Woman's place is at home.....

[Angela]

Originally Posted by yossarian

But the question that needs to be asked is if putting women to work is the right thing for India to do.

The Indian women I know, both in India and in the U.S., would laugh in your face at the very question. "Modern, democratic" Indian women, in my experience, don't consider that work is something you get "put to." It's something that you have a right to choose to do.

You may very well be right that your way of life will soon be extinct. And in my view, if limiting civil rights and choice for others means your way of life goes extinct, so be it. Sorry about your sense of loss, but civil rights are more important than the survival of the (white/modern democratic/whatever) race.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by yossarian

...
Demographically speaking, the children of people who believe in democracy will themselves be democrats, while the children of people who believe in theocracy or dictators will be theocrats or autocrats.
....

Wrong again. If that were true, Western Europe should still be Catholic, the way it was 1000 years ago.

It seems to me you're coming out of fear. Fear of change, fear of other cultures, fear of homosexuality (remember the other topic?). If you want that, hey, it's your life. I tried living in fear, didn't like it, don't want to go back to it.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Wrong again. If that were true, Western Europe should still be Catholic, the way it was 1000 years ago.

Protestants used to have tons of kids. It's only post 1960 that the birth rate started plummeting.

It seems to me you're coming out of fear. Fear of change, fear of other cultures, fear of homosexuality (remember the other topic?). If you want that, hey, it's your life. I tried living in fear, didn't like it, don't want to go back to it.

I'm honestly not scared. I just think we're idiots for putting our women to work. I think it has resulted in negative outcomes -- and even for those who consider it positive, it seems unsustainable. So we get two or three generations of feminists who are happy to work - and then what? They don't have enough kids to continue the trend and so feminism disappears. I still haven't heard any credible argument for why feminism is sustainable in the longterm.

In my opinion, the feminists should have focused on gaining power not by taking on masculine roles but by increasing respect for feminine roles. For instance look at the example provided by the various mythological Goddesses. Their power comes from the purity of their femininity - and they are often very powerful indeed. They command others while retaining their feminine gender role that is inextricably linked to bearing children and giving life just like the masculine gender role is inextricably linked to providing and sheltering.

Look at Isis - a.k.a. Diana. She is supremely powerful. Are we going to call Diana a "stay-at-home-mom" or a "caged woman" or any of these disparaging terms?

Isis is very powerful and she is worshiped and revered by the male Gods. But she expresses her power through her femininity. Is their anything more deeply powerful than bearing and raising children? This is a miraculous feat that was rightfully respected and worshiped by the Romans and Egyptians. The ability to bear and raise children and the ability to command the attentions of men is how femininity expresses her power.

Personally I think "feminism" was a reaction to Christianity's lack of respect for the feminine. You don't solve this by changing women into men, you solve this by bringing back respect. Women in this white culture are and always have been very powerful but this power was not always acknowledged and respected - and so in backlash women have very much expressed their power by stopping having children. This is the power of the Divine Feminine.

The biggest effect that feminists are having on society is not their contributions to the working world but their decision to stop having kids. This is the mythological equivalent of failing to propitiate Diana and so out of spite and anger she refuses to bear children and causes the downfall of all the Gods. This is essentially what has happened to our society.

I actually think the Catholics were trying to redress a wrong when they instituted Mary-worship. Mary shares the same archetype as Diana and Isis - Mary is the Divine Mother. It is the protestants who rejected Mary worship in the reformation and so America was founded by the puritans who are very much disparaging towards women. Well now we have the inevitable reaction when you fail to propitiate the Divine Mother and give Her the proper reverence she deserves - the Divine Mother tells her women to stop giving birth, starves off the race, and causes the race to be conquered by other cultures. Catholicism isn't going anywhere because the South Americans are Catholic Mary-worshippers and they breed like rabbits. It is protestantism that is being killed off - it just so happens that most white people these days are working from a Protestant frame of mind.

So anyway I'm never trying to turn back the clock and I'm not scared of change. What I am preaching is change - I am preaching respect for the feminine gender role - something that feminists themselves lack.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by yossarian

So anyway I'm never trying to turn back the clock and I'm not scared of change. What I am preaching is change - I am preaching respect for the feminine gender role - something that feminists themselves lack.

Do you think it's possible to have this change while women are being who they are today? Can we still have that male/female dynamic (dominant/submissive) while living equal roles in the work and intellectual worlds?

[Athena Arianna]

Oh Yossarian....

Sigh.

I'm beginning to realize beating my head against this wall will be just as irritating and productive as trying to sort through your mind dumps.

Alas I mean you no ill will. I hope you find the answers to your questions, and along the way some peace.

You seem like a well meaning, intelligent man. But, also pretty well "out there". I think you should stop, for now, trying to convince well educated white women to go have more babies, since by your own admission it is a hopeless cause. Instead I think you should go out into the real world and experience more of real life. It can only enhance your potential to be able to change & influence. It can only help you learn more effective communication skills. As "right" as you think you are, no one is going to listen if you can't communicate effectively. And yep, sometimes that means "toeing the line" of current political correctness.

Best of luck to you.

Angela, you and I sound like peas in a pod - and the kind of people more likely to be heard (the horror! lol)

You and your friend should come visit my little farm anytime you feel like checking out the wonderful Pine Barrens of South Jersey. (Hint - blueberry season is in a couple months, prime time to visit my area!)

Regards,
Athena

[Angela]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I just think we're idiots for putting our women to work.

If that is true, then it's a good thing to go extinct, rather than continuing to propagate "idiot" genes.

You don't solve this by changing women into men, you solve this by bringing back respect.

If that is true, then be the change you want to see. Start respecting women's freedom of choice -- including the choice to work, or to not bear young.

What I am preaching is change - I am preaching respect for the feminine gender role - something that feminists themselves lack.

One more two-dimensional faux "choice" is presented here. You are preaching for the feminine gender role as you think that role should be, and you're right -- feminists do lack respect for your ideas about what a the feminine role *should* be, just as you lack respect for others' idea of feminine gender role. The feminists and non-feminist women I know have plenty of respect for the feminine gender role -- it just doesn't necessarily look ANYTHING like the one you preach about.

[Angela]

We LOVE blueberries, Farmer Athena!

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by cylon

Do you think it's possible to have this change while women are being who they are today? Can we still have that male/female dynamic (dominant/submissive) while living equal roles in the work and intellectual worlds?

Maybe.

The "work world" is inextricably masculine. The masculine gender role is to subdue the elements and turn those elements into protection and provision. The feminine gender role is to breathe life into the world through her fertility, nurturing, and sustaining abilities.

What I see in current society is a lot of women who find ways to be feminine in the working world. For instance many women have married the government. The government provides shelter in the form of subsidized housing and it provides protection in the form of police. The government provides provision by giving food stamps and welfare checks. The woman doesn't need a husband because the government is her husband... he is a faceless and unloving husband but he does provide. So these women have found a way to express their femininity in the modern world. Ironically, these are the women who are giving birth to the most children. In the USA, these women tend to be black and so the black birthrate is above replacement level. In Canada, they tend to be Aboriginal and so the aboriginals are growing in number. Black women and aboriginal women basically have found ways to adapt and continue to express their femininity, though the circumstances are extremely awful and far from ideal.

There are also women who work at daycare centres whose job is to raise the kids of working mothers. These women are making it possible for working women to be mothers. Daycare workers and school teachers are essentially providing the nurturing and mothering role that in the past was reserved for the biological mother. It is far from ideal.

So I mean there are definitely women in the working world who contribute to the propagation of the species, fulfilling the feminine gender role by bringing new life into the world, but they tend to do so in very much non-ideal circumstances that result in significantly worse outcomes for the children.

The social engineers who founded the modern concept of feminism believed that we would be able to grow the majority of human stock in test tubes. So the mothers of all humanity would be the scientists working for the government who combine the genetic material in the test tubes. In a way this is happening now through welfare, except that it basically has failed. The number of kids born from the government programs are too few to sustain the population and so our culture is going to die off.

The social engineers who run our part of the world basically did not achieve their goals and in fact the economic collapse of 2008 is really the end of the Empire. Some people say the high-water mark of the White race was the Iraq war... that was kind of the peak of our empire and since then it has been decline. The economic collapse is just further decline. Right now China essentially owns us and we are in their hands. China will probably allow us to continue to exist but they are the super power now. They are the "master race" who runs the world. We'll probably be moving onto the Chinese economic plan for the world economy now, meaning the US Dollar as issued by the Fed will no longer be the reserve currency of the world. Once this happens it will be obvious to everyone that the White Empire is officially dead.

So anyway unless the government starts paying more women to have kids, I don't think it's realistic to expect femininity to return while women are forced to work.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by yossarian

In my opinion, the feminists should have focused on gaining power not by taking on masculine roles but by increasing respect for feminine roles. For instance look at the example provided by the various mythological Goddesses. Their power comes from the purity of their femininity - and they are often very powerful indeed. They command others while retaining their feminine gender role that is inextricably linked to bearing children and giving life just like the masculine gender role is inextricably linked to providing and sheltering.

Look at Isis - a.k.a. Diana. She is supremely powerful. Are we going to call Diana a "stay-at-home-mom" or a "caged woman" or any of these disparaging terms?

Isis is very powerful and she is worshiped and revered by the male Gods. But she expresses her power through her femininity. Is their anything more deeply powerful than bearing and raising children? This is a miraculous feat that was rightfully respected and worshiped by the Romans and Egyptians. The ability to bear and raise children and the ability to command the attentions of men is how femininity expresses her power.

Diana was a hunter and a virgin - so what you think of as a feminst - out hunting for lunch and not breeding!

I agree she's a fabulous role model, but that's probably not what you meant.


Isis was often portrayed as virgin with child (i.e. prototype for Mary). So that might take a bit longer to increase the birth rate of the human race.

I guess that means your argument about what is feminine doesn't really stack up.


Besides which think how young in global terms democracy is. Think of countries that uphold it like the UK and US, and realise that 250 years ago or so the slave trade was considered acceptable. UK democracy grew out of medieval feudalism where people really weren't free.

If in that short space of time only 500 years between feudalism and democracy flourishing, then it is only a matter of time before countries that don't have it yet, come to that point. Maybe not in our lifetime, maybe there will be more bloody revolutions (and yes maybe their won't be as many white people around - although given the weird way genetics throws things up and around through the generations I would be surprised if white people died out completely). But it all happens cyclically.

Interesting leap of imagination that holds feminism responsible for the collapse of the Western world! So wars, genocide, viruses, corruption, economic greed and irresponsibility can't wipe it out, but women earning a salary and living empowered lives and that's it folks, show's over, please turn off the lights on the way out!

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Athena Arianna

And yep, sometimes that means "toeing the line" of current political correctness.

Political correctness is the very system that is used to bound in social change.

Political correctness itself is the mechanism by which the social engineers control thought and discussion.

If one wants to have an honest discussion that reaches the heart of the matter, by definition one has to be politically incorrect.

If I tried to fit my message into some kind of "mainstream" thing that is suitable to be on CNN, then my message would be identical to the mainstream opinion.

It is not my method of communicating that makes me politically incorrect, it is my message which is taboo. When I talk about other topics that are politically correct, people agree with me in droves etc etc. The reason this femininity issue is so very controversial is precisely because the message is taboo.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Diana was a hunter and a virgin - so what you think of as a feminst - out hunting for lunch and not breeding!

I agree she's a fabulous role model, but that's probably not what you meant.


Isis was often portrayed as virgin with child (i.e. prototype for Mary). So that might take a bit longer to increase the birth rate of the human race.

You just don't understand how these Goddesses function. Virginity is admired precisely because virginity until marriage is what creates stable societies.

Mary was a virgin, and yet she gave birth. How does that add up? It adds up because virginity in this context is about refusing promiscuity. It's symbolic, not literal. Virginity represents purity and self-control to enable fertility to be well directed. Isis is the Queen of Heaven because she controls herself.

Diana, Isis, and Mary, who are all the same archetype, are virgins in that they are not promiscuous. They are all mother figures and worshipped by mothers throughout all society.

So wars, genocide, viruses, corruption, economic greed and irresponsibility can't wipe it out, but women earning a salary and living empowered lives and that's it folks, show's over, please turn off the lights on the way out!

Good observation. Now you are understanding the power of the Feminine. The power of viruses, wars, corruption, greed, are insignificant next to the power of a mother who can bring new life into the world.

[cylon]

Very interesting observation on how femininity reasserts itself over false constructions.

Originally Posted by yossarian

So anyway unless the government starts paying more women to have kids, I don't think it's realistic to expect femininity to return while women are forced to work.

The thing I've noticed being in the working world for so long is that even when a man and a woman are of equal rank, or if the woman is of higher rank, is that they STILL respond to masculinity, and will be more submissive. Even if they are your boss.

If you are masculine, you will be the dominant one, no matter the hierarchy you're supposed to follow. Now this doesn't mean it's like this 100% of the time, because it's not. There are masculine women out there who get a kick out of telling men what to do because they can (insecurity masquerading as confidence) just like there are men who get a kick out of telling women what to do, just because they can, and are equally as stupid.

A real masculine man doesn't go on power trips though.... he just simply "is" and nature tends to flow around him, to the point where he notices that while he is supposedly of lower rank to a woman, she will naturally tend to follow. (This is all based on the fact that he has natural leadership abilities, speaks with authority and wisdom, and has proven he knows what he's doing and can take control of the situation. Because he will be tested frequently to see if he can maintain his authority. If he can't do that, he's in trouble, and he'll be the one following.)

This is another example of what I mean by what is said is one thing, what is actually done is another, and supports my personal belief that we can overcome this stuff, EVEN WHILE functioning in this new system feminism created. Women WILL respond to masculinity.

Which means they are being more feminine, which means men will respond better to THEM, and then it's just how it should be and everyone is getting their needs met.

THAT is what men (again in my view) should be focusing on. Rediscovering their own masculinity, with less emphasis of trying to explain to women why it's right or why it works. Just demonstrate it in your day to day life.

If more men do this, things will start to change for the better, with both men and women being better off, and maybe things will return closer to what nature wants for all of us. It's not going to happen by pointing out how bad things are, but by actively doing something about it.

[Brutha]

I just gave the cold hard numbers. I'm not even talking about Muslims immigrants, I'm talking about the worldwide population of Muslims. The majority of Muslims are going to continue to live in their home countries and have on average 8 children per woman.

Your numbers are off. There isn't a single country today that has an average of 8 children per woman. Iran (which I guess you consider to be a Muslim country) for example had a ratio of 2.01 children per woman in 2007 while it had 7 children per woman in 1950.
Gapminder.org provides nice data.

This has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with how culture is passed on.

If it would be we wouldn't have got our modern social norms.

I only say "white people" because thats shorter than saying "Modern Democratic people" or something.

I really could care less what color people are, but, statistically speaking, it is white people who live in democracies.

Demographically speaking, the children of people who believe in democracy will themselves be democrats, while the children of people who believe in theocracy or dictators will be theocrats or autocrats.

Why is modern democracy important while modern social norms aren't?

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Good observation. Now you are understanding the power of the Feminine. The power of viruses, wars, corruption, greed, are insignificant next to the power of a mother who can bring new life into the world.

I was being ironic.


And I'm aware that Diana, Isis and Mary are the embodiment of the same idea. it's not one I hold to frankly. I believe in a femininity that is powerful in expressing sexuality and probably scares the bits of men who want to put women back into their neat virgin boxes.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I believe in a femininity that is powerful in expressing sexuality and probably scares the bits of men who want to put women back into their neat virgin boxes.

Well there are Goddesses who express this nature too. It's a very real spiritual archetype.

Those Goddesses who use their sexuality as a weapon however are generally considered evil. They are the Black Widows of mythology. They lure men into their web, mate, and then bite off their mate's head.

I don't see why you (Holistic Star) should disrespect women who put their fertility to use in propagating the species. Until recently virginity was absolutely essential for stable societies. Contraception changed this to an extent.

[cylon]

I think we're probably better off with a "femininity that is powerful in expressing sexuality" than repression. Sexuality is why we are men and women anyway. Let it show.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I'm honestly not scared. I just think we're idiots for putting our women to work. I think it has resulted in negative outcomes -- and even for those who consider it positive, it seems unsustainable. So we get two or three generations of feminists who are happy to work - and then what? They don't have enough kids to continue the trend and so feminism disappears. I still haven't heard any credible argument for why feminism is sustainable in the longterm.

Yossarian, I have seen you use this line of thinking before, and to be honest it baffles me. From where I sit I see a world facing unsustainable population increase. Based on numbers I pulled from wikipedia worldwide population grew 12.19% from 1999 until 2008. It sounds to me like the population has found a way to increase in spite of the concerns you've expressed about feminism.

If feminism really is going to cause a decrease in population then that seems like another benefit to me. I believe that if we do not do something to stop population growth we are going to eventually over burden our planet and see some very serious negative consequences. Personally I am much more worried about that than I am about the possibility of a disappearing white population.

[cylon]

He's talking about Western society declining because we're having less children. Poorer countries tend to have more children.

I don't buy the overpopulation idea. We have a ton of unused space in this world and enough resources to sustain it.

[Holistic Star]

I don't see why you (Holistic Star) should disrespect women who put their fertility to use in propagating the species.

I really don't disrespect women who propogate the species, in fact I help women have empowered births where they really connect with their femininity, bond deeply with their partners and their babies and are able to make informed decisions about the birth they have. I'd say that was pretty supportive of 'propagating' although I wouldn't use that word.

What I was laughing at was being told to uphold certain godess traditions of childraising, when the godess in question was a hunter and virgin. Sexually empowered godesses are seen as evil, because the idea of liberated women is profoundly threatening to emasculated men so it gets demonised in mythology.

Anyway, as i said, society moves in cycles. Cultures in 500 years will look back at us and laugh at how backward we are, cultures we look at today as being 'lesser' will rise, change, revolt, change, fall and rise again. The only constant in change!

I forgot what we were arguing about - didn't this start about opening doors!

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Your numbers are off. There isn't a single country today that has an average of 8 children per woman. Iran (which I guess you consider to be a Muslim country) for example had a ratio of 2.01 children per woman in 2007 while it had 7 children per woman in 1950.

Convenient you picked the Muslim country with the single lowest birth rate.

Unfortunately that site doesn't give numbers averaged across religions. I recently read a number averaged across all Muslims and it was 7.8, but that was probably a 10 year old number.

If you click around on that site you linked, it is clear that there is a massive gap in fertility between the 1st world and the 3rd world.

[Brutha]

Convenient you picked the Muslim country with the single lowest birth rate.

You made an argument about that being Muslim equals having more children.
The thing that's different between Palestine and Iran isn't that one is more Islamic but that the economic is different and there's war.

If you click around on that site you linked, it is clear that there is a massive gap in fertility between the 1st world and the 3rd world.

You made an argument that the fertility rate in the third world doesn't change.
As third world countries become wealthier and more like first world countires the rate drops.

[Bliss Sage]

YouTube - Every Sperm is Sacred

[cylon]

This is a World Affairs thread now? What a great way to get people to stop reading it.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by cylon

This is a World Affairs thread now? What a great way to get people to stop reading it.

The last thread like this got locked

Think it's a conspiracy?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by cylon

This is a World Affairs thread now? What a great way to get people to stop reading it.

Somehow, this statement is a fantastic metaphor of this whole thread.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by yossarian

The last thread like this got locked

Think it's a conspiracy?

No, it's IM. We were just talking about what is allowed here, if non-PC language should be tolerated, and now this thread gets moved to the graveyard forum of "World Affairs".

This is like when you go to a bookstore looking for bestseller written by a conservative author and the hippies who work at the store hide it in the bird-watching section.

If it gets too many responses after this, they should move it to Fun & Recreation. Then it will really die.

We're open to all views here, especially the ones we agree with.

[AfteraDream]

Originally Posted by cylon

The thing I've noticed being in the working world for so long is that even when a man and a woman are of equal rank, or if the woman is of higher rank, is that they STILL respond to masculinity, and will be more submissive. Even if they are your boss.

If you are masculine, you will be the dominant one, no matter the hierarchy you're supposed to follow. Now this doesn't mean it's like this 100% of the time, because it's not. There are masculine women out there who get a kick out of telling men what to do because they can (insecurity masquerading as confidence) just like there are men who get a kick out of telling women what to do, just because they can, and are equally as stupid.

A real masculine man doesn't go on power trips though.... he just simply "is" and nature tends to flow around him, to the point where he notices that while he is supposedly of lower rank to a woman, she will naturally tend to follow. (This is all based on the fact that he has natural leadership abilities, speaks with authority and wisdom, and has proven he knows what he's doing and can take control of the situation. Because he will be tested frequently to see if he can maintain his authority. If he can't do that, he's in trouble, and he'll be the one following.)

This is another example of what I mean by what is said is one thing, what is actually done is another, and supports my personal belief that we can overcome this stuff, EVEN WHILE functioning in this new system feminism created. Women WILL respond to masculinity.

Which means they are being more feminine, which means men will respond better to THEM, and then it's just how it should be and everyone is getting their needs met.

THAT is what men (again in my view) should be focusing on. Rediscovering their own masculinity, with less emphasis of trying to explain to women why it's right or why it works. Just demonstrate it in your day to day life.

If more men do this, things will start to change for the better, with both men and women being better off, and maybe things will return closer to what nature wants for all of us. It's not going to happen by pointing out how bad things are, but by actively doing something about it.

If i said those words I'd be called sexist.... I agree with them.

For words in italic:

This is what is happening here, why I say we need those roles, so that men wouldn't get lost more. We men need structure (most of us). I have rediscovered my masculinity and as a result of that I have an opinion that is sexist according to most of members here. I say that women shouldn't be trying to become the same as men (which they are trying to do mostly) ...

And pointing out how bad things are is a start to taking action. More and more men will probably tell the same. And the whole Pick up movement is a huge step towards it already...

[AfteraDream]

Get this back where it belongs. It's about women/men roles... not about world...

[cylon]

Originally Posted by AfteraDream

If i said those words I'd be called sexist.... I agree with them.

Get used to it. The first few times it hurts but after awhile you get used to people disagreeing with you. You have to be willing to be called names if you're going to say what you believe. My personal definition of sexism is that one sex is genetically superior and more important than the other. In my view man and woman both need each other equally and are as important as each other, we just have different roles to play. To some, that is sexist, and nothing you can say will change their minds, so don't even bother.

Like I said earlier, might as well slam your fingers in a door for all the good it will do.

Originally Posted by AfteraDream

This is what is happening here, why I say we need those roles, so that men wouldn't get lost more. We men need structure (most of us). I have rediscovered my masculinity and as a result of that I have an opinion that is sexist according to most of members here. I say that women shouldn't be trying to become the same as men (which they are trying to do mostly) ...

And pointing out how bad things are is a start to taking action. More and more men will probably tell the same. And the whole Pick up movement is a huge step towards it already...

Well I've been through that whole stage and I know exactly where you're coming from as this is a relatively new topic for you and you're bound to have some amazing realizations about life and how the world works as a result of exploring this topic, and it's going to increase your masculinity and confidence even more, so enjoy the journey my friend.

I will just say that after you sort of shift your perspective, you realize how unnecessary it is to get others to be on board with what you say. You learn to stop focusing on the problem and instead BECOME the solution. And when you've become the solution, none of this stuff, feminism, how men and women don't relate anymore, none of that stuff will matter anymore because those are all symptoms of living a life where you are disowned from yourself.

That's the point I've been making in this thread: at the end of the day, none of this stuff matters. It can only stop you if you let it. If you want the world to change, become one of those men who changes it, by changing his actions and how he relates to women. Not talking about feminism to women online (or in the real world. Don't EVER talk about this subject to a girl from a space of 'it's a problem' or you will be instantly de-masculinized).

[Brutha]

No, it's IM. We were just talking about what is allowed here, if non-PC language should be tolerated, and now this thread gets moved to the graveyard forum of "World Affairs".

It's neither a graveyard problem nor has it anything to do with non-PC language.

When you argue about whether Islam is good or bad that hasn't to do much with Social&Relationships anymore.

Also it would be interesting to her an argument why this thread isn't about social change (which belongs in World Affairs instead of Social&Relationships).