"Men -- the new second class citizens"

[garren]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/12/men-new-second-class-citizens/

:hmmm: Now that she mentions it...

[Wolferz]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/stock-photo-cute-caveman-with-a-club-and-a-girl-20221630.jpg

Faux news, Garren?
What are you doing to yourself?
That'll be enough of that young man.:O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Must be the he mans woman hater day or something. Second thread on woman posted by garren. Need to get something off your chest? :hmmm:

[garren]

Must be the he mans woman hater day or something. Second thread on woman posted by garren. Need to get something off your chest? :hmmm:


It's hating on women to cite news that men are second class citizens? Can't challenge women on anything without it being taken as hate? Yet those on the left like Nancy Pelosi can say that women need even more?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/22/197368/pelosi-rolls-out-economic-agenda.html#.Ue_ZWZ0o6VO

There's no hate in feminism excluding half the human race? How is any group or movement that focuses solely on itself not a hate group? The KKK is solely focuses on the empowerment of whites. Feminism is solely focused on the empowerment of females. "White power" and "Girl power" have a distinctly similar ring to them.

Besides, I thought women were already dominating men and handing them their butts. That's what this article from a liberal news outlet claimed a few years ago...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

Now those on the left are saying that women need more empowerment? :hmmm:

I see the left using gender politics here. They created this "War on women" nonsense because some on the right challenged the abortion laws. Leftist feminists do not want men to have a say in issues like abortion. Of course they used men (an all male justice system in the 70s) to get Roe vs Wade passed. So as long as men are willing to give women power they are fine with it. But if any man challenges women on it - he's a woman hater?

I just see where this is going. I'm all for equality but I find it funny how I'm often having to hold feminists to equality when they claim that's all they are about.

[AVGWarhawk]

Women have been second class citizens forever. In so much that one was brushed under the carpet by her own party so a black man could run and win the WH. Digest that for awhile. Funny, now it's Hillary's turn?

[CaptainHaplo]

Women have been second class citizens forever.

Really? Would you have told Catherine II or Hapshetsut or Wu Zetian that? Women have always been part of the power structure, and often the head of it, throughout history. They have done so without relying on their "husband" to gain / maintain power.

There has been sexual discrimination in history - on BOTH sides of the fence. Like most things, its something that increases at times and decreases at others.

Being unable to see past "recent" history blinds people and creates more of that pendulum swing than is necessary - it causes people to over-react to try and "cure" the problem, resulting in going to far the other way.

In so much that one was brushed under the carpet by her own party so a black man could run and win the WH. Digest that for awhile. Funny, now it's Hillary's turn?

Wow, one person in a political primary that more than half the nation could not be involved in (since the D's don't let independents and republicans vote in their primary) somehow is substantial proof that the entire nation - nay the world - is still sexist against women? I don't think so...

Hillary lost not be cause she is a woman (though I still say she has more testicular fortitude than many men), but because her party saw a PR opportunity they deemed greater and better for them. While one can argue that she got railroaded, it wasn't because of her plumbing.

The point here is that the pendulum has swung too far. That isn't hating on women - its recognition that if women want true equality - then they cannot be a "protected class" - either under the law or in the eyes of society. If they remain as such - how are they truly equal?

[garren]

Women have been second class citizens forever. In so much that one was brushed under the carpet by her own party so a black man could run and win the WH. Digest that for awhile. Funny, now it's Hillary's turn?

So political jobs are what constitute what makes an equal society? Why not education jobs where women hold over 80% of those jobs? Politician serve "The people" - and this includes men and women alike. They are voted into office by men and women alike - not just men. So political jobs are not a good indicator as to what constitutes "equality" between the sexes. Men in politics created the Violence Against Women's Act. Doesn't benefit you as a man but you sure pay for it through your taxes. If your wife beats you then you're not going to get any help with the Violence Against Women's Act. No shelters for you either as a man. But there are thousands of them for women. Yet new studies suggest that domestic violence is about 50/50. Some suggests that women might actually abuse men more often. But men do more damage to women when they hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

But notice how female politicians talk about "Women only" agendas. This is not equality. It would be like voting in a black politician that's made comments like he's going to do more for blacks than whites. Think that's fair? No way.

I've never heard a male politician in modern times talk about "men only" agendas or to help out men in larger society who are not equal with women in certain areas of life.

Women have always been 2nd class citizens? If being pandered to and coddled is your definition of 2nd class then you're thinking is very askew. One sex is being forced to protect and serve the other. Men are being forced to protect and serve women. That's obviously what you believe is equality with your - he chose to be her personal lapdog when he married her in the other thread about never marrying an American woman.

Who's done the bulk of the fighting and dying in combat? Men - and why is that? Because men are the only sex that's been deemed by other men as "expendable" by government and are therefore draftable into the wars the government chooses to get involved in. And let's not forget that if a male doesn't sign his draft card within 30 days of his 18th birthday he can not hold a government job or get loans to college whereas women can without having to sign their lives away to the government that benefits them the most.

So Hilary Clinton who never signed a draft card, never served her country in the military, should be in a position over the lives of men in the country who've been mandated to do more for their country than she ever did? The woman rode her husband's coattails into power.

Lastly, the women of today are not the women of the past. They have every opportunity men have today and very little of the responsibility that goes with any of it. When the bills don't get paid who does society come after? The man of the house. When the grass isn't mowed outside and people drive by, who do they think is the lazy one in the house? The man. But you may have worked it out with your wife that you do the dishes and vacuuming while it's her responsibility to mow the lawn.

How about instead of just giving women power through laws that discriminate against men and give women special incentives to succeed, they actually earn it on their own through their own merit? That's all I ask of them. Don't bring special attention to yourselves as women and whine that women long ago were 2nd class citizens those evil menfolk from the past chose to fight and die for in combat. LOL! What a joke. And what's good about earning your place on your own merit is you can claim you did it all on your own and didn't have any special governmental incentives that cheated in your sex's or race's favor.

[Jimbuna]

Oh dear....and another one.

[AVGWarhawk]

So political jobs are what constitute what makes an equal society? Why not education jobs where women hold over 80% of those jobs? Politician serve "The people" - and this includes men and women alike. They are voted into office by men and women alike - not just men. So political jobs are not a good indicator as to what constitutes "equality" between the sexes. Men in politics created the Violence Against Women's Act. Doesn't benefit you as a man but you sure pay for it through you taxes.

But notice how female politicians talk about "Women only" agendas. This is not equality. I've never heard a male politician in modern times talk about "men only" agendas or to help out men in larger society who are not equal with women in certain areas.

Women have always been 2nd class citizens? If being pandered to and coddled is your definition of 2nd class then you're thinking is very askew. One sex is being forced to protect and serve the other. Men are being forced to protect and serve women. That's obviously what you believe is equality with your - he chose to be her personal lapdog when he married her in the other thread about never marrying an American woman.

Who's done the bulk of the fighting and dying in combat? Men - and why is that? Because men are the only sex that's been deemed "expendable" by government and are therefore draftable into the wars the government chooses to get involved in. And let's not forget that if a male doesn't sign his draft card within 30 days of his 18th birthday he can not hold a government job or get loans to college whereas women can without having to sign their lives away to the government that benefits them the most.

So Hilary Clinton who never signed a draft card, never served her country in the military, should be in a position over the lives of men in the country who've been mandated to do more for their country than she ever did? The woman rode her husband's coattails into power.

Lastly, the women of today are not the women of the past. They have every opportunity men have today and very little of the responsibility that goes with any of it. When the bills don't get paid who does society come after? The man of the house. When the grass isn't mowed outside and people drive by, who do they think is the lazy one in the house? The man. But you may have worked it out with your wife that you do the dishes and vacuuming while it's her responsibility to mow the lawn.


Glass ceiling brother, glass ceiling. Reading your post I'm reminded of Leave it to Beaver. June Cleaver no longer exists. Your last paragraph is way off the mark. If the electric bill is in my wife's name and not paid they do not call for me. The call for my wife. Society does not come after the man. The company due money comes after who is shown on the invoice. Join the 21st century. You might be able to relax when you do.

[Skybird]

Genderism.

Many of you prefer to act as if it does not exist (maybe that would hurt your self-boasting male egos), or you deny its implications, and its ideological origin.

Well. You will see where it leads you. I touched upon it several times. Its just another colour added to the palette that is used for painting the general Western self-destruction.

It's all being turned into a nuthouse, and the lunatics and psychopaths are running the offices.

[garren]

Genderism.

Many of you prefer to act as if it does not exist (maybe that would hurt your self-boasting male egos), or you deny its implications, and its ideological origin.

Well. You will see where it leads you. I touched upon it several times. Its just another colour added to the palette that is used for painting the general Western self-destruction.

It's all being turned into a nuthouse, and the lunatics and psychopaths are running the offices.

Glad you see it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Glad you see it.

Huh?

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender

This is what you are displaying in this thread. The way I read your input is women should be barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and in the kitchen making you a "sammich"

[garren]

Huh?


http://pinballking.blogspot.com/2013/06/adams-rib-feminist-gender-bender-from.html


The Culturural Marxism.


it will be an immense release to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowledge that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration." -Adam Weishaupt, founder of the illuminati, in 1776

[AVGWarhawk]

Now we are talking Marxism. Man, I have seen some tangents but this takes the cake. :haha: See my edited post #12.

[Skybird]

Huh?

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender

This is what you are displaying in this thread. The way I read your input is women should be barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and in the kitchen making you a "sammich"
The medical university of Vienna some months ago had qualification tests for students wanting to study medicine. It cam eto light that they wanted to artifically boost the number of female students and thus gave female candidfates better notes for same test performance and lowered the standards for point scoring, which led to many female students getting places although they scored worse than male students.

Statistics for German universitxy staff since summer last year show that for over 80% of free posts male candidates were exlcuded from recognition, and aasking candidates were told they should not even sign in for the competition, since they would not be taken into account because they are male.

Surveys show that in germany the education system has dramatically shifted towards female attitudes and gender attributes and that this has led to a massive focussing of educaitonal effort on the needs of girls, neglecting that of boys. The result is that the note verage score for boys now is worse than for girls - and this is wanted. It serves as an excuse to argue that boys are less intelligent than girls for many people over here.

A specific characteristic of the German language and similar languages is the so-called Genus Commune, or Ambigen, that in Ger,man by pure convention is called the "Maskulinum". It linguistically roots in conventions and developements from before the early medieval, and indicates a neutral Genus that does neither imply nor indicate a specific male form even when the term for the neutral Genus and that for the specific male Genus are identical. For example, in English you call both males and female "professors", in German we make the distinction between "Frau Professor" or "Frau Professorin" for female professors, "Herr Professor" for male professors. Universities under pressure of pc and gender lobbyists have now started to rape this grammatical format, and now created a form that the German does not really know in this form, it is fully articifical. At two unioversities already male professors are noiw opfficially adressed as female professors ("Frau Professorin" for male profs). Othzger universities announced they would follow this latest step in gender follies.

Fathers know since many years that in case of legal fights with the divorced mother, their rights are massively disadvantaged compared to that of the mothers.

The EU and the national parliaments both puish for massive quota regulations on all levels of society and jobs. Qualification questions as well as questions of existing or lacking interest of females for certain role models and jobs are being ignored. This goes hand in hand with the destruction of family structures and the defamation of the mother's role model, and mocking and thinking low of women who spend time at home as mothers, instead of generating tax income for the state by going for a job, and rejecting sexual role models by demanding them to fulfill certain quotas in every area, even if they have no interest for a given field. Feminists are dripping of hate for female traitors to their cause who put their kids and family before the wanted ideological performance.

Genderism still spreads many lies and myths about how completely arbitrarily the sexual self-understanding of boys and girls (sorry, both terms already are considered to be discriminating - serious) is, and that the taken sexual identity is completely open to social engineering, and every boy can be turned into a girl, and vice versa. It goes so far that it even gets occasionally demanded that teenagers shall be actively encouraged to have not only heterosexual but also homosexual experiences - before you have not had gay and lesbian experience, so they say, you cannot form an educated choice for whether you want to be a boy or a girl, a homo- or heterosexual person. To create from every generation of teenagers certain quotas again for each sexual category, is being desired by the very queer "thinkers" of this argument. Geht's noch...?

EU laws and treaties since the early 90s include obligations of member states to strengthen and spread generism ideals and to establöish quotas of females, also to dissolve male and female traditions, attributions, and to educate people to avoid thinking in heterosexual terminologies. It is wanted - and being realised in nations over here - that in the proceeding of this, the special responsibility of parents for the education of their kids gets deleted and handed over "to society" (which means: to the state and the political ideologists representing the state). Mother" and "father" are terms that are to be abandoned, and severöla states' authorities already have deleted these terms from official language use, now speaking either undiscriminatingly of "the parents" or in German "das Elter 1" for mothers and "das Elter 2" for fathers, where the numbers should be changed frequently to avoid giving the impression that any of the sexes is being favoured over the other. No maskulinum or femininum in articles, no indication of different parents like father and mother. In several EU states there are movements that try to anchor in society that the term "mother" is a sexual discrimination, and an offence against women.

the madness is unlimited, and is spreading unlimited. Insurers are not allowed to insure specific gender-related risks anymore, but must insure women the same way as men, so specific health risks of women are no longer to be calculated, but in general must be payed for by men now - which means men now pay more for their insurances. In return, women are calculated to not pay more for the specific health risks of men. Until here, it was a violation of market logic (the price for an insurance depends on the risk). From here on, it is double standards again, and discrimination.

Health statistics seem to indicate since years that men are showing growing numbers of health symptoms due to their declining respectability in society. the constant demand of feminists to focus on the traditional victim - the women and girls - leads to constant concessions to them, which lowers qualification standards for them, increases hurdles for men, and leads to a generally very distorted perception of what the relation between men and women really are. Crime statistics say since years that home-grown violence is as often directed form female aggressors against male victims, like the other way around, some statistics - including rape - ins ome years and place even show a female dominance for these forms of violence. No word on that ever, nowhere, and if you dare to mention it, the feminists are immediately jumping on you and trying to poison you to death with their hate and stereotypes. Last year there was a court case against a prominent weather,man in germany, accused by his former girlfriend of having raped her. It seems it was just her seeking revenge for him having left her, however, the leading female voice of feminist activists over here repeatedly made statements that implied that in case of female accusations over rape against a male attacker the mere fact of the accusation being filed should legally be seen as evidence of the rape indeed having taken place. She implied by that that a man who even just gets accused of having raped a woman, should be sentenced for jail already! She repeated that implication several times, so it was no accident, she did not correct it.

The madness goes just on and on. I could give so much more, if all this here would be in German. The term genderism so far in America hs not gained the completely new meaning, it seems to me, that it now has been given over here in the EU and especially in Germany. However, watch out, America: the sh!t raining down here has reached your coastline as well by now. It will make itself increasingly felt in the coming years.

A society, a culture, a civilisation that denies even its most profoiund core items of own identity, like the existence of mothers and afthers, andf the impotance of families, has no future. It not only falls apart, it actively gets ripped apart by its own inhabitants. In case of Marxist-communists, it is not even being denied, they want to destroy the burgeoise society to fill its place with communist collectivism, Marx was very explicit over why the burgeoise family must be destroyed. He correctly understood that family (and private property) are the two central pillars on which this model stands. Tare down even one of them, and the house must collapse. There are reasons why the left, the Greens, the feminists, the homosexual activists, the anarchists all work together so nicely, hand in hand. Their ideological goals are all complementary.

This will not give us any wonderful haven, or a shiyn utopia. All we will get from this, is just collapse, growing totalitarianism, growing expropriation and destruction of individual freedom and dignity, and when in some decades even the dysfunctional pathetic excuse of an economy no longer can maintain the illusion, and brakes down - then people will land extremely hard on the rock solid ground of reality. And many will crack open during that impact.

I'm glad that i will no longer be around when the going gets really tough.

[AngusJS]

Really? Would you have told Catherine II or Hapshetsut or Wu Zetian that? Women have always been part of the power structure, and often the head of it, throughout history. They have done so without relying on their "husband" to gain / maintain power.If you think that listing a few notable exceptions somehow shows that past societies have not usually been overwhelmingly patriarchal, you're nuts.

[AndyJWest]

The Culturural Marxism.

Goddam Commies! Next thing they'll be teaching us all to spell... :03:

[AngusJS]

http://pinballking.blogspot.com/2013/06/adams-rib-feminist-gender-bender-from.html


The Culturural Marxism.

This undermining of Godly morals and traditional families is essential for the luciferian globalists to replace God with lucifer, demoralize society, and set up a New World Order dictatorship. "The family is enemy number one" said satanist Aleister CrowleyWe must keep eternal vigilance against the luciferian globalists.

:rotfl2:

[Nippelspanner]

Oh dear....and another one.

My exact thoughts... I was like "Oh, another garren!" :haha:

[garren]

The medical university of Vienna some months ago had qualification tests for students wanting to study medicine. It cam eto light that they wanted to artifically boost the number of female students and thus gave female candidfates better notes for same test performance and lowered the standards for point scoring, which led to many female students getting places although they scored worse than male students.

Statistics for German universitxy staff since summer last year show that for over 80% of free posts male candidates were exlcuded from recognition, and aasking candidates were told they should not even sign in for the competition, since they would not be taken into account because they are male.

Surveys show that in germany the education system has dramatically shifted towards female attitudes and gender attributes and that this has led to a massive focussing of educaitonal effort on the needs of girls, neglecting that of boys. The result is that the note verage score for boys now is worse than for girls - and this is wanted. It serves as an excuse to argue that boys are less intelligent than girls for many people over here.

A specific characteristic of the German language and similar languages is the so-called Genus Commune, or Ambigen, that in Ger,man by pure convention is called the "Maskulinum". It linguistically roots in conventions and developements from before the early medieval, and indicates a neutral Genus that does neither imply nor indicate a specific male form even when the term for the neutral Genus and that for the specific male Genus are identical. For example, in English you call both males and female "professors", in German we make the distinction between "Frau Professor" or "Frau Professorin" for female professors, "Herr Professor" for male professors. Universities under pressure of pc and gender lobbyists have now started to rape this grammatical format, and now created a form that the German does not really know in this form, it is fully articifical. At two unioversities already male professors are noiw opfficially adressed as female professors ("Frau Professorin" for male profs). Othzger universities announced they would follow this latest step in gender follies.

Fathers know since many years that in case of legal fights with the divorced mother, their rights are massively disadvantaged compared to that of the mothers.

The EU and the national parliaments both puish for massive quota regulations on all levels of society and jobs. Qualification questions as well as questions of existing or lacking interest of females for certain role models and jobs are being ignored. This goes hand in hand with the destruction of family structures and the defamation of the mother's role model, and mocking and thinking low of women who spend time at home as mothers, instead of generating tax income for the state by going for a job, and rejecting sexual role models by demanding them to fulfill certain quotas in every area, even if they have no interest for a given field. Feminists are dripping of hate for female traitors to their cause who put their kids and family before the wanted ideological performance.

Genderism still spreads many lies and myths about how completely arbitrarily the sexual self-understanding of boys and girls (sorry, both terms already are considered to be discriminating - serious) is, and that the taken sexual identity is completely open to social engineering, and every boy can be turned into a girl, and vice versa. It goes so far that it even gets occasionally demanded that teenagers shall be actively encouraged to have not only heterosexual but also homosexual experiences - before you have not had gay and lesbian experience, so they say, you cannot form an educated choice for whether you want to be a boy or a girl, a homo- or heterosexual person. To create from every generation of teenagers certain quotas again for each sexual category, is being desired by the very queer "thinkers" of this argument. Geht's noch...?

EU laws and treaties since the early 90s include obligations of member states to strengthen and spread generism ideals and to establöish quotas of females, also to dissolve male and female traditions, attributions, and to educate people to avoid thinking in heterosexual terminologies. It is wanted - and being realised in nations over here - that in the proceeding of this, the special responsibility of parents for the education of their kids gets deleted and handed over "to society" (which means: to the state and the political ideologists representing the state). Mother" and "father" are terms that are to be abandoned, and severöla states' authorities already have deleted these terms from official language use, now speaking either undiscriminatingly of "the parents" or in German "das Elter 1" for mothers and "das Elter 2" for fathers, where the numbers should be changed frequently to avoid giving the impression that any of the sexes is being favoured over the other. No maskulinum or femininum in articles, no indication of different parents like father and mother. In several EU states there are movements that try to anchor in society that the term "mother" is a sexual discrimination, and an offence against women.

the madness is unlimited, and is spreading unlimited. Insurers are not allowed to insure specific gender-related risks anymore, but must insure women the same way as men, so specific health risks of women are no longer to be calculated, but in general must be payed for by men now - which means men now pay more for their insurances. In return, women are calculated to not pay more for the specific health risks of men. Until here, it was a violation of market logic (the price for an insurance depends on the risk). From here on, it is double standards again, and discrimination.

Health statistics seem to indicate since years that men are showing growing numbers of health symptoms due to their declining respectability in society. the constant demand of feminists to focus on the traditional victim - the women and girls - leads to constant concessions to them, which lowers qualification standards for them, increases hurdles for men, and leads to a generally very distorted perception of what the relation between men and women really are. Crime statistics say since years that home-grown violence is as often directed form female aggressors against male victims, like the other way around, some statistics - including rape - ins ome years and place even show a female dominance for these forms of violence. No word on that ever, nowhere, and if you dare to mention it, the feminists are immediately jumping on you and trying to poison you to death with their hate and stereotypes. Last year there was a court case against a prominent weather,man in germany, accused by his former girlfriend of having raped her. It seems it was just her seeking revenge for him having left her, however, the leading female voice of feminist activists over here repeatedly made statements that implied that in case of female accusations over rape against a male attacker the mere fact of the accusation being filed should legally be seen as evidence of the rape indeed having taken place. She implied by that that a man who even just gets accused of having raped a woman, should be sentenced for jail already! She repeated that implication several times, so it was no accident, she did not correct it.

The madness goes just on and on. I could give so much more, if all this here would be in German. The term genderism so far in America hs not gained the completely new meaning, it seems to me, that it now has been given over here in the EU and especially in Germany. However, watch out, America: the sh!t raining down here has reached your coastline as well by now. It will make itself increasingly felt in the coming years.

A society, a culture, a civilisation that denies even its most profoiund core items of own identity, like the existence of mothers and afthers, andf the impotance of families, has no future. It not only falls apart, it actively gets ripped apart by its own inhabitants. In case of Marxist-communists, it is not even being denied, they want to destroy the burgeoise society to fill its place with communist collectivism, Marx was very explicit over why the burgeoise family must be destroyed. He correctly understood that family (and private property) are the two central pillars on which this model stands. Tare down even one of them, and the house must collapse. There are reasons why the left, the Greens, the feminists, the homosexual activists, the anarchists all work together so nicely, hand in hand. Their ideological goals are all complementary.

This will not give us any wonderful haven, or a shiyn utopia. All we will get from this, is just collapse, growing totalitarianism, growing expropriation and destruction of individual freedom and dignity, and when in some decades even the dysfunctional pathetic excuse of an economy no longer can maintain the illusion, and brakes down - then people will land extremely hard on the rock solid ground of reality. And many will crack open during that impact.

I'm glad that i will no longer be around when the going gets really tough.

I find it very suspect how women, for the first time in exactly 100 years, outscored men on the international IQ exam. It's just too coincidental to be taken seriously that it just so happened on the centennial of the IQ exam. Things are certainly being played in favor of women to give the appearance of gender equality. We're creating a pseudo-reality to appease the sensitive ones who need political correctness to protect them.

And with all the demonizing of males in grade schools it's no wonder more females are going to colleges and Universities today compared to males. The mostly female teachers in grade schools can't handle boys rowdiness. They boys today get punished for being boys. Female teachers call the parents of rowdy boys and tell them to put their son on mind altering drugs like Ritalin so he becomes passive and easy to control like the girls. Doctors make money off harming boys with this crap. These boys come off the drugs in high school and go on shooting sprees or have all sorts of mental health issues.

Most females are getting degrees in social sciences like women's studies where they learn to become even more narcissistic about themselves and how to become angry man-hating feminists. They push them towards working a career instead of having a family and being a mom. A lot of women are getting old now and all they have to show for their lives is a briefcase and some cats. And then they right articles stating how feminism did them wrong and that women can't have it all after all. Well duh! Men tried to warn them long ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overtake-men-IQ-tests-time-100-years-multitasking.html

Funny how women today are more unhappy than they were in the 1950s... This is because they know that working a job is not independence - it's more oppressive than being in the kitchen and at home raising kids.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdrVn0jkVWY

But it sure is nice that they're trying to find ways to make women happy by golly! What about men? Has anyone ever asked what we want and what would make us happy? Going back to 1950 would make us happy and women happy too. Oh, but we can't do that because that would be oppressive towards women who want careers now instead of babies. yeah right. Women are on a biological clock and men are not. Women need to have a baby and at a fairly young age to avoid birth defects.

[Takeda Shingen]

Going back to 1950 would make us happy and women happy too.

Sounds good.

http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/history/depietrowq3_files/image005.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Takeda - in this Garren is talking about what is known as the "1950's" lifestyle - where women worked inside the home and men worked outside it. That lifestyle is also seen as a "male led" dynamic. The man was king, the woman was queen.

While I personally enjoy that kind of thing, the reality is that the "women's liberation" movement started because of it. It is not, as Garren seems to think, a panacea or utopian way. Different people have different ways - and that one is one that works for some people, but not all.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda - in this Garren is talking about what is known as the "1950's" lifestyle - where women worked inside the home and men worked outside it. That lifestyle is also seen as a "male led" dynamic. The man was king, the woman was queen.

While I personally enjoy that kind of thing, the reality is that the "women's liberation" movement started because of it. It is not, as Garren seems to think, a panacea or utopian way. Different people have different ways - and that one is one that works for some people, but not all.


That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

[antikristuseke]

Garren, for someone against victim mentality you sure seem to harbor a lot of it. Just to make it clea,r I don't think this invalidates your arguments in any wayy, not trying to make a personal attack as such, you just seem to whine a lot.

[CaptainHaplo]

That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

It is not about rolling back social mores, it is about - at least in the 1950's style dynamic, one that both parties should choose for themselves, not be mandated.

This is where I disagree with Garren - while it works great - it is not for everyone and should only be engaged in by freely consenting, informed adults. Thus no need to revert to racist standards.

[garren]

That's cool. Just make sure that we roll back social mores for all groups, not just one. Fair is fair, right? This means minorities get reacquainted with Mr. Jim Crow, something that your buddy clearly hasn't thought through. If you don't like the argument, then don't make it. Easy-peasy.

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today. We weren't killing each other like we are today. We only had to worry about a few crazy whites killing us. Just look at the black music from the 1950s and how happy and upbeat it was compared to today. Now we rap out of anger and it's ugly music that comes from pint up rage and aggression and hate. Why were we so much happier in the 1950s and more positive in our music than we are today with all this supposed freedom? Again, every time the leftists help the black man - he's not helping him at all and just hurting him more but making himself out to be the hero when he's really the villain.

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.

[mookiemookie]

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today.

http://i.imgur.com/P05dz.gif

[frau kaleun]

http://i.imgur.com/P05dz.gif


Maybe he's confusing it with Jim Croce? He always seemed liked a mellow sort of dude.

[Sailor Steve]

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.
You think you'd be better off during a time when, if you had a relationship with a white woman her father could just shoot you, and the judge would call it "justifiable homicide"?

Interesting.

[CaptainHaplo]

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today. We weren't killing each other like we are today. We only had to worry about a few crazy whites killing us.

Ultimately this is comparing apples to oranges. Statistically your right, blacks were generally more likely to simply be able to keep living on a daily basis than they are today, given the intra-racial epidemic of murder and violence by young, black men. Still, that is only part of the story.

Just look at the black music from the 1950s and how happy and upbeat it was compared to today. Now we rap out of anger and it's ugly music that comes from pint up rage and aggression and hate.

Now I am a dumb white country boy without a racist bone in my body - so I have to ask - the pent up rage and hate - what is it really over?

Is it the economic injustice? The history of oppression that some see as continuing today? An effect of the society that has destroyed the "nuclear family" and left too many young, black youth without a "father figure" in their life showing them how to grow and be a successful and responsible member of society?

Why were we so much happier in the 1950s and more positive in our music than we are today with all this supposed freedom? Again, every time the leftists help the black man - he's not helping him at all and just hurting him more but making himself out to be the hero when he's really the villain.

That is because your average leftist doesn't want "the black man" (in this case, black society) to start standing on its own and changing what doesn't work. If black society rejected the "victim, you are owed" mentality that is sold it by the left, with its constant reminder of how bad it is out there in the "white man's world", then blacks as a voting block would go "off the plantation" and start realizing that conservatives (NOT republicans) are not out to get them.

So sure, I think my race would be a lot better off back in the 1950s as well.

What your aiming at is that when "free" blacks are still held down economically by a system designed to keep them undereducated and underserved, more die because of the results. The repeal of "jim crow" (who was never an actual person) did a lot to help the black community, but it also did a lot to harm it - because throwing together two unequal societies does not suddenly make them all equal.

[AVGWarhawk]

You think you'd be better off during a time when, if you had a relationship with a white woman her father could just shoot you, and the judge would call it "justifiable homicide"?

Interesting.

Better yet, let's take a look at Emmett Till for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

[garren]

Better yet, let's take a look at Emmett Till for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Come into a black neighborhood as a white man and whistle at a black woman and you're gonna get shot or beat down.

Probably been more whites killed by blacks in the last 40 years than all the blacks white folks ever killed off in the entire history of the US. But this is the same America that armed Japan before WWII and armed Iraq before the Gulf war. You give your foes the tools to fight against you and they will.

[AVGWarhawk]

Come into a black neighborhood as a white man and whistle at a black woman and you're gonna get shot or beat down.



This has little bearing on stating living in the 50's as a black man was much better.

[CaptainHaplo]

This has little bearing on stating living in the 50's as a black man was much better.

When you compare what a black man would have happen for doing something to a white woman "back then" and you swap it around now and the results are similar, it does have bearing.

If anything, it is evidence that the average male in the black community is likely just as "racist" as any white in the 50's.

[AVGWarhawk]

When you compare what a black man would have happen for doing something to a white woman "back then" and you swap it around now and the results are similar, it does have bearing.

If anything, it is evidence that the average male in the black community is likely just as "racist" as any white in the 50's.

I has no bearing to this particular discussion.

I would need a bit more evidence to substantiate your claim that average male in the black community is likely racist as a white person in the 50's.

[CaptainHaplo]

I has no bearing to this particular discussion.

I would need a bit more evidence to substantiate your claim that average male in the black community is likely racist as a white person in the 50's.

You mentioned Emmitt Till. Go look up Pat Mahaney or John Sanders or Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian (and the list goes on and on).

You don't hear about black on white crime for one reason - the AP censors it. They have admitted it in fact. Read a little, you might be shocked....

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-race-play-a-role-how-the-media-reports-crime

Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it isn't true. A little research will show you the facts.

[Armistead]

I has no bearing to this particular discussion.

I would need a bit more evidence to substantiate your claim that average male in the black community is likely racist as a white person in the 50's.

I got lost once and ended up in the housing projects at a stoplight. There were several blacks on the corners. I was behind a car. I actually rolled my window down to ask how to get back to the interstate and was met with every racial slur possible, even heard " kill the cracker". Someone threw a bottle at my truck and one even kicked my truck. I went around the car and ran the light as my truck was being kicked. Just a block over I passed a cop, who came back and pulled me, asked me what I was doing. I told him I was lost, he told me to get out of there before I got killed, then nicely led me out.

I think rap started to tell the truth of the inner city, but later turned into music to promote the thug life, rather than change it. IMO, Tina Turner has more talent in her little toe than all the rappers today combined.

What does this have to do with the topic, nothing, but thought I would mention it since the topic strayed...:D

[AVGWarhawk]

You mentioned Emmitt Till. Go look up Pat Mahaney or John Sanders or Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian (and the list goes on and on).

You don't hear about black on white crime for one reason - the AP censors it. They have admitted it in fact. Read a little, you might be shocked....

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-race-play-a-role-how-the-media-reports-crime

Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it isn't true. A little research will show you the facts.

So Emmitt Till is racist? This is your claim.

If anything, it is evidence that the average male in the black community is likely just as "racist" as any white in the 50's.

Unless of course you are speaking of a black being as racist today as a white would have been in the 50's. If that is the case, then I would concur.

As for the rest of your dissertation, it is unnecessary.

[AVGWarhawk]

I got lost once and ended up in the housing projects at a stoplight. There were several blacks on the corners. I was behind a car. I actually rolled my window down to ask how to get back to the interstate and was met with every racial slur possible, even heard " kill the cracker". Someone threw a bottle at my truck and one even kicked my truck. I went around the car and ran the light as my truck was being kicked. Just a block over I passed a cop, who came back and pulled me, asked me what I was doing. I told him I was lost, he told me to get out of there before I got killed, then nicely led me out.

I think rap started to tell the truth of the inner city, but later turned into music to promote the thug life, rather than change it. IMO, Tina Turner has more talent in her little toe than all the rappers today combined.

What does this have to do with the topic, nothing, but thought I would mention it since the topic strayed...:D


Not really off topic. I'm trying to decipher what he is pointing out as blacks just as racist in the 50's as whites or black TODAY are just as racists as whites in the 50's.

[Wolferz]

Racism is as ugly a word as the concept behind it.
We're all human beings here. Until the day comes that this planet is invaded by extraterrestrials who kill people of every color, we will have racism and the racists who promote it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Racism is as ugly a word as the concept behind it.
We're all human beings here. Until the day comes that this planet is invaded by extraterrestrials who kill people of every color, we will have racism and the racists who promote it.

There is racial issues with green people from foreign planets as well. It's just a mess really.

[Wolferz]

There is racial issues with green people from foreign planets as well. It's just a mess really.


Have a bunch of little green men living in your neighborhood, AVG?:haha:

The white coats are coming.:03:

It's those Coneheads from Remulak that are causing all the tension. Always consuming mass quantities and using those racial slurs like Oblio and bluntskull.:-?
They should all have to gnarfle the Garthog!

[AVGWarhawk]

Have a bunch of little green men living in your neighborhood, AVG?:haha:

The white coats are coming.:03:

It's those Coneheads from Remulak that are causing all the tension. Using racial slurs like Oblio and bluntskull.:-?
They should all have to gnarfle the Garthog!

http://goddamnaliens.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/ancient-aliens-guy-im-not-saying-its-aliens-but-its-aliens1.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

So Emmitt Till is racist? This is your claim.

No - I am noting the fact that the Emmitt Till murder was driven by racism. I didn't say anything about HIM being racist. I simply pointed out that while you can point to that as white crime on black, there is plenty of black on white crime today - and none of it gets called "racist" even though its clear that race was a significant factor. Racism doesn't just work one way, its simply reported as such.

Unless of course you are speaking of a black being as racist today as a white would have been in the 50's. If that is the case, then I would concur.

That is why I said "swap it around now" - now being present tense. But we concur - racism is "alive and well", sadly. In fact, its more prevalent today than in the 50's. Now, blacks are racist as much as whites were back then, and you still have some whites - a minority I believe, that are still racist as well.

As for Garren's comment that blacks would be better off "in the 50's" than they are today - just look at the crime numbers. Blacks are anywhere from 7 to 10 times more likely to commit murder - and 94% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. That was not the case in the "jim crow" days. Now I DON'T agree that we should go back there, but there is no denying that enforced desegregation and enforced "equality" has not made the black community equal - nor has it bettered its existence.

[AVGWarhawk]

No - I am noting the fact that the Emmitt Till murder was driven by racism. I didn't say anything about HIM being racist. I simply pointed out that while you can point to that as white crime on black, there is plenty of black on white crime today - and none of it gets called "racist" even though its clear that race was a significant factor. Racism doesn't just work one way, its simply reported as such.



That is why I said "swap it around now" - now being present tense. But we concur - racism is "alive and well", sadly. In fact, its more prevalent today than in the 50's. Now, blacks are racist as much as whites were back then, and you still have some whites - a minority I believe, that are still racist as well.

As for Garren's comment that blacks would be better off "in the 50's" than they are today - just look at the crime numbers. Blacks are anywhere from 7 to 10 times more likely to commit murder - and 94% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. That was not the case in the "jim crow" days. Now I DON'T agree that we should go back there, but there is no denying that enforced desegregation and enforced "equality" has not made the black community equal - nor has it bettered its existence.

Ok, gotcha', misunderstanding concerning the point you are conveying then and now concerning the 50's.

As far as garrens assertions blacks would be better if they were back in the 50's...I would agree, specifically for the black on black crime. Certainly not for the civil rights of blacks have fought for over the past 80+++ years. But, the black on black crime is of their own doing and never reported. It is the elephant in the room that is ignored because everyone refuses to believe it exists or just to taunting a task to take care of. I'm not sure.