"Men -- the new second class citizens"

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by garren

The Culturural Marxism.

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

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by garren

http://pinballking.blogspot.com/2013...nder-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 Crowley

We must keep eternal vigilance against the luciferian globalists.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Oh dear....and another one.

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

[garren]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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/arti...titasking.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/ar...ears-ago-.html



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]

Originally Posted by garren

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

Sounds good.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by garren

Blacks were better off during Jim Crow than today.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by garren

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]

Originally Posted by garren

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.