My daddy always told me......

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:37
VIEWED: 5895
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:00 PM

... never be dependent on a man. And he was a farmer from the old country.

Which brings me to feminsim and reproductive strategies... ALL moms are working moms! And I don't mean that raising young is a full-time job in and of itself.... If you look across the species, being pregnant, birthing, and raising young DOESN'T exempt females from finding food. Building a den/ nest. Interacting with others of their kind. Defending their young.

Nowhere in nature will you find females lolling around all day, waiting for males to bring home the bacon. The whole concept is unatural.

So the idea that women don't have to be "full-time moms and wives"? It's not feminism, it's NORMAL!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:05 PM

Damn right. Women need to EARN that seed!

J/k

I actually agree with what you just said. Will wonders never cease?

Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too.

RUE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:38 PM

"Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too."

But it's a job that can be done by men as well as women.

By rough numbers: most people had mothers who were less nurturing than their fathers.

***************************************************************

And Wulf, if that is one of your issues, it's way past time to get the frak over it. It puts you in the same boat as most of everyone else.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:46 PM

Why are there no women in the Double-0 section?
Eh?
Answer me that, Miss Signyfeminazi!*

* U know I'm playin' here

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:47 PM

So, to get back to reproductive strategies... Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids.

Really.

In species where the young need two adults in contant attendance (many birds, humans) you will often find equal ratios of males to females. Why?
'cause the guys are just as important gathering food for the young.

Species where the young don't need two adults in attendance (most herd animals) you'll find the ratio very heavily skewed towards females. Why? Because excess males... males that don't directly provide for the young... are just a drag on local resources. All of that stuff about alpha males? It's just a way to get rid of those beer-drinking couch potatoes by making them fight each other until a whole bunch go off in a huff.

Honest!

ETA: Maybe I just answered your question, Laughingisall!

[joke] Men are so... yesterday! [/joke]

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:54 PM

"And Wulf, if that is one of your issues, it's way past time to get the frak over it. It puts you in the same boat as most of everyone else."

Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?

RUE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:56 PM

"Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids."

Since you didn't mention this, I thought I'd put it in for others: it doesn't matter how 'fit' you are - in terms of evolution, sterility negates virility. But even more, it isn't even about how many you spawn - in terms of evolution, dead young ones won't carry your family tradition, or you genes.

It's about how many of your young SURVIVE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUNG OF THEIR OWN.

Otherwise --- game over.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:58 PM

"Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?"

I AM playing nice. It's the truest and most helpful thing you'll ever get from anyone.

Or, in a more extended version: as long as you define who you are by the things that were done to you, you will never get over them - and you will never grow up to be a free adult.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:18 PM

Didn't Wulf just agree with the thread topic about women being viable members of the workforce?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:27 PM

But is working at home and raising kids exclusively "women's work"? And if it's so gorram important, how come nobody gets paid for it?

Anyway, I think the importance of having children is waaaay overplayed. With 6 billion of us around, it's not like we're going extinct any time in the near future. And for those who think having children in some kind of womanly duty... birth rates always fall with urbanization. ALWAYS. Doesn't seem to matter if the cities are in socalizied economies, oligarchies, or capitalist economies. So if you really want to know the enemy of that "tradition" look towards technology, not feminism.

Just trying to move the conversation to theory isall.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

ETA: Maybe I just answered your question, Laughingisall!

[joke] Men are so... yesterday! [/joke]

Women are people. Men are people with added aggression.
That's mainly why, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:51 PM

Ergo, if we want to become a more peaceful society we should....

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:55 PM

...that's right, withhold sex until we stop fighting!

The Italian-movie-watching Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:18 PM

Ooh, I do hear you, SignyM. Growing up a non-mormon in Salt Lake City with no intentions to marry and have children... The social expectations are almost cruel around here.

They pressure kids into marrying when they're just out of high school around here; seriously, pressure! Kids didn't really want to, but parents and family just keep pushing and pushing at them until they had to give in and find themselves a spouse.

Thank goodness I have good reason, though some people I meet still try it on me... It's nice to be supported and respected for your lifestyle choices, isn't it.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:20 PM

Quote:
...that's right, withhold sex until we stop fighting

The Goddess Kali smiles upon you!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:25 PM

BYTEMITE- Yeah, it's amazing what social pressure can do!!!!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:59 PM

"... seriously, pressure!"

Oh great. Now I have the song going through my head ...

PRESSURE !
Under pressure ...
Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:30 PM

Chris, I'm afraid you just invented the rapeocracy.

Meanwhile, I'm chalking up feminism, along with 2nd amendment, abortion, and gaza as locations of landmines.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:03 AM

Landmines?

Are they to be avoided? Or... set off deliberately?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:57 AM

siggie, depends who you are :)

I think they're planted deliberately, but I intend to avoid them.

I can deconstruct feminism, but I should get into an argument with self-defined feminists who I would term "female empowerment people" vs. what i would term "female supremacists" which is what I would call the old school, but rather, I should make that deconstruction on a site or a book, and then debate it from there.

It's not that I don't want the counter input, I get tons, but that a pointless fight would ensue.

Lemme give you another classic landmine example that I'm not going to discuss, but which needles at me. Okay, I'm RTL, because I'm basically a religious person, I think that life is sacred, etc. A topic of interest to me on this topic would be one like this:

1. What's the limiting factor: If there's food available, then perhaps that's the limiting factor?

2. Will science soon be able to extract a foetus into suspended animation? transplant it? incubate it? If science could save the aborted foetus, should it?

3. If a maple produces a million seeds, but there are not enough nutrients in the soil for a million maple trees, then what would determine whether or not a seed should become a maple tree?

All of this is philosophical discussion within right to life, which could be discussed, to interesting conclusions, potentially.

I'm sure the pro-choice crowd has questions to gnaw on:

1. Whose choice? Feminists would say the woman's, but what about cases where the doctor makes it, that's probably okay with them. How about where the husband makes it. That happens, and makes the femmes nervous. How about if the parents of the woman make it? Or the church? Or the govt.?

2. How late is too late?

3. Is it always acceptable? Is it only for emergencies? A matter of leisure? Should it be used as a form of birth control?

PLEASE, PEOPLE, LET'S NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT.

That's a landmine.

Because none of the above topics on either side of this issue could be discussed in a logical and rational manner without the other side just going ballistic on them.

Oh, and don't try to change my mind ;) I used to be pro choice, and I found faith, which gives me insight, and under that, everything is the flow of forces. The forces of nature trump the forces of economics. Always. So, abortion for economic reasons is not something that I can ever accept. Health of the mother, I could, but I'm not going to get into a Roe v Wade argument on how I should cross a lake. I'm simply pointing out the completely destructive potential of a landmine.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:51 AM

Mmm. Well, I suspect you and I could have a reasoned discussion. I'd certainly be interested in your viewpoints... you see things from a different direction, and many times your directions are completely unexpected.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:26 AM

Signy

Oh, I'd be up for that over email or relocated. If we began that discussion here, it would turn into a war

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I can deconstruct feminism, but I should get into an argument with self-defined feminists who I would term "female empowerment people" vs. what i would term "female supremacists" which is what I would call the old school, but rather, I should make that deconstruction on a site or a book, and then debate it from there.

Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?

PONYXPRESSINC

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:36 AM

Quote:
ALL moms are working moms!

YES. thank you!

Since I've had my daughter I've always worked outside the home. But, I take work which fits around her and there have been times when it's been hard to find.

In those thin times I worked more in the home. repairs and renovations, house work, baking, mending clothes, gardening, doing educational stuff with my daughter. Stuff I always do but when outside work is short I do more, because at that point that's my job.

I have never sat on my bum and waited for the wage earner to divvy up and I get a little ticked when what I do is not regarded as work.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Nowhere in nature will you find females lolling around all day, waiting for males to bring home the bacon. The whole concept is unatural.

So the idea that women don't have to be "full-time moms and wives"? It's not feminism, it's NORMAL!

It's also not really the human way to take care of kids full-time.

In most cultures, most pregnant women have continued working on whatever their job was until shortly before birth and started up soon after. Can anyone imagine a female farmer of any century just staying in the house, dusting and caring for junior's education? She put food on the table the same as the man. How else did women take care of their world when men were gone at wars?

Gender roles or not, legal inequality or not, the working women of centuries past were generally valued because -even if this was all they did, and it usually wasn't!- house work back then really was a full-time job. Hard work. Kids were the thing that you took care of in a free moment in between. Men and women both.

House-wife and stay-at-home-mom of the electric home appliances age is a life-style that mirrors what only the super-super rich of centuries past could afford. It is by no means a natural lifestyle.

In an age where we spend a lot of time physically removed from our home and our children - if we do work - however, we need to think up an unnatural lifestyle, either way. We may as well be creative and flexible about it, though, instead of declaring one thing to be the solution and maligning all other options.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:02 AM

Quote:
Out of curiosity, on what do you base your assumption that radical feminism that isn't focused on equality but female supremacy is the "old school" of feminism? How do you view the history of feminism?

Rouka

Not arguing the topic, but on the writings of early feminists, and the status of women before and after. Sanger says explicitly that the new tasks and limitations on women must be sold to them as "rights" that they have won, otherwise, they would never accept it. They like to retroactively take credit for things like the right to vote, but actually, they have no connection to those movements.

[rant]
These new rights are the right to a job, the right to not have children, etc. These are not things that women wanted for themselves or that benefit them from an evolutionary standpoint. They benefit the govt. and people run our society.

I know lots of professional women who have zero children, thus, the intelligent women are weeded out, and do so willingly, to defend their new "rights" they also slave away at some desk job as men do, earning wages below the level of subsistence. (our labor system is screwed up, but by design, a whole other side issue.)

Anyway, contrast that with Communist China and the population control: The one child policy is a restriction, not sold as a "right." Hence, though it has the same end, it meets incredible resistance from Chinese women, and a major reason they flee China if they can. Not only is it a personal assault, it's a deep down interference in their animal evolutionary nature.

This whole idea of rights and pride is far from unique to the women's movement. Take a man and sentence him to spend half his days slaving, obeying orders, working hard, and locked in a small cube while being yelled at by overlords, and he'll revolt. Take more than that from him and pay him with a reward that he never sees, because it goes to the bills on his credit card, expenses just to live, and he will fight to keep that job, as his right, and to work it as his responsibility.

As for gender roles, they do occur in nature. But whether you have division of labor or not, it takes your typical hunter gatherer 20 hours of work to survive. Our society asks as much as it can, and its increasing.

Recently I broke this down in 3 classes of worker:

McJob, which pays minimum wage, minus entitlement tax, almost pays for you to live in squalor, and run up debt. You are bound to it, because of your debt. It usually takes 30 hours

Job, which requires a college degree. You get the degree along with debt, and now pay more taxes, and can live in an apt., but still not ever escape. It usually takes 50 hours (40+commute and prep time)

SuperJob, which requires an advanced degree, which usually means a lot of debt. You start deep in the hole, and now pay lots of taxes on your supposed high salary. This allows the employer to abandon the conventional rules of labor, so can take up to 80 hours a week, or more, when everything is included. You can live in a house, and fight endlessly against your debt.

I know people who make 100,000 a year and have no free time, and no free money, double mortgage, car payments, insurance of multiple kinds, and student loans, job related expenses, and oh yeah, pay top level federal income and entitlement taxes, state taxes, local taxes, and bills. They might have to borrow.

A couple with two workers now has earned the right to have children, but not to really ever see those children. Fortunately, there is are state run services such as school, and the illusion of an independent media (what I jokingly call the media run state.)

Oh, here's another right that we all fight and pay for: The right to an education. Really, this is the right to mingle with other humans. Informationally, there was never anything in a class really that wasn't already better said in a book. Most classes just make you read a book, then have a teacher read the book to you, and you take a test. Now of course there's the internet. The book has become free, the "education"

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:27 PM

DT -

Not going to respond to the content of your rant for now, except to say.. you didn't REALLY answer my question, did you?

It was a question about your self-defined terms of "old school" and "new school", and why you consider female supremacist "feminism" old school and equality-based feminism "new school", mainly. Was the original intent to oppress men and the equality thing came later? When do you place the origin of female supremacy feminism and when does the "new school" start?

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:48 PM

DT

There's what we tell ourselves and what really happens.

In Fiji, children are raised by grandparents, b/c an able-bodied woman is too valuable to lose as a food-producer.

In 1600 - 1800's France (and other European countries), wealthy women pawned off the care of their children onto wet-nurses, nursemaids, governesses, tutors and boarding schools b/c frankly, childcare is not all that rewarding and they had the means to do something more enjoyable. And children were considered the husband's property to be disposed of at will.

In Sparta, deficient babies were set aside to die, and young boys (6 years old) were left to roam in packs and survive the best they could by stealing and hunting - without clothes, without food, without water, without shelter.

Many, many types of societies tell themselves 'we do this b/c this is what people do and anything else is risky to life' - but it turns out there are as many ways of dividing up the labor and resources as there are societies. And this is all despite the fact that ALL people tell themselves what THEY do is 'human nature' and 'the only natural way to be'.

There are many, many, MANY forms of society that are good enough to keep children alive long enough to have children of their own. And that's the only thing that counts, because THAT is the sieve of evolution.

Everything beyond that is just a fable.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:25 PM

Rouka

1. I'm sick, and I missed part of it
2. I'm dodging the issue as a landmine.'

I see feminism as a 20th c. post wwii movement that essentially invented a history that tied it to the suffragettes and a history of male dominance and oppression that spanned thousands of years. These people created a new ideology that was specifically targeted for simple goals:

1. Control the population. This is the first stuff published by the early feminists: Teach them that not reproducing is a right, and we can stop these women from cranking out babies before western europeans become a minority in America. It was pretty blatant. Read back, the whole "sell it as a right" thing. I ranted on because i was sick and had insomnia, but all of that is relevent to the strategy.

2. get women back to work. Women had been filling factories and sweatshops, and in the financial high of the 50s, they'd all gone home. This was viewed by feminists as some sort of conspiracy, but actually, everyone would go home if they could. At the time, there was so much cash that there was no need for a second income. The US was the producer and exporter of the goods of the world.

3. Break up the family. Make sure that children have no parenting. This is necessary for the state and media to take over the job of child raising.

4. Disempower women. Take away their sexuality, their exemption from duty, and their role as mothers, teachers, guideposts as our society. The state is mother the state is father.

The new guard are the female empowerment people. They are into the "girls can do anything" which includes being sexy, something the old guard hated, they always called it "exploitation."

I remember once someone saying to me "Playboy is just written for men to exploit women" I responded, no "Playboy is just written for women to exploit men" Who pays, who gets paid, whose careers are advanced, and who is masturbating in the bathroom, which has more power? If you look at playboy, it's carefully designed to target a female audience, to attract models, so that Hef can have a dating pool. But the men, fuck 'em. They can spank it, but they'll have to pay. Ever been to a strip bar? Who has the power.

The original feminism was about supremacy, not just female supremacy, these people were genetic supremacists, christian and jewish alike, they both share this tendency, and they're not alone (check out asia and africa in these attitudes.) The goal was to oppress women, not men.

A woman who cannot be free to live the life of choice, who must work some pitiful job just to put food on the table, who cannot raise her children, should she have any, or who rejects sex appeal and men, so she won't have any children: This was all about removing the feminine.

The hand that rocks the cradle is mocked by feminists, but it's true, that's the real power. Women had that power, they determined the future generations, what they would be like. The powers that be wanted that power for themselves, hence, women must work, kids must go to school, kids must watch television, and not listen to their parents. Best of all if there are no kids, then the woman has no power. Finally, just chain her to the desk like the men, and have another ant for your ant farm.

Man-hating lesbians were just a side effect. They came in somewhere in the middle as opportunists. They also served the agenda, because each sworn in lesbian was less likely to have children. The goal here wasn't zero children, so much as fewer children, and those that were, to have an attachment to the beliefs of school and television, and not from the family. I think we call this "liberalism" another false advertising misnormer (that's a half snark, it's also true.)

The new guard of "girl power" is not anything like the old guard. It's unfortunate that they have anchored themselves to the term. I don't think this was a re-invention by the feminists, but something that happened naturally, and the old school feminists co-opted it, and through academia told people that this is what feminism was always abou

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:31 PM

Rue,

Sure, there are many ways to do it, but these are the societies you want to emulate?

I'm just stating the state's motive in taking over child rearing: To create zombies. And now I see them everywhere. They don't think for themselves, they just spout what they were told. They can't see the threat because they believe that it is good for them, saving them, and they become it.

There's not a lick of difference between the left who hugs its self-genocide policies and the right who hugs nukes and bombs and guns and our great protector.

People just can't see what's right in front of them. They've been programmed otherwise. I don't want to argue these, I think the above is obvious. That's what reality is, and people who don't see that it's because they choose not to see it, not because it isn't there.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:32 PM

Dream,

Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion...

cuz you're pretty...

AND you make the most damn sense on this topic (feminism) that I've ever heard.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:54 PM

Infanticide is a common practice in primtive cultures.

In monarchial France, peasant women would hang their babies up in papoose-like contraptions in the hut from dawn till dusk while they toiled away in the fields under the watchful eye of the overseer, leaving their babies without food or water or cleaning, just as they did ten years ago in NE Brazilian plantations. (Babies were not really considered viable until they were two years old. A child who died before then was simply "not meant" to live.)

And birthing from the distaff's side? It is THE greatest cause of female adult mortality, bar none. In my granparent's generation, stepmothers were common. Men had two or three wives in succession because the women died in repeated childbirth.

So, yeah, if a woman had a choice, which do YOU suppose she might choose?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:54 PM

"Sure, there are many ways to do it, but these are the societies you want to emulate?"

Since you are clear that we are talking about CHOICES - who gets to make those choices ?

Women, when given the choice and more options (due to a rising standard of living and urbanization) have fewer - or no - children. It's called the demographic transition, and it happens all over the globe. It happens in India, in Pakistan, in South and Central America, in Russia, in Africa ... It's one reason China is struggling to raise the standard of living, so that that thing they imposed on society - reduced birth rates - will happen naturally. It's the thing the old Soviet Union was struggling against with it's ultra-supportive pro-child policies, as women with more options and a better standard of living had fewer babies.

You seem to want to make that choice for women, and to choose differently for women than they choose for themselves. All hail DT, dictator of women, eh ?

BTW - when it comes to China as an example, you seem to have slid over the reason many people want more than 1 child - it generally happens when the first one is a girl and they're trying for a boy instead.

***************************************************************

Oh, and speaking of 'self-genocide' - in rural subsistence communities, large family size is a blessing and a curse. You want chldren to take care of you. OTOH there's only so much land to go around. There's good reason to believe part of the cause of the Rwandan genocide was the fact that most people had not enough land to farm. The genocide turned into a major land-grab as families were wiped out.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:02 PM

Uh Oh, now Dream has gotten on the nerves of Rue and Sigy...

FLAME ON!

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:10 PM

Oh, BTW Wulf - DT is a guy. I hope he's not too offended when you rescind your desire to take him in a manly fashion. Unless, of course ... you know ...

But, that goes into the over-stuffed bin of incidents when Wulf aimed squarely at his own foot.

***************************************************************

Hate much, lately ?

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:14 PM

Oh Rue,

You misinterpret my rage as "hate".

Now stop flirting with me.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:16 PM

And rage = fear. What a coward.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:18 PM

Rue, sweetie, every time I come on here you MUST make a comment.

Now, you know I'm married.

STOP.

FLIRTING.

WITH.

ME.

We clear?

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:31 PM

If you stop coming on to DT.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:47 PM

S'wenyways, DT

Despite Wulf's attempt to stoke hate, I believe we could have a productive discussion.

I hope you would reply to either SignyM, or me, or both.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:49 PM

Lol

Stoke hate...so amusing.

Anytime someone argues back with the same venom YOU use, its "hate".

How typically PC, how typically Liberal.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:53 PM

Kathy,

No, it's because they are human. Do you know any actual chinese?

On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide."

Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless. They have just selected themselves out for extinction. You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them.

If apes could have learned this subtle discreet reasoning, there would be more apes. Oh yeah, they eat their kids. That doesn't ever help. Welcome to evolution.

Quote:
Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion

Wulf,

Sorry, I don't swing that way. Actually I took this avatar because it was what's left, and I wanted an avatar. I like Saffron though, she's perty. And she embodies everything the ideal female should be. A dangerous deceitful sex object :)

Sig,

no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

the real reason women hated so much on Sarah Palin: 44, beautiful, fertile, and oh yeah, running for vice president. I'm knew I sensed a certain greenish tinge.

Sorry, just serving the can of venom you just ordered

Yeah, I think Faith is a role model ;)

So, girls,

So, we play it this way, you guys get your society that discourages children in favor of pride and a feeling of superiority, and I'll take my society with the people who want to have kids, and then we can set our students against each other in 20 years and see who wins, oh, that would be mine, because they would exist.

Ever looked at the growth of the right to life movement over time and wondered why it's growing? Because they're having children, that's why.

Now, as a society, we can either decided to reverse our self genocide rockefeller policy, or all convert to islam, because if you look at the world, that's what's happening, and that's why it's happening.

So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton. If you want empowerment, when we're all muslims, and nothing against Islam, because I have to respect anything that's *that* evolutionarily successful, (hat's off to the krill) but from a female empowerment point of view, well, good luck with that.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:56 PM

Do the women who go to work, did they want children in the first place, and were convinced otherwise? I suppose it's possible, if they're appealed to with rational about establishing themselves financially before attempting children (who are expensive).

I always thought that young adults aren't really thinking about having children. It tends to just happen as a consequence of their environment and relationships. Teens get pregnant because their parents aren't paying attention. With married young adults it happens as a natural consequence of their union. With single dating young adults, pregnancy occurs as the result of a mistake, because their relationship is not advanced enough for them to make a choice whether or not to have children.

Do married couples who decide not to have children usually stick to it? I'd be interested in knowing.

Now, I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work. Would that be the case if there were no such thing as feminism? I think yes, a family makes whatever sacrifices it has to to pay the bills. So I'm trying to determine if that's seperate from the higher wage earning women, college educated, who choose to wait to get married and have families. One is socially caused necessity, the other is feminism. According to you, DT, it's not seperate, the two are the result of the same issue, but here under different names.

Government control. I do believe there are fascist elements of the government who would like to control everything we do. It's a belief that comes from my desire to err on the side of safety; government could be a threat, so I would like to be a watchdog.

Is feminism a result of government control, has the movement been manipulated throughout it's existence? Considering the Margaret Sanger character he mentioned who started writting about population control and then later about feminism, it's a question I'd like to answer. I'm not yet sure, some of the arguments are convincing, but it's... disturbing for me to believe the full extent of this just yet.

However, I also think that the modern, more moderate "female empowerment" movement is not so sinister. It considers motherhood a difficult but rewarding job, among many potential choices of difficult but rewarding jobs.

The men still get flambe'd by political correctness, though, poor guys. Everyone is very sensitive about issues, the whole country is on eggshells. Sometimes there is a genuine lack of respect, but sometimes the backlash is really a stretch. If people in a movement want to be taken seriously, they must be able to discern between innocent, accidental comments and actual offensive ones. Otherwise, women will not be seen as rational, and this is one of the issues that has chaffed at womenkind since the medieval ages.

But I have to say, I do really think the women in Afghanistan are oppressed. They're basically kept in the dark, separate from the world, as breeding machines. That's no life for a thinking creature. But I also can't justify invading Middle East countries to bring enlightment (more likely death, either by us or by their religious leaders) to those women. It's judging their culture from the outside, and who are we to interfere?

It's true in the 50s, women weren't sure that they wanted what the feminism movement offered, because they and their children were supported well enough by the status quo. That's changed now. Single women had it rough in those times though, they weren't taken seriously as professionals, despite the performance in the manufacturing sector during WW2.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:57 PM

Ok, Dream, my mistake. It sort of threw me, with the whole chick pic and name of "dream"..

A manly handshake then?

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:
Sig, no offense, but obviously, I would select extinction, if I had been properly brainwashed by the academic establishment.

Eh, how about the examples of your mother, aunt, and sister dying in childbirth? Real life isn't terribly pretty.

BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic. I have a boatload of arguments pointing in the other direction but will have to leave that for later. Duty calls.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:03 PM

"BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic."

WTF? Where/when did I EVER say that?

Ideas are passed to you from a combination of experience and "teachers" (or those who raise you. Not necessarily you blood family ).

Genetics only play a role in intelligence in terms or retardation.

Jesus, Eugenics went out with the Nazis.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:04 PM

M'kay. Thought I got that from one of your past posts. Sorry!

Okay, now duty REALLY calls!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:33 PM

"Do you know any actual chinese ?"

Many. About half the people I work with are from Mainland China, a few are from Taiwan.

"On the reduction of births encouraged by a govt., it's called genocide, it's in the UN charter on... oh, yeah, that's right... "Genocide.""

And here is the UN definition:

Quote:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Considering that China is doing this to its entire population and not to a select subgroup, and that it had (as of three years ago) 1.3 BILLION people, I don't see China genociding itself any time soon. http://www.chinability.com/Population.htm
In sum, it doesn't meet the definition of genocide.

"Arguing with the brainwashed army of self-annihilation is pointless."

As I tried to point out, the demographic transition is a natural process that's happened through history, and is happening now all over the globe - no matter what the government's policies, no matter what the economic systems, no matter what the culture, no matter what the religion. This may not be logical in your view (and people are not logic machines, so there's no surprize there), but it happens nevertheless.
Also, please note that evolution doesn't result in an ultimate optima, it only results in that which is good enough at the moment. The natural survival mechanisms to avoid pain, avoid expending energy, amass resources and maximize pleasure factor into the demographic transition.

"You know why christians have such influence over american elections and muslims have such influence over europe lately? Because they have children, and don't kill them."

As much as you say you hate Margaret Sanger, you sure have bought in to her ideals.

"So, if girl power has any kind of future vision beyond the next five years, it might want to think about which it wants more: empowerment, or to cling to its restriction on reproductiton."

I'll pit my well educated, productive, healthy and well educated young against your starving AIDS-ridden hordes any day.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:47 PM

"... I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work."

Yes, but that is a problem of capitalism, not of equality between the sexes or between groups.

BTW - to reframe this in another context - how would you respond if DT had posted this: The reason people have to work ilke dogs is b/c we no longer have slaves.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:48 PM

Quote:
Do the women who go to work, did they want children in the first place, and were convinced otherwise? I suppose it's possible, if they're appealed to with rational about establishing themselves financially before attempting children (who are expensive).

Thought I'd bring this from the other thread:

Quote:
generally... I find that peeps do what society rewards them to do. You can't set up a society to reward one set of behaviors and then expect a whole group of people not to respond or participate.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:09 PM

Stop breeding! The Future is clones, chimyras and robots, with brainchips for everyone else. Get over it.

Cyborg monkey with robot arm

Brain cell on a chip

Future of the GMO human race

"Lay down G.I. Lay down G.I..."
-Tokyo Rose (U.S. citizen)
www.earthstation1.com/The_Zero_Hour.html
www.earthstation1.com/Tokyo_Rose.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... I do think DT has some point about how the rampant inflation and credit problems in our economy have forced a lot of people to work."

Yes, but that is a problem of capitalism, not of equality between the sexes or between groups.

BTW - to reframe this in another context - how would you respond if DT had posted this: The reason people have to work ilke dogs is b/c we no longer have slaves.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I also believe the issue with the workforce today working so hard has a financial cause. But I'm trying to wrap my head around what DT is saying, understand his perspective, because he has said things about the state of our country, capitalism, and our workforce being enslaved that I agree with. I'm trying to determine how much feminism plays a part in the working habits of the low and middle-waged female working class.

I think female high wage workers do all tend to be feminists, pursuing their careers. I don't pass judgement on whether this is bad for society or not... Though we aren't having as many children, that's true. Just don't know whether that's BAD. So long as it's our choice, I have to support it, but if we're being manipulated into making that choice, that's a whole different story.

I, um, don't follow your analogy. I don't like slavery! I'm arguing against it here, with people pretty much forced to work in our country and the disrespect/social pressure for people who can't or won't. And what happened with African Americans is very wrong, and attitudes and practices towards them even since they were freed has impacted their livelyhood in modern times (slums, inner city schools, success stories being exceptions and not the rule, etc.).

But I don't think I understand what you were trying to say there. Could you explain?

SignyM: That is a good point.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:12 PM

I said I wasn't going to argue with feminists, but they kept begging for it.

Ah, some choice moments to reflect on:

Quote:
I'll pit my well educated, productive, healthy and well educated young against your starving AIDS-ridden hordes any day.

My hordes will crush you. Oh, and they won't have AIDS, because they are having children, not 300 gay partners. They're religious, remember, and oh yeah, AIDS, that's a creation of who? Oh, yeah, right. WHO. Ah, liberal do gooders "helping" poor helpless Africans out of this thing called life. And damning the rest of us.

Oh, and one more thing, when AIDS came to the USA, who said "Test everyone and quarantine the positives." Oh, that was William F. Buckley. Trying to save liberal gay lives, which were the only ones thought to be in danger at the time. Liberals sure blocked that with their "That's a violation of human rights!" Well, the human rights of those positives, who are all dead now, would have been fine SOMEPLACE ELSE. Like on an island, with a hospital. Well, another 100 million corpses later...

Quote:
1.3 BILLION people,

Oh, this one's extra special. It's not genocide if you do it to a whole lot of people.

I'll have to remember that from now on.

Quote:
BTW, I think you're making the same mistake Wulf is... you assume that ideas are transmitted only by blood relatives and that intelligence is genetic.

Islam is inherited. I don't think it's genetic. You might be confusing it with Judaism

[/snark]

BYTEMITE,

I said at the beginning that what I found when I dug was very disturbing, and it would take an extensive research to make an argument. Yes, I think feminism, the one child policy, and PC, a lot of other political ideas are part of the overarching globalism. World population control is a longstanding position of the one worlders. The target has always been 1 billion, which used to be like a 60% reduction, not it's like and 85% reduction. Its natural for people in this mind set and an ethnic group to, say, start with China, Africa or India, because that's not who they are. But there are sinister things in the shadows.

But this wasn't a serious argument, I was simply snarking the feminists just to watch them blow up. The self destruct if you poke them. I wasn't going to do it but I kept asking not to have this argument. Objectively, I think they have a fascist streak, not much different from that found in neocons, but the same in both cases: They learned it by trusting a bogus information source. They cling to it because it strokes their egos. There's really nothing more to it. They like that superior feeling of supremacy. Women were plenty equal before this whole thing started.

Making the case that these people are really sinister would require a real research project, and not my with a fever lying in bed getting sick of feminists.

Quote:

Ok, Dream, my mistake. It sort of threw me, with the whole chick pic and name of "dream"..

A manly handshake then?

ROFL. sure. I've been here for years, I only chose that avatar a few weeks ago when someone said "choose an avatar."

There are pre-programmed women out there who have not yet been swallowed by the demon feminism.

As for the name, it was randomly generated by AOL on one of those free disks they sent out back in the mid 90s. It was printed on the disk. So I signed up, and it stuck. I sometimes make up stories about how I got the name, but that's the true one ;)

Oh yeah, right, this is me, in an alternate universe, where I have sex with Inara just for the chance to be narcissistic :)

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:22 PM

PN, I thought GMO humans looked more like this :)

I found this group of cosplay replicants

Pris is more convincing that the others. Another cosplayer.

Sorry, I have a Pris fetish. I hope males of the board will understand :)

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:28 PM

"My hordes will crush you. Oh, and they won't have AIDS, because they are having children, not 300 gay partners. They're religious, remember, and oh yeah, AIDS, that's a creation of who? Oh, yeah, right. WHO. Ah, liberal do gooders "helping" poor helpless Africans out of this thing called life. And damning the rest of us."

I have no idea where to begin on this one. DT, you are in PN land here.

The AFRICAN hordes who transmit AIDS through - guess what - heterosexual sex ? The INDIAN hordes who transmit AIDS through - guess what - heterosexual sex ? The MUSLIM hordes who transmit AIDS through - guess what - heterosexual sex ? The SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICAN CATHOLIC hordes who transmit AIDS through - guess what - heterosexual sex ?

Yep - that's right. The very act of procreating spreads AIDS. Who knew ? (That was sarcasm.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/atlas/world.html

As for AIDS being a creation of WHO - I could go into all the data showing that the virus exists naturally in apes, that there are human tissue samples from the 1950s that have HIV RNA, that in Africa, the type and incidence of AIDS correlates with the presence of various African armies ... but I'm sure you won't credit mere facts --- or trivial reality. Just like PN.

"Oh, this one's extra special. It's not genocide if you do it to a whole lot of people."

No, it's not genocide if you don't have the INTENT of destroying a group - and if not - guess what - it's not genocide ! How about that ! (And, it is rather hard to show genocidal INTENT - that word you missed - when you got so many people to go through it could literally never happen.)

***************************************************************

Also, maybe you should change your name to Margaret Sanger. Ya' think ?

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:40 PM

Oh Kathy, it's not remotely possibe that I've done my research now, is it?

AIDS was created in a particular experiment in 1955 in Kinshasa by Dr. Hilary Koprowski, who was working on a polio vaccine using imported primates from cameroon. The conclusive evidence was that patient zero was his patient. I've said this before: I don't blame Koprowski for creating aids. I blame him for spending his whole life trying to clear his name, rather than spending it trying to cure aids.

As for PN, you should listen to him once in a while, he's a smart guy, and knows a lot more than any of us here care to admit.

As for the gay, I was refering to the fact that it was *thought* to be a gay disease at the time.

But all venereal diseases are more radically through the gay community, there's nothing unique about AIDS in that regard. The slumming casual sex doesn't help either. Check out the HIV rate in the muslim world. Pretty low.

Where it's highest, you actually find blood transfusion programs, set up by the WHO. It's enough to make anyone a conspiracy theorist. No need for it to be a genetically engineered virus, but what's up with these transfusion programs? All across africa at in the 1960s. Millions, unprecedented. Known to have caused the spread of AIDS in africa by the 1980s. Then the same thing happens in the former USSR, after the fall of communism.

F^&k this argument has wasted my time and I missed an important opportunity about which I'm going to be angry for a very long time. Screw this.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:49 PM

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/319612

CHAT Oral Polio Vaccine Was Not the Source of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Group M for Humans
Stanley A. Plotkin

University of Pennsylvania, Doylestown, Pennsylvania

A book published in 1999 hypothesized that the scientists who worked with the CHAT type 1 attenuated poliomyelitis strain, tested in the former Belgian Congo in the late 1950s, had covertly prepared the vaccine in chimpanzee kidney cells contaminated with a simian immunodeficiency virus, which evolved into human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M. This article summarizes the results of the investigation conducted by the author to determine the legitimacy of the accusation. Testimony by eyewitnesses, historical documents of the time, epidemiological analysis, and analysis of ancillary phylogenetic, virological, and polymerase chain reaction data all indicate that this hypothesis is false.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:06 PM

Oh.... where to even begin.

DT, just because some fascist said population control is a good thing doesn't mean population control is a fascist idea. Even a monkey pounding on a keyboard will eventually write something readable. Our population WILL be controlled... either by nature, or by government, or by individual choice.

In the case of wome choosing to have fewer children, women are simply responding in a very natural way to their changing environment.

So, how has the environment changed?

Well, for one thing, we no longer depend on our children for retirement. Children are an economic drain, not a boon. For another, home is no longer the center of production. In order to work, people usually have to work away from home. Also, in developed nations, not as many children die young... its not necessary to have eight children so that three will survive. There are more things to do the wealthier you get, and people start moving up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, from food and water to self-actualization. And finally, effective birth control is available. Women have ALWAYS practiced some form of birth control, including infanticide, but now it's REALLY effective.

As far as the ills of society... has nothing to do with feminism, but more with capitalism. People slaving away while others are looking for work and starving, has all to do with the politics of profit and nothing at all to do with feminism. The differences between the sexes? It's like the differences between races or religions... a convenient tool for the powerful to drive wedges between everyone else.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:13 PM

Ok, Sig,

Don't have kids. Its cool. I respect your choice.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:14 PM

Too late, Wulf! I already do!

ETA: I have a special needs child, who I love dearly. I have learned a lot from being a special needs mom. But the lessons that I learned can be learned by anyone, outside of family as well as within.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:16 PM

Then infanticide is you only choice...as they are such a drain on you.

I'll look for you in the news. (SNARK!)

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:16 PM

"Where it's highest, you actually find blood transfusion programs, set up by the WHO."

You mean India ? South Africa ? In India it's spread by sex workers and truck drivers who then spread it to their wives. In S. Africa it's spread by heterosexual sex compounded by social chaos, drug use, desperation and false belief (if a man has sex with a virgin he will be cured of AIDS), mother to child transmission, and government denial. "The most vulnerable population group is young women between 15 and 24 years of age, as they account for more than 90% of new infections in South Africa." Maybe you mean Swaziland (38.8%) or Botswana (37.3%) ?

No. What you say just isn't so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...that's right, withhold sex until we stop fighting!

What would really change the dynamics between males and females is if we(males) withheld semen. If males controlled all reproductive activity, we could only breed with super models and quickly change women to have genetic traits we value most. Why don't we just use this power to shape the World as we see fit. All we need to do is ban cloning and learn how to regulate teenage male hormones. We could create a male utopia is all.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:18 PM

Hate much, Wulf ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:20 PM

For the love of God Rue...

Lose your sense of humor much?

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:23 PM

Wulf, given that I have a special needs child who will never be able to support herself or become fully independent... I find your comment repugnant.

ETA: I have done much soul-searching since becoming a mom. I'm not the motherly type. I'm impatient, "brainy", have ALWAYS been independent-minded (when I was taught as a 6-year-old many years ago... long before feminism was a gleam in anyones' eye... that in case of unknown or mixed gender one always refers to "he" I thought HEY! That's not FAIR!). I should not have had a child. I do my best, but my motivation for having a child was not because I "love children" but because of tradition.

I love my child. I would never wish her gone. But having a child for the wrong reason is wrong.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
PN, I thought GMO humans looked more like this :)

Sorry, I have a Pris fetish. I hope males of the board will understand :)

Pris was supposed to be married to JFK Jr and pregnant with his kid when Billary Rockefeller
assassinated his plane on final approach to Martha's Vinyard. To break the chain you must
kill the entire family.

THE PHONY MUST DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE ! THE DUCK IS IN THE NOOSE MOTHER GOOSE !

Quote:
DISCOURSES Upon The First Ten Books of Titus Livy

by Machiavelli

Thus a free state that has newly sprung up comes to have enemy partisans and not friendly
partisans. And wanting to remedy this inconvenience and these disorders which the above
mentioned difficulties bring with them, there is no remedy more powerful, nor more valid, healthy,
and necessary than the killing of the sons of Brutus, who, as history shows, together with
other Roman youths were induced to conspire against their country for no other reason than
because they could not obtain extraordinary advantages for themselves under the Consuls as
under the Kings; so that the liberty of that people appeared to have become their servitude.

The reference is not to Marcus Junius Brutus, the famous assassin of Cæsar, but to the much
earlier Lucius Junius Brutus, who led the overthrow of the tyrannical rule of the Tarquin
monarchs, and established the Roman Republic. When his own sons plotted to betray the fledgling
Republic and restore the old order, Brutus sat in judgment on them and sentenced them to death.

www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm
www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm
http://semi-vegan-in-dystopia.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-catcher-in-rye-m
ind-control-trigger.html

The NWO considers ALL of us to be sons and daughters of Brutus.

55-million genocided in USA since 1973...

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:27 PM

And I find that you added that fact (birthing out a special needs kid) AFTER I wrote what I did (in response to your earlier statements, which Im sure you will/have changed) SLIMEY.

Classic case of covering your tracks Sig.. Im surprised you would do such a thing.

Edit: I mean, is that your thing? You make a statement, then when getting a response that totally negates you beliefs, you change it from earlier to garner "sympathy'?

Talk about manipulation.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:34 PM

No. We simply cross-posted. It came out badly, and if apologies are due- I apologize.

But I've never made a secret of the fact that I have a special needs child. Peeps here who've been following my posts have known this for a long time. Please read my ETA further up.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:35 PM

Wulf - hate much ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:39 PM

"Classic case of covering your tracks Sig.. Im surprised you would do such a thing.

Edit: I mean, is that your thing? You make a statement, then when getting a response that totally negates you beliefs, you change it from earlier to garner "sympathy'?

Talk about manipulation."

Oh, and for the record Wulf - there are many, many things you've been blatantly - and hysterically - wrong about. Things that, if you had actually read people's posts you would have known about.

About DT being a guy, about SignyM and I being female, about both of us having families, about SignyM having a special needs child ...

... and I have a great sense of humor, too. For example, you're a riot in my book. It's too much fun laughing at you. So, keep posting, OK ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:42 PM

Rue,

If I hate, which I TRY not to, its only against peeps who would destroy the world because they feel "wronged". Such as in your case, where you feel that you were denied the opportunities of life because you were a woman.

Instead of working around said obstructions for the betterment of all.

And again, hate is the wrong word, Rue.

Rage is better.

Edit: Also, please....YOU keep posting. It helps my life to learn to boondoggle folks like you.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:48 PM

"If I hate, which I TRY not to, its only against peeps who would destroy the world because they feel "wronged". Such as in your case, where you feel that you were denied the opportunities of life because you were a woman."

I don't feel hate. Or rage. Or wronged.

You don't see me blaming the ills of my life on others like you do. You don't see me contantly moaning about my past and how I was wronged like you do. You don't see me espousing the right to hate like you do. You don't see me trolling people who have the nerve to disagree with me like you do.

We ALL know you have problems. Even Frem knows.

So, get over your problems, or keep hitting yourself on the head with the same hammer till the day you die. It's all the same to me. Though, personally, I take some pleasure in thinking you will never get over yourself.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:50 PM

Wanna ask something: If it's so important to have children in order to spread your ideas, how did the very wealthiest...those with the least children and numerically the smallest... manage to convince ALL of the rest of us to buy into a system that works best.. for them??

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:55 PM

Lol

Im sorry Rue. I really am. I know your life and the trials you've faced. I've seen the hurt and the anger and the beliefs it has driven you to. It was wrong to malign you for that.

As for me.... well... I will keep holding the line. Keep meeting stupidity with truth, fighting for the day when we can all be free.

Yeah, I have problems. We all do. I make no bones about that.

But I'll be damned before I let folks KEEP doing the things that have made the world the hell that it is.

"Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Some peeps think that is the end of the story

Fuck that.

I will put my boot in your ass, to make you learn, so that history is NEVER repeated, and we can all move forward.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:58 PM

"But I'll be damned before I let folks KEEP doing the things that have made the world the hell that it is."

Yes massah.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:02 PM

Mmm... Wulf... fascist much?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:12 PM

Rue,

Slave much?

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:15 PM

Dictator much ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:20 PM

Rue,

read that one, and several others. It's still a fact, as are the transfusions. What you are seeing is Koprowski's life work, clearing his name, and getting people to help him. I researched this a lot. I'm convinced, he did it, he should own up to it.

Sig,

Population control is a fascist idea. End of story. If you believe in it, we should avoid this topic.

Quote:
has nothing to do with feminism, but more with capitalism

You're missing a very large part of the puzzle. No movement ever succeeds without power backing. Feminism is an idea, but cannot win, and neither can civil rights, or anything else, without the backing of govt. or capital. This is because there is no power to the people. The people have no power. Watch the protests marching against every war there's ever been. 99% of the population can oppose a policy, and policy marches on. It only changes when the people in power want it to.

Were there well meaning people in the women's lib movemen? Of course there were. Did they effect the change. No, they couldn't, they didn't have the power. The only powers here are the gun and the buck. The gun belongs to the govt, and the buck belongs to the federal reserve.

Kathy,

Quote:
No. What you say just isn't so.

Oh, just keep telling yourself that. It makes all the nightmares go away. Peace and bunnyrabbits. The world is made of popcorn.

Quote:
THE PHONY MUST DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE ! THE DUCK IS IN THE NOOSE MOTHER GOOSE !

Ah, He's bringing the crazy, I challenged him...
Last Time I saw her she was chained to a walnut tree. That, of course, is a fangirl pris at a convention.

Quote:
55-million genocided in USA since 1973...

Ah, an inconvenient truth :)

[edit]
I was answering these stupid posts, which cost me a thousand, so I learned my lesson, don't talk to feminists. I thought that agreeing to disagree would work, I said I wouldn't argue, and they brought the crazy and baited me in, and I fell for it, and blew a deal. Once bitten, twice shy.

Now, for reality check,

Wulf

You should know that Rue and Signy are a tag team. They know each other off site and attack in unison. They can be reasonable on other topics.

It's just like I don't discuss the merits of Islam with Auraptor. Same thing. Just atm, I'm going with the "just avoid altogether" list. I'm really quite ticked, about the money, not about the argument, I think you guys are just either uninformed or incredibly naive in a pollyanna way.

But I blame myself for defending myself, I should have just given up at the first angry response, as I should have with citizen, and just said "you're right, we're inferior, thank you for pointing that out."

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:24 PM

Thank you for clarifying your position, DT.

I do not agree with you, but I'm not going to make an argument about it because I neither have the time nor do I think you would much like that. But again, thanks for clarifying.

RUE

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:29 PM

DT

"I thought that agreeing to disagree would work ..."

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

In other words, you just want people to agree with you. And then when they don't, you blame them for your response.

***************************************************************

Smooth move.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, January 29, 2009 11:59 PM

Rue,

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

In other words, you just want people to agree with you. And then when they don't, you blame them for your response.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 12:25 AM

Based on that lovely mad rant?
That's hardly sporting. I was initially just trying to tick off Kathy because she said some very insulting things.

When one side of an argument crawls into its shell and clings to its stubborn beliefs, the other side must do the same, or risk an absurd compromise.

Follow this logic, say you and I disagree, your position is 100, mine is 0, and the truth is somewhere in the middle, we don't know where. If you say 90, and I say 10, etc. until you've said 60 and I've said 40, then you suddenly say 100, you're inviting me to compromise, and say 70. That road lead to me saying 99, and eventually 100.

Consider the Regnery argumentative structure:

Regnery says that his model is to start with an accepted truth, say, white people killed indians and took their land. Then he creates an absurd counterpoint, he argues that no, actually, whites moved into empty land after indians killed each other in wars. Then, he could spark a debate, and create proponents of both sides, and have them land in the middle. He has now compromised truth with falsehood, and a new accept version is created.

The point being, compromise is not always the best tactical move. If She and her friend take the position of "If you don't completely agree with us you're a pig" the only sensible countermove is to be a pig. If it continued, I had some great slavegirl pics to post. The only alterative is to appease unlimited arrogance until it becomes dictator of truth.

The fact of the matter is my position is that there's nothing offensive about female empowerment, but that early feminists were fascists, which, go ahead, read them and see, and that there was a push to get this new ideology in, which swept in a lot of good people. Tying yourself to this older movement is like tying yourself to any other atrocious ideas. George Allen thought institutional racism was probably a good idea, John Kerry thought nuking Japan was a good move. These things sink campaigns. If the new feminists are going to be this hostile, then by all means, let them fail. But if they want to succeed, they should be a little more careful, and less starry eyed followers.

Essentially, the basis is real: The ism of you is the flattery sell, it appeals to the ego, and a sense of superiority. That doesn't mean there aren't equality issues, etc. But, come to me with the approach of: "I'm going to ram my world view down your throat, and eat it buster" then I'm going to not look at those issues. I'll say, oh, it's the same old guard in new clothing.

Reality: there's a lot of scary stuff that goes on. I'm not a random follower of conspiracy theories. I know far more about this stuff as I would ever post. I may be crazy, but I'm not wrong.

Here's a harsh cold reality:

HIV (however it was derived) was not genetically engineered to target black people, since genetic engineering hadn't been invented yet. But, the science of how to spread a plague is very simple, and was know in Europe during the black death, and in the ancient Mediterranean civilizations, where it was used. If you look at the evidence, the WHO swept in and did massive blood transfusions which spread the disease across Africa. Why? I don't know. I don't have a motive. If I were to guess, I would say someone was testing a bioweapon plan, and Africans were disposable.

The proof of that conspiracy theory is the massive transfusion plan that infected 10 million people in the former soviet union, after the collapse of communism. There's my "Aha!" The target was probably the USSR all along, and they needed a window of opportunity. Now I have a motive. Also, means, and opportunity. Mystery solved.

So, nefarious doctrines in feminism? As I said, it's not unique. There's a powerful group out there with the stated goal of reducing the world's population to 1 billion. That's not theory. It's not theory that population control is the major means they chose to do this. It's not theory that the early feminists were involved in population control, and part of that agenda.

What bother

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:09 AM

So DT

What exactly did I post that was insulting ? Find it. Post it. Or shut up.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:20 AM

Kathy,

1. Where do I start? Where you compared me to Margaret Sanger? I think it was before that. You can be a can of venom sometimes.
2. Stop tag teaming, everyone hates it.
3. Do you guys have any idea how you sound? I mean, move over Rush Limbaugh.

I'm angry at you at the moment, but it will pass, if you stop posting. I'm not going to godwin this one, I have plenty of parallels to draw.

On this board, there are a few things that people that post stuff that's truly objectionable. I think Auraptor's posted some things about muslims that I found reprehensible. So has FMF, and a couple of other people.

I may be mistaken, but I don't make stuff up. We're on subjects I've researched fairly well. I don't think anything I've posted here is inaccurate. Oh, I might have made a snark or two, they're usually identified as such, either in the post, or the following one where I say "that was a snark" but the facts are real: You're pet political movement has a dark side to its history. So does the UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank, hell, even the United States of America, as a whole, has a serious dark side to its history, and some of it isn't that old.

If it were me, I'd be concerned, introspective, and examine that history.

I'm still not clear on one thing. You know who I am, everyone does, Im a former lunatic, with a fifth grade education, and I grow tomatoes. Anyone who is afraid of me as a force has issues. I wield the power of the rotten tomato.

You, on the other hand, are a govt. scientist, if I have this right, you work on atmospheric issues, which I'm guessing is pollution control.

You wield the power of the co2 count. Give me a co2 count and carbon monoxide, and pollution analysis, a little local greenhouse effect analysis in Los Angeles, I'm likely to believe you.

In the information age, we all have access to the same information, suddenly, we're all equal. I mentioned before I watched a group of researchers at Princeton get taken down and pwned on their own subject by a group of African villagers in a remote region of Kenya. Why? Because the guys in Kenya were right, and the guys at Princeton eventually caved. Because everyone has a brain, and everyone has access to the same information.

We are each entitled to out own opinions, but as politicians are fond of saying... [i think you can complete this]

So, sure, I agree with Pirate News on Roe v. Wade. It's a religious point of view. It doesn't affect my feeling towards feminism, or female empowerment, which I don't view to be the same thing, or even related, except by the academic connection, which is an opinion. The women of my family went to arch liberal colleges became ardent feminists, chased away the men of their life, and are childless. That's another nail.

But if you scan through, I've already posted the really creepy story about one of my sisters, and the visit that it prompted from planned parenthood: She was a problem birth, due to a chemical exposure to a teratogenic. You're a scientist, but you might want to check the etymology of that word if you don't know it offhand. They tried to convince my mother to not have any more children. Their assumption, it was a genetic defect. The fact that it wasn't isn't an issue, the issue is that had they been successful, I wouldn't have been born. And, they had an issue with my sister being born. Selective abortion, there's a scary issue. Different people being deleted, based on scans, genetic scans. This is an opinion from a mind foreign probably to your own: The moral equivalent would be to, instead of trying to cure the sick, we could simply kill them, and maintain a healthy population.

So yes, I have opinions, and issues. There are also facts. And I was driven to uncover some of those facts.

I suspect you and signy have issues, you're arguing to beat down a random rural uneducated unemployed farmer with a history of problems. What? Do my ideas represent a threat to your ideology?

A lot of people here have issues. Some have religious beliefs. Some have ideals, and things they care ab

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:40 AM

Here is the sum of my posts, in order, up to the point of your self-described rant.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:38
"Working in the home is STILL work. Despite what others would tell you. And its a damn important job, too."
But it's a job that can be done by men as well as women.
By rough numbers: most people had mothers who were less nurturing than their fathers.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:56
"Despite the hype about alpha males, it's all about the kids."
Since you didn't mention this, I thought I'd put it in for others: it doesn't matter how 'fit' you are - in terms of evolution, sterility negates virility. But even more, it isn't even about how many you spawn - in terms of evolution, dead young ones won't carry your family tradition, or you genes.
It's about how many of your young SURVIVE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE YOUNG OF THEIR OWN.
Otherwise --- game over.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 10:58
"Lets not go there, and lets play nice, shall we Rue?"
I AM playing nice. It's the truest and most helpful thing you'll ever get from anyone.
Or, in a more extended version: as long as you define who you are by the things that were done to you, you will never get over them - and you will never grow up to be a free adult.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 12:59
"... seriously, pressure!"
Oh great. Now I have the song going through my head ...
PRESSURE !
Under pressure ...
Um ba ba be
Um ba ba be
De day da
Ee day da - that's o.k.

And here is the timestamp on your self-described rant.
Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 01:02

Here is your rationale for your rant.

"1. Where do I start? Where you compared me to Margaret Sanger? I think it was before that. You can be a can of venom sometimes."

So, where is it ? Where is the horrible insult ? Where is the venom ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, January 30, 2009 1:59 AM

As a separate post, regarding what you perceive as tag-teaming ---

Apparently you haven't noticed that there are many days each week when I don't come to the board at all, and that there are many other days each week when I barely post. You also haven't noticed that SignyM is genuinely interested in making-nice, and I am not. We also have different opinions. Do you REALLY think we get together to figure out how to 'get you' ? That neither of us has our own opinion, or agenda ? Do you really think we spend our time focusing on you, or Wulf, or others on the board ?

How logical is that ?

I understand that many people get us confused, just as I sometime confuse Rap with Zit. But if you take the time, you will see that we are not the same, and not even close to being the same.

And, to turn this around - and what are you and Wulf doing, exactly ? It sure seems to me like you two are tag-teaming. In fact, I KNOW it is ! So there !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:00 AM

DT, I think you see venom where there is none and I have absolutely no idea what you're reacting to. Call it tag-teaming if you want- altho I usually don't step in to defend Rue- but I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating where this horrible insult is.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 2:24 AM

But, to the issues at-hand:

Quote:
The fact of the matter is my position is that there's nothing offensive about female empowerment, but that early feminists were fascists

You quote ONE early feminist and label all of them fascists? Somewhere between Sanger and now, there wer whole host of feminists without the eugenics baggage. Apparently you've never read "Witches Midwives and Nurses". But the exception seems to fascinate you.

Quote:
Tying yourself to this older movement is like tying yourself to any other atrocious ideas.

I'm not espousing Sanger eugenics program, and the only one who is "tying" me to her is you, apparently.

Quote:
If the new feminists are going to be this hostile, then by all means, let them fail.

New? Do you mean new as in Gloria Steinem? Or newer than that? Which "new" feminism are you talking about? The one that is all about female empoerment but is silent on birth control?

Quote:
Essentially, the basis is real: The ism of you is the flattery sell, it appeals to the ego, and a sense of superiority. That doesn't mean there aren't equality issues, etc. But, come to me with the approach of: "I'm going to ram my world view down your throat, and eat it buster" then I'm going to not look at those issues.

Prolly the same reason I don't take Wulf too seriously on the issues either.

Quote:
Reality: there's a lot of scary stuff that goes on. ... Here's a harsh cold reality: So, nefarious doctrines in feminism? As I said, it's not unique. There's a powerful group out there with the stated goal of reducing the world's population to 1 billion.

LIke I asked before: if a large populaton is esential for spreading an idea, how is it that the very wealthiest... the least reproductive and numerically the smallest... have convinced everyone else to go along with capitalism?

Quote:
Now, if people drag up that baggage, you signal that yes, you are that old baggage, and nothing has changed.

A woman being able to limit her number of pregancies is not "population control". But if you think there is something inherently wrong with that, then you should focus on changing the CIRCUMSTANCES which make fewer children the ideal option. Either make women poor, ignorant, disenfranchised... barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen again... or come up with a system that makes child-bearing and child-rearing not so onerous to one gender.

Quote:
When I detailed the evolution of English genocide against the Irish, that was where I was coming from. Not from a wacko perspective. This is very real. Look at Ireland today: It's being colonized by Brits. The Irish are now a minority in Ireland. Soon, there will be no Ireland, just more of England. Part of a 1500 year plan. More than that, the Romans and Germans had to wipe the celts out of Europe first.

Peeps simply aren't organized enough for 1500-year plans.

Quote:
When I hear someone come out in support of population control, that's scary, because of the purpose of population control, which is ultimately, genocide.

You hop, skip and jump from birth control to selective population control to wipe out a group. Slippery slope. But you havent' made your case that they are the same.

Quote:
So, is feminism hated? You betchya.

By who?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 3:19 AM

Rue, Sig

medication time? [<--snark]

Okay, the Sanger thing might have come before you called me a liar and said that I was just making sh*t up and bullying people into taking it or something like that.

On tag teaming, it's tag teaming when the two of you, and are not the same person, but who do know each other, take a position, you back each other up, and become an argumentative unit. It's been commented on several times, like the way Citizen doesn't know when to let go, Whozit is immature, and my posts are way too long.

Me and Wulf are so much not a unit that he didn't know I was a guy. We were not forming one argument, we were just two people who happened to disagree.

Venom, you just don't know you're doing it. You spew venom on a level that the boards neocons used to. Maybe this comes from having a president in power? I don't know, I've never voted for a winner.

Okay,

Quote:
DT

"I thought that agreeing to disagree would work ..."

As I get it, you want to be able to rant at length and make shit up, and can't stand when other people express their opinions if they are not in line with yours. You want this to be your personal forum and are looking for other people to just shut up and go along with whatever you post.

That's a can of venom, in response to this fairly reasonable post:

Quote:

Rue,

read that one, and several others. It's still a fact, as are the transfusions. What you are seeing is Koprowski's life work, clearing his name, and getting people to help him. I researched this a lot. I'm convinced, he did it, he should own up to it.

Sig,

Population control is a fascist idea. End of story. If you believe in it, we should avoid this topic.

Quote:
has nothing to do with feminism, but more with capitalism

You're missing a very large part of the puzzle. No movement ever succeeds without power backing. Feminism is an idea, but cannot win, and neither can civil rights, or anything else, without the backing of govt. or capital. This is because there is no power to the people. The people have no power. Watch the protests marching against every war there's ever been. 99% of the population can oppose a policy, and policy marches on. It only changes when the people in power want it to.

Were there well meaning people in the women's lib movemen? Of course there were. Did they effect the change. No, they couldn't, they didn't have the power. The only powers here are the gun and the buck. The gun belongs to the govt, and the buck belongs to the federal reserve.

Kathy,

Quote:
No. What you say just isn't so.

Oh, just keep telling yourself that. It makes all the nightmares go away. Peace and bunnyrabbits. The world is made of popcorn.

Okay, that last line, was a snark. I thought that was obvious. Now the rest of my response was quoting and directed to Pirate News and Wulf, really on different tangents, not on what we were talking about. I was not "tag teaming" but showing a little solidarity fellow conservatives, and to point out, through that, not a joint attack, but the sort of value that you are up against when you post. I thought that it was good for perspective.

Meaning, I was reminding you that basically, the commonly held belief on this side of the aisle is that Roe v Wade killed over 50 million people. That's an opinion, based on ones perception of the nature of life.

My point of the maple seed post was to point out that the US, a major food producer, easily had space for those 50 million, in resources. That's not always the case. If it's not the case, then the issue becomes more complex. What to do with excess Chinese or Indians, move them to America? Maybe. But that's a whole other discussion.

The thing is that you need to know that position, when you are debating someone.

Sorry Wulf, I'm just using this as an example:

We all know that Wulf has an inter-racial marriage because he posted the picks. Someone came on and accused him of racism. That seems absurd. Wulf has childhood trauma of what w

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 5:34 AM

DT, I see that you're positions are passionately held and deeply personal, but they puzzle me.

For instance, is is just abortion you're against or ALL forms of contraception? Because from a "eugenics" standpoint either mechanism will get you to the same end. (So will starvation by appropriation of goods or economic isolation. Did you know that during the potato famine, Ireland was exporting wheat, beef, milk, butter, and cheese?)

So what is the basis for your reaction? Deliberate manipulations of populations, or specifically against killing embryos? Or, perhaps, something else? Perhaps the concept of limiting the number of births as being reflective of a culture of death? Maybe you think cultures should celebrate life, and "nature" should deal death? That would be in-tune with the rest of your positions.

Quote:
Steinem and co are also very damaging

They are? How?
Not a big follower of Steinem, just trying to figure out what YOU mean by the "new" feminism, which I feel you really haven't explained.

Quote:
It's not populations which have influence, it's capital itself. Gold, or the equiv, and the very few people who hold it.

I guess this is where the nascent Marxist in me says... it's production that counts.

Quote:
. Not debating Roe v Wade. I don't think we ever should. It's a waste of my time and a waste of yours. Neither of us is going to move

That goes back to my question of... are you against contraception or just abortion?

Quote:
there are lots of plans older than 1500 years, but for the English-Irish dispute, just read some history.

There are lots of disputes that have existed for centuries, but not so many "plans". I think what survives are memes, not plans.

Quote:
Currently, it's population control. It's an evolution, the next step in genocide: Kill em, persecute them, persecute something that will tag them, but doesn't look like it's directed against them, move them, starve them out, rule them, keep them poor, and finally, try to influence or enforce population control on them. This is what the british have done, and they're not alone by a long stretch. There may be other more advanced, more discreet forms of genocide, they just haven't evolved yet, or haven't been recognized.

You can point to one example of genocide, but that doesn't mean that all forms of birth control are genocide. I just means that genocide is genocide.

Quote:
By most men, and many women, those who ended up childless, and those who simply don't like being told "because you are female, you must believe this."

I don't know ANYONE who says "you must not have children" altho I know plenty who say "you must". The way I see it, if you have the responsibility you have the authority. If you're the person who winds up raising children then YOU get to say whether or not you'll have children in the first place. It's the exact opposite of this demonic world-wide 100-year-old eugenics plan that you think is in place: it's putting the decision at the lowest level, where it belongs.

Quote:
So yes, I don't know a man who would marry a feminist, and I know a lot of men.

Am I a feminist? I'm married. My hubby is not a feminist btw.

Quote:
it's loved only in one place: academia, and mostly by women.

Amazing, a womens' movement loved by women! Did you ever here about the Benguine communities?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BYTEMITE

Friday, January 30, 2009 6:03 AM

I'm sorry if this is an unwelcome interruption, but I just read/skimmed The Case for Birth Control by Margaret Sanger, and I thought maybe I could contribute to this conversation by talking about it.

I think this might be a long post, sorry again. I try not to get carried away and keep things short out of consideration of all your time, but sometimes I can't help it.

So, she starts out pretty innocently. In fact, I'd say that most of her book is actually just a compilation of numerical stats (the parts I skimmed) and statements from doctors. And I think birth control, as the choice of the woman in the case of being unable to support any more children is not itself wrong.

I've mentioned that I live in Salt Lake City, and my extended family... Well, they're mormon. My immediate family isn't. But one of my aunts has had seven children already, and the number of pregnancies she's had has damaged her bladder. She can't have any more children without serious risk to her health, and I know my uncle wants more (but thankfully will not pursue the matter). And they can support their children, so while I think it's awful that she's basically SPENT herself, health-wise, I suppose I can't judge.

In high school, someone I knew had ten siblings. They lived in a tiny house, several people to one bedroom. The CLUTTER. The RESTROOMS AND SEWAGE. The parents could no longer raise all of their children, the older siblings had begun to take on that role. They were incredibly happy, it was all very emotionally supportive, but I really felt sorry for them, because it was a genuinely unhealthful environment, and they were all of them underfed.

And if the person is going to get one anyway, birth control is really a better alternative I believe to... You know. Not so explosively controversial. Don't think I have the stamina for an argument on that topic, so moving RIGHT along...

Back to Sanger. She founded Family Planning, supported birth control, and was trying to discourage all that. So I don't really understand why people here are calling her a murderer... Anyone want to elaborate? Is it the family planning thing, do they do the whatsits?

However, I will say, that some of the arguments Dreamtrove mentioned ARE here, and they are a bit chilling.

She talks about unfit and/or feebleminded parents begetting similarly "inferior" children. She further suggests as part of her recommended birth control program that doctors specifically target so called "inferior" parents and try to convince them to try birth control.

Nations that she also talks about being particularly advanced in the area of birth control... Well... *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

She does mention population control for society as a positive benefit or her recommended program. Better work force, labor markets, quality of life, all direct results, she claims.

She advocates the government's intervention between unfit parents and their children. Now I'm not sure how far her argument extends, she didn't elaborate much, so I don't know if that's for clear-cut cases of abuse or... I don't know. Something sinister, I guess.

And she talks about the working class women in America in those times not having access to birth control, when the wealthy women do. I seriously doubt that was the case, what with the obscenity acts preventing people from circulating any sort of literature about conception. If wealthy women weren't having more children, it's because they were wealthier women, and their husbands probably didn't pay much attention to them. Really stuffy times back then.

Anyhoo. The weird thing about that is, she's advocating birth control for the working class. She's a socialist. That doesn't make much sense to me, that would seem to interfere with her desired uprising of the working class. Was she trying to incense the working class by giving them the feeling of being denied? Or was that all part of her master socialist plan?

Second to last comment: I think, because birth control nowadays is based off of

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 6:46 AM

Quote:
And she talks about the working class women in America in those times not having access to birth control, when the wealthy women do. I seriously doubt that was the case

Wealthy women had access to abortions performed out of country, or by well-paid physicans within the USA. Abortions have been known since... time immemorial. That's why the Hippocratic oath injunctions it. (Babies are the property of the male. A women did not have the right to steal her husband's property. The culture at the time: May your wife be as the fuitful vine in the recesses of your home.)

Quote:
If wealthy women weren't having more children, it's because they were wealthier women, and their husbands probably didn't pay much attention to them. Really stuffy times back then.

And then there was always prostitution. Everything they do today, they did back then. And even more so. Did you hear about the latrine pits outside of the whorehouses of ancient Greece and Rome? Filled with the skeletons of newborns.

Quote:
Anyhoo. The weird thing about that is, she's advocating birth control for the working class. She's a socialist. That doesn't make much sense to me, that would seem to interfere with her desired uprising of the working class.

I can't speak for Sanger. To me she's a historical figure w/o much relevance. But my interpretation would be this: Whether thought of as workers or mothers, women who are cranking out an endless supply of babies simply don't have the time or energy to become involved in larger issues of justice, fairness etc.

Dont' mean to sound snarky, just out of time!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 3:25 PM

Sig,

I'm way to sick to carry on this discussion, I'll try to read your post and make some comments, but I'm really not up for it, so this is like the 5 min warning I'm abandoning the thread, not because of the topic, though I think these can be pointless.

Quote:

For instance, is is just abortion you're against or ALL forms of contraception? Because from a "eugenics" standpoint either mechanism will get you to the same end. (So will starvation by appropriation of goods or economic isolation. Did you know that during the potato famine, Ireland was exporting wheat, beef, milk, butter, and cheese?)

1. Not discussing RTL. I'm against killing things, so, a) killing anything, b) a larger scheme that has the goal of killing, so, no, if a population has decided to limit itself because of lack of resources or whatever, then fine. But if one population is manipulating another...

2. On Ireland, a lot of people on my mom's side were in that famine. I think you'll find some others here... You're point being?

Did you know that the govt. in Dublin was, and possibly still is, an English puppet settlement? The term beyond the pale refered to "beyond the fence, outside of dublin where the irish were."

Look at African famines, they are often exporting food. The govt, or some powerbroker, is making money, and letting the locals starve, or encouraging it. In fact, this is how famines happen, in general. It's not a natural disaster, it's a man made one, and a form of genocide. I cannot think of an exception.

Quote:
So what is the basis for your reaction? Deliberate manipulations of populations

Yes. It's a prominent force in the world. What would have happened to China without the policy? China would have exported a lot of humans, probably here. Someone didn't want a lot of Chinese people roaming about. I strongly suspect that the deal was cut for "most favored nation status." We can't allow this because it's an effective way to destroy a population. This I would consider bad in itself, but consider this:

If there is a tool to remove an opposing population, then people would use it. Eugenicists and supremacists. The former would want to weed out the undesireables, like Sanger, the later might try to weed out "threats" and target educated populations, dissenting populations, while breeding a slave population. This is not about genetics, but a prime example at the moment is Israel: They would love to limit palestinian population growth. At the moment, they're using brute force, but they've hit the limit of what the world will stand for on that. Next, they might try to starve them out, and then they might just manipulate the govt. of Palestine to put in place population control, and do what the English have done.

Here's where it gets worse: Suppose the victim/target population figures it out. It won't be in a position to do the same to the dominant population controlling them, because it won't hold the keys to power. but it will have the more primitive means. So figure that this hypothetical takes place, because it will, maybe in Palestine, maybe not, but somewhere. The logical next step for a Palestinian resistance movement would be to nuke Tel Aviv.

This whole situation is really what this war is about, the one we are in. Globalists want to change the middle east to put in new govts. to a) put them a proto world world govt supranational union like EU or NAFTA, (It already exists, it's called MEFTA) and b) to control the population. It's not an overpopulated area, but it has high population growth, and it's getting to the point where it's already impossible for Israel to take on Iran, and soon it might be impossible for the US. So, if they can't genocide the population in some way, and maintain technological supremacy, they will never win, and if they don't win, they're one world dream, which I would call global domination, would fail.

Quote:
Perhaps the concept of limiting the number of births as being reflective of a culture of death? Maybe you think cultures should celebrate life, and "na

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 3:32 PM

BM

sorry, I ran out of steam. Sanger gets more toned down as time goes on, and she was one of many who felt similarly at the time. "The New Race" which precedes that is more chilling, but is still an attempt to sell the idea to the general public. I imagine that among friends, this brand would have talked the way neocons and globalists talk. Hillary Clinton, Brezinsky, on the left, Perle, Kristol, in the middle, Cheney, Rummy on the right, any one of them might make a book and call it "the case for globalism" but it would be a sell, and would not include lines like "Dissolution of american sovereignty and subjugation of the american people is essential for our one world govt. to have absolute power. I think drugging children and fearmongering voters might be the way to go." But any one of them might have said it to any other of them, and probably have, and they would get a "Yep, you're probably right," or "Maybe, let me think about that." They would not get the response that they would get here to posting that

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 30, 2009 3:48 PM

"Sorry Wulf, I'm just using this as an example:"

N/p, I don't mind.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 30, 2009 4:45 PM

DT- hope you'll feel better soon.

I don't consider these discussions hopeless, rather thought-provoking. I'd like to continue when you're feeling better and I hope you'll feel the same.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, January 30, 2009 4:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Stop tag teaming, everyone hates it.

I feel your pain dude. It's hard being an objective thinker in a soup of posters mired in their ideologies.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 30, 2009 4:52 PM

Sig,

Thanks.

The parts which bother me about this sort of discussion are twofold:

1. I don't like the level of animosity they bring, it's not long before this topic can turn into "Oppressor!" "Baby killer!" etc. Which doesn't help anyone.

2. They're philosophical debates about things we have no power over, which is okay, except that they have been elevated out of place. They belong on a level with "what killed the dinosaurs" or "why do wars happen." Worth discussing, but not urgent, since we're not about to deal with them.

Otoh, addiction is something that I regularly do deal with, so I'm going over to that thread, and then get some rest.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE