What it comes down to is – choice


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What it comes down to is – choice

What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Successful men follow their biological imperative and seek out a mate who is most likely to bear healthy children and look after and care for them. Yes, financial dependence figures into this because it gives the man some form of guarantee that she is more likely to stay with him. Remember, a successful man can do this precisely because he has choice due to his success and subsequently elevated status in society.

Successful women on the other hand have been duped by feminism to follow imperatives that are contrary to nature. Specifically, they have elevated their own status in society and thereby logically narrowed down their pool of potential mates. This is for the simple reason that women do in fact also follow their biological imperative in expecting to marry up – i.e. to marry a man who is of equal or higher status. This is where feminism leads women astray. Successful men as a generality are not interested in the achievements of women. Rather, as I pointed out above, they are interested in their capacity as supportive wives and caring mothers. Because of their success they are in fact able to choose the most desirable mate – which is a young, pretty woman. This is nothing more than biological imperative speaking, which feminism is so desperately trying to censor.

Conversely, nothing is stopping successful women from marrying down and choosing less successful men. Yet they don’t – and in so doing expose their own biological/sexual biases. Thanks to feminism these women have actively and consciously rebelled against reality and against nature by shrinking their pool of potential mates and, having done so, blame “insecure men” for a situation which these women themselves have caused.

Thankfully we still live in a free society where people are largely free to make their own choices regarding the lives they wish to lead. This is of course yet another aspect of life that feminism wants to censor by brainwashing men into subordinance from childhood. But in the end, biology trumps ideology; just as the Soviet Union fell because of unrealistic expecations of communism, so feminism will fall in the long run because it is incompatible with nature and the biological/instinctive aspect of humanity.

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-24-2006 09:13 PM

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-24-2006 09:14 PM

08-24-2006 09:12 PM

Lorem ipsum
WillOWisp
Contributor

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est

Message Edited by WillOWisp on 08-30-2006 06:32 PM

08-24-2006 09:17 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Amen, Antiriad.

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-24-2006 09:25 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
crella
Regular Contributor
crella
But I bet you believe in the Patriarchy, Willow, which cannot be proven to have ever existed, a global cabal of men bent on keeping women down. In eras with no phones, no TV, no mail, no computers, very little mixing of cultures (other than by warfare)…it must have been mental telepathy that allowed this worldwide Patriarchy to communicate and rule the earth.

Feminism IS right under your nose, dear. You’d be wise to take another look and see exactly what tenets you’re following. Books by Robin Morgan, Catherine McKinnon and Dworkin might be a good start.

08-24-2006 09:49 PM

Lorem ipsum
WillOWisp
Contributor

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est

Message Edited by WillOWisp on 08-30-2006 06:27 PM

08-24-2006 09:55 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Here’s part two:

Let’s say feminism somehow manages to deny men their biological imperatives – i.e. even if they are successful, they can no longer find a woman to their liking.

What happens in this situation? Men stop working. There has to be incentive for anyone to do anything and by taking away men’s incentive to do work, feminists have thus taken away the primary motivating factor for men as well.

Consequence: men stop working. But this creates an even greater inequity between men and women. Specifically, women who have elevated their status now find that their pool of eligible men is non-existent.

One can of course entertain the notion that well adjusted children can be brought up by a single working mother who is now busy around the clock, working to support her offspring and thus never sees her children – although one might expect a certain amount of neurosis in such a woman, which might inevitably spread to her children. But in reality, such an extreme social setting is bound to be ephemeral and collapses due to extreme inefficiencies and mental burdens which are now placed squarely on women (since men are no longer in the picture – who maintains society?).

Consequence of feminism in the extreme case: society collapses. Net effect: feminism collapses due to its own unrelistic values.

08-24-2006 10:03 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

WillOWisp wrote:
ooh, that evil feminism! If I ever get my hands on her, I’m gonna bend her over my knee and give her a good spanking!

Stop the red herring.

What antiriad did is called check.

Your move- respond to his points.

08-24-2006 10:13 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
catsathena
Visitor
catsathena
Net effect: feminism collapses due to its own unrelistic values.

Yeah, silly me for unrealistically valuing someone who might know how to spell, for example.

I don’t think it is entirely unrealistic to ask that my mate be my intellectual equal or superior. I don’t care about being the breadwinner or not, but I do care that he is intelligent and ambitious. I don’t think anything is wrong with that.

Most men who are intelligent and ambitious happen to be successful. And, contrary to the original poster’s argument, while most of them look for someone to be a mother to their child, some of them value a woman who is accomplished in her own right. Don’t pretend to speak for all men, ok?

08-24-2006 10:14 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
This is all quite dramatic, Antiriad, and not very logical.

There will always be women who prefer motherhood and housekeeping to the rat race. There will always be men who prefer those women. What we’re seeing now is an increase in women who are not satisfied with this prechosen role, and are making changes — accordingly, some men are assessing wives as truly equal partners and demographics are changing. This is just society balancing itself out.

I would argue that many career women would be happy to have their husband stay home with the kids, were it not for a society that is extremely harsh to women who make that choice (heartless, selfish, cold, blah blah). In the same vein, men who become homemakers face society’s scorn for being pushovers or weak. But society doesn’t change on a whim, and takes generations to accept new modes of operation. People are very defensive of their own choices, and the “traditional” path is called so for a reason — it’s been the status quo for a while. As the ratios shift and gender roles are redistributed, a man staying home with his kids will stop seeming weird.

It’s rough for vanguards, to live as they want and to be constantly judged by others. It sucks. But is the annoyance of external judgement really worth allowing yourself to be pressured into doing something you don’t want to?

Society’s not going to collapse, it’s just going to sidestep into a slightly different track. There’s no reason to get breathless with panic. But perhaps one underlying aspect of your argument, that when men don’t get what they want they quit, should be examined. I don’t believe that men actually will throw tantrums when they find the young, pretty girls don’t want to stay home with the kids all the time. I think the wiser men will recognise the benefits of compromise and start changing their expectations and behaviour to get what they want.

Message Edited by Pelican on 08-24-2006 10:17 PM

08-24-2006 10:15 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
crella
Regular Contributor
crella
I was being sarcastic about the mental telepathy bit…

Go to any feminist blog (feministing.com for example) and you’ll see loads of under-30 American women debating the evils of the Patriarchy..you’ve never heard of this clap-trap? Sorry, I’d assumed that most women on the Net had atleast seen a reference to it.

‘for what? are they sci-fi authors or something? do they write any better than Mr. Noer?’

They are some of the founders of feminism.

It is American women who wear tin-foil hats, daily.

08-24-2006 10:16 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What it comes down to is – choice

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
crella
Regular Contributor
crella

Yeah, silly me for unrealistically valuing someone who might know how to spell, for example.’

Generally in a discussion, when you start to pick up on spelling and grammar it means you’re out of ideas.

Next.

08-24-2006 10:18 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
catsathena
Visitor
catsathena
Wow, talk about an intelligent response on your part. Go back to the cave, sweetie. I am sorry if your feelings were so hurt by the fact that you cannot check spelling and I did not find your observations soooo insightful. Not to worry, though, there are plenty of women out there who will.

08-24-2006 10:24 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
catsathena
Visitor
catsathena
And btw: I did have some ideas after picking on your spelling. Just wipe your tears away and you might see them.

08-24-2006 10:27 PM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Pelican – not only is my argument thoroughly logical, it is based on irrefutable evidence. The divorce rate is 50% and rising. The birth rate ranges from 1.1-1.9 children per woman in most western countries. In the US it is around 2 – but this is mostly due to immigration and immigrants (notably, those with traditional values) having more kids. I should point out here – in order to sustain a population, a woman must have 2.1 kids on average (.1 to account for infant death, etc.). In other words, westerners with their western values are breeding themselves out of existence.

In the middle east, women are having 3-5 children each. These are muslims with traditional islamic values. These are also the same people who are taking Europe by storm. Make no mistake – within 50 years’ time there will be a dramatically different value set in the western world. Who do you suppose maintains western values? Immigrants in this country? Muslims in Europe? Guess again.

All these facts I have pointed out can easily be looked up online.

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 12:58 AM

08-25-2006 12:57 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
But Antiriad, you’re coming from a point of view that the ideal is a woman staying at home with the children and keeping house while the man goes out and earns. Have you stopped to consider the happiness of women in this “traditional” form of family?

08-25-2006 01:05 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
Yes I have – and I reject the notion that women today are happier than they were in the past, now that they’ve got jobs.

For that matter, have you considered the fact that women – and men – are notably more angry, upset, depressed, and generally more unhappy than they were in the past? Feminism told you a bunch of lies about how women in the past were oppressed and unhappy. My advice: go talk to a few elderly women about the “bad old days” they lived in and draw your own conclusions.

As someone else on another forum has pointed out repeatedly: when western society – especially women – finally recognizes the absolute nightmare that feminism has inflicted on the western world, women are likely going to be the biggest misogynists in the future for having been utterly sold out and betrayed by those who claimed to be looking after their best interests.

There is pride in motherhood and womanhood – a pride which feminists have utterly debased. As a consequence, today’s women take pride in acting like men. It is the most ludicrous state of affairs that exists in the western world today. Ask a muslim woman about their “patriarchal traditions.” She will tell you that she gladly adheres to them and fully supports them. Ask them why – and ask them about their views regarding western women. There will be your answer.

Feminism is based on the most egregious lies ever sold to humanity. Once you realize the breadth of it, it makes your blood boil. And FYI – I used to be fully immersed within feminist doctrine – until I could no longer maintain my present worldview due to all the glaring inconsistencies (such as women’s general expectations regarding men, for starters).

If you are interested in the subject, look up the book Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports by Kate O’Beirne for starters. She quotes facts – and is predictably attacked with personal insults and threats by feminists.

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 01:28 AM

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 01:29 AM

08-25-2006 01:27 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Lord_Feverstone
Contributor
Lord_Feverstone
>But Antiriad, you’re coming from a point of view that the ideal is a woman staying at home with the children and keeping house while the man goes out and earns. Have you stopped to consider the happiness of women in this “traditional” form of family?

How about we care about the greater good rather than the “happiness” of one group?

While we are on the subject of happiness, what about the happiness of men? Do you think a man is happy spending large parts of his days working to make his employer richer? Do you think a man is happy with long, uncompensated commutes to work? Do you think a man is happy about coming home from a long day at work only to find his wife has a “to-do” list for him and a foul attitude as greeting? Do you think a man is happy about being called “irresponsible” when he takes some time to relax and/or pursue a hobby? Of course there are “better” things he can do with his time, but he will tend to have more energy for those better things when he takes the time to rest. Do you think men are happy about his wife speaking to him as if his job is some sort of “vacation” from the home? Being a man is not all it is cracked up to be.

What about the happiness of children? Do you think a child is happy about his mother dropping him off at a daycare staffed with few people who genuinely care about him? Do you think a child is happy about coming home from a day of school to an empty house? Do you think a child is happy about his parents being too busy chasing their tails in the world of business to spend time with him?

As you should be able to understand, there are more stories to be told. We have heard the sob stories of women incessantly. Now it is time for them to swallow their pride and listen.

08-25-2006 01:31 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

There is pride in motherhood and womanhood – a pride which feminists have utterly debased. As a consequence, today’s women take pride in acting like men. It is the most ludicrous state of affairs that exists in the western world today. Ask a muslim woman about their “patriarchal traditions.” She will tell you that she gladly adheres to them and fully supports them. Ask them why – and ask them about their views regarding western women. There will be your answer.

Women take pride in using their intelligence and enjoying work as WELL as raising children — it’s just not accurate to say you embrace feminism at the cost of your kids.

Muslim women are notorious for not having access to education, and many of the ones who ARE educated chafe at the limitiations of their society. Again, I can only imagine that you’ve been exposed to very few Muslim women in the Middle East — the women I knew were either delighted in exploring their (limited) freedoms or feeling trapped. And the woman I knew who was trapped was a Saudi princess, by the way — all the money in the world, technically as many options educationally as she’d like, but expected to do exactly as you suggest — settle down and have kids and submit to her husband. I can’t tell you what it’s like to have a friend in that position, and to be able to do nothing.

If you want to adhere to a strict patriarchal system, good luck in finding it. I will always remember how desperate she was to get out, despite the fact that she had more money than I could ever dream of. As for their thoughts of Western women — there are too many religious and social and cultural elements to this to actually say it’s a straight comparison, so let’s not waste time.

In our culture, men have the option to work outside the home, and women do as well. Certain concessions will have to be made in reflection of this. There is no reason that women should be the ones doing all the conceding. You seem to want to socially pressure a woman into becoming a housekeeper, and that’s not going to happen. Women aren’t going back there, and it’s just a change that men will have to get used to.

My advice: go talk to a few elderly women about the “bad old days” they lived in and draw your own conclusions.

I don’t even have to go that far back — my own mother went to university in an age when women could only study education or childcare. Halfway through her senior year, they changed the rules and both her younger sisters graduated with degrees. One went on to a hugely fulfilling career in radio (and two kids with a lobbyist husband) and then decided to freelance for her kids’ teenage years, the other a career in politics that she adores. Despite my mother’s current career, which she started when I was in elementary school, she’s always regretted not having the chance to learn something more suited to her skills, which are formidable.

In contrast, all three women refer to their own mother, my grandmother, as someone who “should never have had to be a stay-at-home mom”. But at the time fathers didn’t stay home, and so my very intelligent, short-tempered grandmother raised her children as best she could while her husband indifferently worked a factory job.

There you go. Bad old days, going back a century, and what these women wanted were choices.

Message Edited by Pelican on 08-25-2006 02:15 AM

08-25-2006 02:05 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
The Cultural Devastation of American Women

http://www.sierratimes.com/06/08/22/Levant.htm

Sadly, this list has become the typical “home” scenario for America’s children and husbands. “Home” has become sterile because the women in American homes have lost their senses under the highly political guise of “liberation.” So, another question begs – what does liberation mean to American women? Does it mean the freedom to vote? Freedom from historical gender bondage? Freedom from ownership? I don’t think so. Today’s American female is free to be an idiot – a shallow, self-involved, pathologically vain, completely incompetent, and angry person – angry to the tune of making the anti-depressant industry the largest profit maker, bar none, for big pharma. Stupid is what stupid does.

American children do not have happy homes. They are television and computer addicts thanks, primarily, to mothers. So sorry, but facts are facts. American children have so many video games, movies, and “equipment,” that we now have to have “media rooms” to contain the sheer numbers of purchases made to very purposefully ignore our children. Then add to the mix that American women can’t and don’t cook. They don’t know how, and furthermore, between jobs, beauty and “health” regimens, and chronic diets, today’s mothers feel like crap most of the time, which translates into anger in the home. Just ask dad (or boyfriend).

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 02:12 AM

08-25-2006 02:09 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

They are television and computer addicts thanks, primarily, to mothers. So sorry, but facts are facts. American children have so many video games, movies, and “equipment,” that we now have to have “media rooms” to contain the sheer numbers of purchases made to very purposefully ignore our children. Then add to the mix that American women can’t and don’t cook. They don’t know how, and furthermore, between jobs, beauty and “health” regimens, and chronic diets, today’s mothers feel like crap most of the time, which translates into anger in the home.

You are blaming the technological advancement of the past 20 years on mothers? You do realise that plenty of fathers clamour for these XBoxes and gadgetry which, if we’re being stereotypical, really fall into the “Boys’ Toys” category anyhow.

Amazingly, it seems that women can be blamed for almost everything in this scenario.

08-25-2006 02:22 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – What it comes down to is – choice

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
A Saudi princess, is representative of Muslim Women. Okay.

Methinks Muslim Women aren’t too fond of the western influence of the Saudis.

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-25-2006 02:27 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

Back2TheKitchen wrote:
A Saudi princess, is representative of Muslim Women. Okay.

She’s not the only Muslim woman I know — she’s the one who would have no financial pressure on her to work, and is still desperate to actually get to use her mind rather than be trapped in a homemaker role. I’m not the one who brought up Muslim patriarchies.

08-25-2006 02:31 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
I never claimed to have written that article, nor the book.

In any case, Pelican – you are free to follow your feminist ideology. I too will construct my life according to the personal standards I have developed. Let us see who prevails in the end.

08-25-2006 02:37 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
Considering “feminism” just means “equality” to me, I’m happy with that. (Seriously — why is “feminism” such a dirty word around here? All it means is giving women the same opportunities as men. It’s not like we’re looking to exact vengeance by making you cook and clean and defer to us for the next 2000 years.)

Frankly, considering we both know what we want, I don’t see either of us prevailing over the other. You’ll marry a woman who conforms to more traditional roles, and I’ll marry a man who can handle my income and my workload. So it’s not a matter of one of us winning — as long as neither of us choose a partner who doesn’t share the vision.

08-25-2006 04:18 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54700-2004Sep1.html

As someone else pointed out, this of course speaks for itself. It belies your personal expectation that “I will go on doing what I want while you will go on doing what you want.” In fact, a much more likely scenario is that I’ll go on doing what I want, while you will find reality increasingly conflicting with your worldviews.

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-25-2006 09:13 AM

08-25-2006 09:11 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
I’m not quite seeing why that will prevent me from working and raising my family as my husband and I see fit; it indicates that the skew may trend in a more conservative direction politically, which I can see connecting with the “women raising many kids at home” argument, but I don’t see them passing legislation or reforming work practices to keep me out of the business sector.

I guess if you move to an area that is largely conservative, you might get some flak. But these things happen and have to be endured. And part of the problem with the US is the deep segmentation of the population into two political parties, which is a bit of a false division — the area between secularists and religious people isn’t a barren wasteland.

In other words: people in Utah do all sorts of funny things I don’t agree with, but I can’t see how they’d manage to unring the equal rights bell without one hell of a fight. The separation of church and state’s there for a reason, and religious activism can only go so far before it slams headfirst into the Constitution.

08-25-2006 09:30 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
You are ignorant of history if you believe this for one moment. Germany was a democracy too prior to the ascent of Nazi party. I suggest you consult some history books the get an idea of what may soon follow here as well. Wake up and observe the changes – and stop reading MSM, which publishes nothing but lies and falsifications in their endless quest to appease their feminist masters.

08-25-2006 11:03 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
LL
Contributor
LL

Pelican,

When you say that ‘feminism’ just means ‘equality’ for you is really just saying you are ignoring or excusing the radical section of the group, which is the most loudly spoken, the more powerful aspect of the group that openly hates all men (and doesn’t think highly of women, either).

If you are really serious in what you say, then get a support organization together and denounce misandry in all of its forms.

Pelican, you are not helping anything by sitting IDLY by when your ‘sisters’ go on a rampage and spew whatever they want to spew without resistance. If you really believe in equality, this is what you would do. Not doing anything is a crime in of itself. And it is very easy. Join a forum that speaks out against misandry, write letters to organizations that have misandristic outlooks.

To say that “I just believe in the equality aspect of the feminist organization” and turn a blind eye to what else is going on is no excuse. This is the the equivalence of saying that you believe in the ‘equality’ aspect of facism (i.e. the rewards it offered to the aryan race), but then turned a blind eye to when they started to round up and mass exterminate jews and other people it deemed inadequate.

Feminism is maiming and killing off men in pervasive, non-violent ways, as they have seen violent ways would expose them to the masses for what they really are. Many *are* indeed openly hostile and their ideas are highly malevolent when it comes to dealing with the male gender.

Believe me or not, if the majority of women don’t speak out against misandry, then you are not for equality. The majority of men would if there was actual misogyny (contrary to P.C., this article is not a misogynistic attack against the female gender).

I believe it is time for women to speak out against misandry as well.

-LL

08-25-2006 11:20 AM

Re: What it comes down to is – choice
LL
Contributor
LL

And Pelican, I agree with Antiriad on the matter that you can’t believe that a minority of a group of people can’t get their way.

Look at nazi Germany. That example should be glaring you in the face-for it is so obvious.

The nazis party was started by a minority group in the region of Bavaria. Soon, everyone in Germany knew about them and blindly (and obediantly) pledged loyalty to them. This could happen again and dont think it can’t. Germany was under a democratic institution, also known as the Weimar Republic. Like Antiriad said, read more history books. The first thing you learn is that “history TENDS to repeat itself”. And with the constitution, it can be sidestepped easily. I don’t mean to change the subject, but are you a liberal? if you are, I am sure you were against when Bush *sidestepped* the constitution when it came to domestic spying.

Democracy WILL die when people become complacent. Never take the concept of democracy for granted. You will realize how quickly it can be taken away.

-LL

08-25-2006 11:36 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: