. Play videogames, they are pretty male centric still.

5. The forcing of males to operate in a more feminine mode of interaction in the workplace.

Being polite is feminine?