The Feminism Conspiracy

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Was the whole Feminist movement engineered by groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization? I am still looking for the answer but a number of facts seem strange. It is well known that Marxism/Communism wages a war on the nuclear family:

Abolition of the family! ... The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.
- The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

Anyway, it appears that Betty Friedan was a Communist herself, something she curiously fails to mention in her books. A quote from an article I have read:

"Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States."

Another interesting fact is that the Congress of American Women, an early Feminist organization, was forced to register as a "foreign agent" by the US Government in 1950 after it was discovered that the organization received funding from the USSR.

Here is another quote from the article:

"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive."

A Gloria Steinem quote from elsewhere:

"When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist." Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130

It has also been proven that Steinem had CIA connections:

In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic"

And of course we have the Alex Jones/Aaron Rousseau interview where the latter claims that the Rockefellers sponsored "womens liberation" mainly in order to take kids away from the home so the schools will be able to indoctrinate them. I would just like to point out that I do not wish to offend anyone, just to initiate a legitimate discussion on the origins and purposes of the so called "women's liberation movement".

Harold Weiss

Men and Women are not equal and never have been so the whole feminist movement is for dupes.
They have contradictory beliefs. Feminists claim to want men more sensitive when really they want a man to dominate, just as nature intended.

If Women want to be treated the same as Men, let Women go do things Men do and that includes working in dangerous environments that might involve killing people or animals because unfortunately, the world is a brutal place and you can't make exceptions if Women really want the same rights as Men.

How many women do you know butcher animals for a living?

Feminists are more likely to complain about how badly some animals are treated or how some minority like LGBT have no rights while chomping down on a burger and tweeting / face booking on their Chinese slave made iPhone.

Hypocritical and completely delusional group of people that seem to hate heterosexual men generally probably because they were rejected by them.

Mod: Banned for negative sweeping generalisation

DamagedTrax

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Men and Women are not equal and never have been so the whole feminist movement is for dupes.
They have contradictory beliefs. Feminists claim to want men more sensitive when really they want a man to dominate, just as nature intended.

If Women want to be treated the same as Men, let Women go do things Men do and that includes working in dangerous environments that might involve killing people or animals because unfortunately, the world is a brutal place and you can't make exceptions if Women really want the same rights as Men.

How many women do you know butcher animals for a living?

Feminists are more likely to complain about how badly some animals are treated or how some minority like LGBT have no rights while chomping down on a burger and tweeting / face booking on their Chinese slave made iPhone.

Hypocritical and completely delusional group of people that seem to hate heterosexual men generally probably because they were rejected by them.

i just read this to the GF (who herself is no shrinking violet) and she agreed with you completely. just thought you'd like to know

Absolam

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Was the whole Feminist movement engineered by groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization?

What is Christian civilisation?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

It is well known that Marxism/Communism wages a war on the nuclear family: Abolition of the family! ... The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.
- The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2

Don't you mean the bourgeois family, not the nuclear family? It says 'the bourgeois family', not 'the nuclear family'.

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Anyway, it appears that Betty Friedan was a Communist herself, something she curiously fails to mention in her books. A quote from an article I have read: "Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States."

Isn't The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America an independent democratic rank-and-file labor union? How is it Communist?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Another interesting fact is that the Congress of American Women, an early Feminist organization, was forced to register as a "foreign agent" by the US Government in 1950 after it was discovered that the organization received funding from the USSR.

By the House Un-American Activities Committee? Famously responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist.....

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

A Gloria Steinem quote from elsewhere: "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist." Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130

So, are you saying Communism is responsible for Feminism, or Feminism is responsible for Communism?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

It has also been proven that Steinem had CIA connections: In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic"

It didn't really need proving when she herself stated in 1967 that she had worked for a CIA-financed foundation?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

I would just like to point out that I do not wish to offend anyone, just to initiate a legitimate discussion on the origins and purposes of the so called "women's liberation movement".

Maybe the search for equality and freedom is characteristic of all societies after a certain point of development? So socialism came to the fore in the east and largely included sexual equality alongside economic equality, but this was not a feature of (some early) democratic movements in the west, necessitating a further bid for equality?

Penn

Mod: Don't make negative sweeping generalisations against groups of people. This thread is about feminism, not "all women".

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Absolam wrote: »

What is Christian civilisation?
Don't you mean the bourgeois family, not the nuclear family? It says 'the bourgeois family', not 'the nuclear family'.
Isn't The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America an independent democratic rank-and-file labor union? How is it Communist?

By the House Un-American Activities Committee? Famously responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist.....

So, are you saying Communism is responsible for Feminism, or Feminism is responsible for Communism?

It didn't really need proving when she herself stated in 1967 that she had worked for a CIA-financed foundation?

Maybe the search for equality and freedom is characteristic of all societies after a certain point of development? So socialism came to the fore in the east and largely included sexual equality alongside economic equality, but this was not a feature of (some early) democratic movements in the west, necessitating a further bid for equality?

What is the difference between a bourgeois family and the family containing a man, his wife and children (ie. nuclear family)? Please elaborate.

Yes, same House Un-American Activities Committee which rooted out Alger Hiss, a dangerous Commie high up in the administration. And the Rosenbergs who sold US atomic secrets to the USSR.

My educated guess is that Communism/Social Marxism is responsible for Feminism. The whole point of this thread is to get other people to weigh in.

Steinem was CIA. That is why the huge impetus of the Feminist movement in the 60s seems strange to me. Why did the CIA need Steinem?

And yea sure Socialism brought equality. Im sure the millions who died in the Holodomor and the Gulags were huge fans of their newly found equality.

Torakx

So far it seems to make some sense to me.
I think Absolam has a point on the Christian part.

I didn't see enough or remember, any reference to religion.
It sounded more like a really smart sociopolitical(could be a word lol) economic war strategy, than any attack on religion, at the root.
Unless the motivations for this tactic was to interfere with religion in the west.
But to know, we would probably have to go back through the history of that relationship between USSR and USA. I never had the thougght that religion was their main difference to fight over.

Absolam

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

What is the difference between a bourgeois family and the family containing a man, his wife and children (ie. nuclear family)? Please elaborate.

Well, Marx claimed the bourgeois family was a means to transform children into articles of commerce; he also said that in its completely developed form the bourgeois family exists only among the bourgeoisie. Your definition of nuclear family says nothing at all about industry or commerce.
The term Bourgeois itself means belonging to or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes; your definition of nuclear family is not limited at all, never mind to middle class families.
It would seem the attempt to identify the 'bourgeois family' with the 'nuclear family' is an attempt to convince exploited and downtrodden members of society to support the middle class against their own best interests?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Yes, same House Un-American Activities Committee which rooted out Alger Hiss, a dangerous Commie high up in the administration. And the Rosenbergs who sold US atomic secrets to the USSR.

If by 'rooted out' you mean accused of being a Soviet spy but never convicted him of it, you might be right there. Along with forcing over 300 individuals out of work for exercising their democratic rights, such sterling work earned them the commendation of "most un-American thing in the country today" from President Truman.

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

My educated guess is that Communism/Social Marxism is responsible for Feminism. The whole point of this thread is to get other people to weigh in.

What education would you say specifically informs your guess?
Surely if the premise is that groups seeking to destroy christian civilization engineered the feminist movement, you need to start by extending the benefit of your education to the rest of us by showing;
What christian civilisation is (was?).
What groups seek (sought?) to destroy it.
How those groups engineered the feminist movement.
For instance, the rise of marxism as an ideology was more or less contemporaneous with the rise of the suffragette movement; marxism certainly advocated social equality for women, however the majority of suffragettes were 'bourgeoisie'. It would appear that both movements were concerned with liberation from oppression and establishing social equality; that may or may not conform to your definition of the destruction of christian civilization if you provide one?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Steinem was CIA. That is why the huge impetus of the Feminist movement in the 60s seems strange to me. Why did the CIA need Steinem?

She was employed (for a time) by the Independent Service for Information, which was funded by the CIA, and sent anti-communist activists to dispute with pro-communist activists at the World Youth Festival in 1959.
So Steinem was a Feminist who opposed Communism. Which suggests she is not a good example of how Communism engineered Feminism? Unless it was a double blind; feminism would oppose communism but bring about sexual equality thereby achieving communism's goals undetected?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

And yea sure Socialism brought equality. Im sure the millions who died in the Holodomor and the Gulags were huge fans of their newly found equality.

They were certainly equally dead? I never said socialism (or capitalism) brought equality; only that socialism may have come to the fore in the east as a result of the search for equality and freedom.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Sorry I am way too tired after work to address all of your questions today so I will just make a brief comment. You, my friend have obviously never heard of the Venona Files or Major Jordan's diaries (and please don't just type these into wikipedia; it seems this is where you derive a significant amount of your information from). Beginning from the 1930s, the US was absolutely riddled with Soviet agentour. To such an extent that when Whittaker Chambers ( himself at one stage working for the Soviets) tried to explain the scale of the problem to FDR, he was told to 'go jump in a lake'. The Soviets recruited the greedy and ideologically duped to weaken the US and rot American society from the inside. Sadly, judging by what is happening today, they largely succeeded. The process is well explained by a youtube video of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector the West.

Now that I have set out the historical backdrop to the situation, I am looking for opinions on to what extent Feminism was a part of this Communist process of decay.

Avah Squeaking Staffer

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Sadly, judging by what is happening today, they largely succeeded. The process is well explained by a youtube video of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector the West.

Now that I have set out the historical backdrop to the situation, I am looking for opinions on to what extent Feminism was a part of this Communist process of decay.

Exactly what negative effects is feminism having today?
How do they line up with communist goals?

Absolam

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

You, my friend have obviously never heard of the Venona Files or Major Jordan's diaries

Are you claiming that any information gleaned from the Venona project or from Jordan's testimony supports your assertion that the Feminist movement was engineered by Marxist/Communist groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization?
If so would you mind posting the information you think is relevant?
If not would you mind telling us what the relevance of the Verona files and Major Jordan's diaries is?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

(and please don't just type these into wikipedia; it seems this is where you derive a significant amount of your information from).

I have a feeling you're having trouble addressing the points I made, and are resorting to attacking the source instead. Since I haven't cited a source (happy to where you think it's necessary though), you're attacking a source that you've imagined. This may be the crux of the issue with your entire point; you've constructed an imaginary stalking horse for yourself to pursue.

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Beginning from the 1930s, the US was absolutely riddled with Soviet agentour. To such an extent that when Whittaker Chambers ( himself at one stage working for the Soviets) tried to explain the scale of the problem to FDR, he was told to 'go jump in a lake'.

So you're saying that Roosevelt was skeptical of the testimony from a supposedly turned spy? Hmm.

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

The Soviets recruited the greedy and ideologically duped to weaken the US and rot American society from the inside. Sadly, judging by what is happening today, they largely succeeded. The process is well explained by a youtube video of Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet defector the West.

That's a somewhat nebulous assertion "The Soviets weakened the US and rotted American society from within". Without you specifying what they did, how they did it, and quantifying the result, all you're really saying is in your opinion the US is weaker and more rotten than it could be. That doesn't exactly back up your idea that that the Feminist movement was engineered by Marxist/Communist groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization?

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Now that I have set out the historical backdrop to the situation, I am looking for opinions on to what extent Feminism was a part of this Communist process of decay.

I think you've clearly shown that Americans were obsessed with Reds under the Bed during the 40s and 50s (which is great for those who weren't aware of that). You haven't shown any evidence of 'decay' (whatever you mean by that), or that it was a Communist process. Now you're saying you think that Feminism was a part of this process, rather than a result of engineering by Marxist/Communist groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization, so I think you may be confusing your point a little?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Exactly what negative effects is feminism having today?

Today?

During the Dutch game earlier BOTH "experts" on the panel were women. This is despite there being thousands of retired Scandanavian footballers, including many with actual experience of World Cups, who are more experienced in Men's football and would jump at the opportunity to work in the media.

Just to chip in on the main topic - I think there needs be a line drawn between feminists who are more or less redundant now in my opinion and radical feminists, the kind that really do hate men, think all sex with men is the rape of the woman - like the radical feminist who tried to kill Andy Warhol.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Today? During the Dutch game earlier BOTH "experts" on the panel were women. This is despite there being thousands of retired Scandanavian footballers, including many with actual experience of World Cups, who are more experienced in Men's football and would jump at the opportunity to work in the media.

I think the line from Marx to female football pundits via HUAC may be a little blurred... but not having seen the "experts" I wonder, would you say their appearance was likely to have been a factor in placing them in front of an audience of primarily male viewers, or was their political ideology more likely to have been a factor? Leaving aside their knowledge of the game itself, since they were experts, perhaps the factor here was old fashioned sexist marketing, rather than feminism?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to chip in on the main topic - I think there needs be a line drawn between feminists who are more or less redundant now in my opinion and radical feminists, the kind that really do hate men, think all sex with men is the rape of the woman - like the radical feminist who tried to kill Andy Warhol.

I think what you're describing are misandrists, and are even less likely to be a movement engineered by Marxist/Communist groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization (is there a misandry movement as such?). Maybe if it was the destruction of male civilisation (if there were such a thing) there might be some mileage in it... if the Marxist/Communist groups were also misandrists?

Brown Bomber

I would think that seeing as I live where Julian Assange described as the "Saudi Arabia" of feminism" that the state broadcaster employing exclusively two unqualified non-experts as "experts" because they are women has a lot to do with feminism.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Today?

During the Dutch game earlier BOTH "experts" on the panel were women. This is despite there being thousands of retired Scandanavian footballers, including many with actual experience of World Cups, who are more experienced in Men's football and would jump at the opportunity to work in the media.

Truly a chilling ploy from the communists.
Once only women are able to commentate on football, I'm sure the gulags are the very next step.

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

Truly a chilling ploy from the communists.
Once only women are able to commentate on football, I'm sure the gulags are the very next step.

All sarcasm aside there Mr. Mob, the reality is, women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do. When do you expect women to be out on a battle field fighting for example? Working in an abattoir butchering animals?

The world is what it is, no point in disseminating the concept of equality when it's based purely on idealist propaganda.

I'm not a misogynist but there's no point denying reality, is there?

Things are so bad now with political correctness ( borderline tyranny ), I can't even express an opinion which is grounded more in reality, I'm obligated to believe in fantasy just to appease the brainwashed masses.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would think that seeing as I live where Julian Assange described as the "Saudi Arabia" of feminism" that the state broadcaster employing exclusively two unqualified non-experts as "experts" because they are women has a lot to do with feminism.

Well, since you haven't said who they are, we're not even near being in a position to check their qualifications and say if they might be experts. Maybe you have checked, and can show us?
Then, if they are evidently unqualified as experts, we may ask why would they be there? I've suggested sexism as a reason; 'eye candy' will pull in more male viewers for a male oriented show, and the makers of the show accrue benefit thereby. Perhaps nepotism is a reason, and a fond uncle has strong-armed an associate to gain employment for his favourite (but fundamentally unemployable) nieces? Perhaps State mandated gender equality is the reason, and they are there to balance the two ex-footballers currently residing as 'experts' on the women's beach volleyball games? Maybe one of them is a transsexual and the producers never realised when they were booked, thus ruining a planned balanced male/female presenting team?
If feminism is a reason, what benefit accrues where?

As for Julian Assanges opinion, do you think it might be coloured by the fact that he's trying to avoid prosecution for sexual assault in that country? I don't think he can reasonably claim an unbiased viewpoint...

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I'm not a misogynist but there's no point denying reality, is there?

Things are so bad now with political correctness ( borderline tyranny ), I can't even express an opinion which is grounded more in reality, I'm obligated to believe in fantasy just to appease the brainwashed masses.

Well problem with that though is that you're the one denying reality.

There are women soldiers in armies all over the world and in combat positions.

Second:
http://www.goldposters.com/posterimages/3784002-russian-women-working-as-butchers-in-abattoir-while-men-are-off-to-war-at-mikoyan-meat-combine.jpg
http://www.ediblesanfrancisco.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/return-of-butcher.jpg
http://images.smh.com.au/2011/07/25/2515602/ipad-art-wide-pg3-butcher-420x0.jpg

The only job women cannot do, is a job were they need to aim their pee.

While more men might be on average more suited for certain jobs due to physical differences, this is not the case for football commentating.
Unless you can explain why a women is physically less suited to that job.

The point however that both you and BB seem to have missed was that I was asking for clarification of the effects that feminism has caused that are beneficial to communism and communist plotters.

Why are They trying to brainwash people into thinking that saying stuff like all women are naturally submissive is a bit sexist?

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

Well problem with that though is that you're the one denying reality.

There are women soldiers in armies all over the world and in combat positions.

So, you're okay with women out murdering other humans to consolidate power? That's not exactly in tune with feminist beliefs though, is it?

I think the problem here is with how we define Feminism and how you perceive criticism of Feminist beliefs to be an attack on all women which is a logical fallacy.

I'm not attacking women, I'm critical of Feminist core beliefs.

I see many feminists on the internet talking about how men are such bastards, how terrible animals are treated, how terrible minorities are treated..and so on so forth.

They usually complain about all these things sitting at starbucks drinking slave produced coffee, tweeting or facebooking on their slave made technological devices, wearing slave made designer clothing.

It makes me want to vomit.

The only job women cannot do, is a job were they need to aim their pee.

I think you'll find some men like being peed on so there certainly is work there.
Not me personally now, but it's a job that requires aiming their pee.

While more men might be on average more suited for certain jobs due to physical differences, this is not the case for football commentating.
Unless you can explain why a women is physically less suited to that job.

So you agree men and women are not equal by identifying the physical differences? That's all I've been saying and now you're agreeing with me. Can't you see that even you subconsciously acknowledge we are not equal but out of fear cannot express an honest opinion due to Political correctness?

The point however that both you and BB seem to have missed was that I was asking for clarification of the effects that feminism has caused that are beneficial to communism and communist plotters.

I don't think BB and myself actually share the same opinions on this issue, so I'm unsure what you're referring to. Where do we agree? It isn't clear to me.

As for the Feminist movement being out of touch with reality, it certainly is.
Just to clarify for some readers of the forum, both men and women can be feminist, it is not defined by gender, it's a set of beliefs.

I'm guessing I'll get another infraction for simply expressing an opinion that isn't politically correct.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

So, you're okay with women out murdering other humans to consolidate power? That's not exactly in tune with feminist beliefs though, is it?

So, you weren't saying women aren't out on a battle field fighting, you were saying women shouldn't be out on a battle field fighting? Did you also mean you think women shouldn't be butchers? Just so we're clear....

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I think you'll find many men like being peed on so there certainly is work there. Not me personally now, but it's a job that requires aiming their pee.

So you can agree there are no jobs that women cannot do? As opposed to jobs you think women shouldn't do?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

So you agree men and women are not equal by identifying the physical differences? That's all I've been saying and now you're agreeing with me. Can't you see that even you subconsciously acknowledge we are not equal but out of fear cannot express an honest opinion?

So what you're saying is when measured specifically on physical attributes no-one is equal except for those who are physically identical; therefore men are no more or equal than women, and both are equal in their dissimilarity? Regardless of your fear of expressing yourself....

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

So, you weren't saying women aren't out on a battle field fighting, you were saying women shouldn't be out on a battle field fighting? Just so we're clear....

I don't impose the belief men and women are the same when society doesn't treat them as equals. Society doesn't view men and women as equal and never have. That's my point.

Just because women can kill animals doesn't mean society will expect them to do those jobs.

Women are more sensitive than men for that type of job, are you denying this?

So you can agree there are no jobs that women cannot do?

Society doesn't expect women to perform certain jobs.
Some jobs are dominated by males (construction for example) because men are generally more suitable for heavy work due to physical strength while some jobs are dominated by females (nursing)

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I don't impose the belief men and women are the same when society doesn't treat them as equals. Society doesn't view men and women as equal and never have. That's my point.

I thought your point was "the reality is, women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do"? But it seems they do?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Just because women can kill animals doesn't mean society will expect them to do those jobs.

You mean, apart from the members of society such as their families and colleagues who expect them to continue doing those jobs that they are doing right now? Is there a particular part of society that you think doesn't want them to do those jobs, and why?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Women are more sensitive than men for that type of job, are you denying this?

I honestly don't know what you mean by women are more sensitive than men for anything?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Society doesn't expect women to perform certain jobs.

I don't think that's true. Society has enacted legislation to ensure women may 'perform certain jobs' if they choose. That rather indicates that society expects them to 'perform certain jobs'. Especially as above, when members of society depend on them to 'perform certain jobs'.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Some jobs are dominated by males (construction for example) because men are generally more suitable for heavy work due to physical strength while some jobs are dominated by females (nursing)

But construction doesn't exclusively employ males? And nursing doesn't exclusively employ females? So society doesn't expect men to perform construction job roles, or women to perform nursing job roles?

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

So, you're okay with women out murdering other humans to consolidate power?

That is not what I said. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
I just pointed to the fact that women actually do have the jobs you say that they don't and should not do.
This being after railing about people not accepting reality.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

They usually complain about all these things sitting at starbucks drinking slave produced coffee, tweeting or facebooking on their slave made technological devices, wearing slave made designer clothing.

It makes me want to vomit.

Unless this post was sent from you wind powered, completely home built computer using only self produced resources, then aren't you being just as hypocritical.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

So you agree men and women are not equal by identifying the physical differences? That's all I've been saying and now you're agreeing with me. Can't you see that even you subconsciously acknowledge we are not equal but out of fear cannot express an honest opinion due to Political correctness?

No that's not what I was saying at all.
Some traits being more common in one sex or the other does not mean they aren't equal. And people should not be treated unequally because of this.
There are women who would be better suited for jobs you deem that are male than either you or I.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I don't think BB and myself actually share the same opinions on this issue, so I'm unsure what you're referring to. Where do we agree? It isn't clear to me.

You both have missed the point I made. You continue to do so.

Do you believe that there is a communist conspiracy to promote feminism?
If so, what effects can we see of this that are beneficial to communism?

Who do you think is doing this brainwashing as you put it, and for what benefit?

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

I thought your point was "the reality is, women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do"? But it seems they do?

No, they don't. Continue to reinforce the ideology men and women are equal but society seems to contradict your beliefs, doesn't it?

I honestly don't know what you mean by women are more sensitive than men for anything?

Feign ignorance while you're at it. Men are generally only allowed by society to express anger. Men crying is considered shameful by many in society.

That's why men engage in fighting as a sport. Sure, some women do also, but where do you see women fighting against men for sport? Be reasonable, men and women aren't equal you see.

Contradicts your beliefs yet again, doesn't it?

Society has enacted legislation to ensure women may 'perform certain jobs' if they choose.

So why is it disproportionately men doing jobs that require strength?
Because that's just the way it is, men are physically stronger by nature.

But construction doesn't exclusively employ males? And nursing doesn't exclusively employ females? So society doesn't expect men to perform construction job roles, or women to perform nursing job roles?

Predictable response from you there. I said dominated
I think it's clear, men dominate construction due to physical strength while women dominate nursing due to sensitive nature.

Argue and deny all you want, society is a reflection of nature and that's just the way it is.

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

That is not what I said. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
I just pointed to the fact that women actually do have the jobs you say that they don't and should not do.
This being after railing about people not accepting reality.

If men and women are really equal, there wouldn't be a disproportionate number of men or women in specific jobs.

Why you're perplexed by this isn't clear. Women are considered more sensitive and thus suitable for jobs working with children, nursing sick and elderly...etc

Men will do jobs that require strength or might be dangerous, this is just how things are.
Society reflects nature.

Harold Weiss

I just want to say this before I end up getting another infraction.

If you believe men and women are equal, would you object to watching a man and a woman fight each other in a boxing match or MMA tournament?

What happens if the woman gets beaten badly, would it still be okay?
Personally, I wouldn't want to watch that.

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Society reflects nature.

This is a very flawed argument, combining both the naturalistic fallacy and the argument from tradition and popularity.

Also I find it funny that you are accusing us of being brainwashed yet keep saying things like "soicety considers X therefore X must be true."

However you are still ignoring the point I actually originally posted:

Do you believe that there is a communist conspiracy to promote feminism?
If so, what effects can we see of this that are beneficial to communism?

Who do you think is doing this brainwashing as you put it, and for what benefit?

What ill effects does all these women defying nature and society actually bring?

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

This is a very flawed argument, combining both the naturalistic fallacy and the argument from tradition and popularity.

Also I find it funny that you are accusing us of being brainwashed yet keep saying things like "soicety considers X therefore X must be true."

You just don't want to acknowledge men and women aren't equal, that's fine.
I've challenged your beliefs by questioning if you'd have no problem watching a man beat up a woman in a ring. It's very revealing.

However you are still ignoring the point I actually originally posted:

Do you believe that there is a communist conspiracy to promote feminism?
If so, what effects can we see of this that are beneficial to communism?

Who do you think is doing this brainwashing as you put it, and for what benefit?

What ill effects does all these women defying nature and society actually bring?

Well, I don't know if there's any truth to it but we do know that communism sought to destroy USA using overt methods by spreading Marxist ideology.

The purpose of spreading any ideas against an enemy would be to demoralize the society.

Dividing populations based on gender politics isn't new.

Populations are divided on every issue from religion, race, sexual orientation, gender of course among other issues.

You can influence society of a country through education, religion, media and culture. Infiltrate those domains and disseminate whatever ideas you want, the dupes will do the rest.

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

You just don't want to acknowledge men and women aren't equal, that's fine.

Nope, just don't it's particularly fruitful to engage with you on the topic and don't think it's on topic for this thread or forum.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I've challenged your beliefs by questioning if you'd have no problem watching a man beat up a woman in a ring. It's very revealing.

:rolleyes:
Do you actually think that anyone's going to buy this tactic?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Well, I don't know if there's any truth to it but we do know that communism sought to destroy USA using overt methods by spreading Marxist ideology.

The purpose of spreading any ideas against an enemy would be to demoralize the society.

So how does feminism demoralise society?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Dividing populations based on gender politics isn't new.

Populations are divided on every issue from religion, race, sexual orientation, gender of course among other issues.

You can influence society of a country through education, religion, media and culture. Infiltrate those domains and disseminate whatever ideas you want, the dupes will do the rest.

So again, can you please explain the tangible effects that we can observe?
What exactly will happen to society if we allow feminism to run amok?

Who do you think is behind this brainwashing and how do they benefit from the ill effects of feminism?

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

No, they don't. Continue to reinforce the ideology men and women are equal but society seems to contradict your beliefs, doesn't it?

Well, any example you've provided has proven that women are equal, so society does seem to be backing me up here.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Feign ignorance while you're at it. Men are generally only allowed by society to express anger. Men crying is considered shameful by many in society.

I routinely, even on a daily basis, perhaps hourly, express emotions other than anger. Society seems utterly unaffected. When you say many in society consider men crying shameful, I don't. The people I know don't. Do you really mean just yourself?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

That's why men engage in fighting as a sport. Sure, some women do also, but where do you see women fighting against men for sport? Be reasonable, men and women aren't equal you see.

I worked on a talk show a while back with a lovely young lady called Katie Taylor. I think she'd happily dispute your ideas on equality. So is it your opinion that men and women can only be equal if they fight each other, despite the fact that you claim you wouldn't like to watch that? You seem a little conflicted on the subject...

Harold Weiss wrote: »

So why is it disproportionately men doing jobs that require strength? Because that's just the way it is, men are physically stronger by nature.

The fact that some men are physically stronger than others doesn't in any way change the fact that there are women currently engaged in pretty much every job though, does it?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Predictable response from you there. I said dominatedI think it's clear, men dominate construction due to physical strength while women dominate nursing due to sensitive nature.

That may be clear to you, but seems debatable. Whereas the fact that there are women engaged in construction work, and men engaged in nursing, is not debatable, it's a fact.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Argue and deny all you want, society is a reflection of nature and that's just the way it is.

How exactly do you think society is a reflection of nature? And how does that have anything to do with communism creating feminism?

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, just don't it's particularly fruitful to engage with you on the topic and don't think it's on topic for this thread or forum.

I don't know man, you might need to rephrase that one.

Do you actually think that anyone's going to buy this tactic?

Tactic? It's a simple question. You believe men and women are equal so let's see how you'd react to watching a man beat up a woman. We're all equal after all, aren't we?

So how does feminism demoralise society?

By weakening how males view their role in society?
I've seen plenty of Feminists promote the idea of men being obsolete, another one of their delusional beliefs. "We don't need men, men are bastards"

So again, can you please explain the tangible effects that we can observe?
What exactly will happen to society if we allow feminism to run amok?

I take care of number one and don't give a fck about society anymore.

Who do you think is behind this brainwashing and how do they benefit from the ill effects of feminism?

I doubt you even really understand some of the core beliefs held by feminists.
They're impractical to say the least ... extremely delusional.

Absolam wrote:

Well, any example you've provided has proven that women are equal, so society does seem to be backing me up here.

What are you talking about? I've already stated clearly enough specific jobs in society are dominated by either men or women.

Construction industry, dominated by men and Nursing dominated by women, are you disputing that? I'm not addressing these nonsensical arguments anymore.

I routinely, even on a daily basis, perhaps hourly, express emotions other than anger. Society seems utterly unaffected. When you say many in society consider men crying shameful, I don't. The people I know don't. Do you really mean just yourself?

Over 80% of suicides in Ireland are males, why do you suppose that's the case if men are permitted to express emotions other than anger? Not an easy question to answer.

I worked on a talk show a while back with a lovely young lady called Katie Taylor. I think she'd happily dispute your ideas on equality. So is it your opinion that men and women can only be equal if they fight each other, despite the fact that you claim you wouldn't like to watch that? You seem a little conflicted on the subject...

Right, right...so you're going to put Katie Taylor up against a male boxer (let's say same age, weight) and think it's a fair fight?

How many people in society would want to watch that? You're simply ignoring how society perceives women and men.

A lot of men would be intimidated by Katie Taylor because she's a boxer. Do you prefer masculine women? What about female body builders, you think they're attractive?

The fact that some men are physically stronger than others doesn't in any way change the fact that there are women currently engaged in pretty much every job though, does it?

I hate repeating myself, Absalom so if you don't mind, can we move beyond this as it was already answered in previous post. Maybe you enjoy ruminating about the same question and answer but I don't.

How exactly do you think society is a reflection of nature? And how does that have anything to do with communism creating feminism?

I'm not entirely sure at this point if you're even reading my responses with some objectivity.

It's been stated clearly enough that specific industries in society have disproportionate numbers of male and female. I've given 2 examples of many and I don't find it helpful to keep repeating myself.

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Tactic? It's a simple question. You believe men and women are equal so let's see how you'd react to watching a man beat up a woman. We're all equal after all, aren't we?

Lol, that's not even the question you asked anymore.

It's a dumb, emotive rethorical questions and because I didn't dignify it with a response you accused me of being ok with violence against women.
Do you really think that 1) that's my position and 2) that anyone will be convinced that's my position?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

By weakening how males view their role in society?
I've seen plenty of Feminists promote the idea of men being obsolete, another one of their delusional beliefs. "We don't need men, men are bastards"

So what actual effect would this have?
How does it benefit communism when it would effect them as well?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I take care of number one and don't give a fck about society anymore.

Yet you seem to want to enforce your views about what society says onto other people.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I doubt you even really understand some of the core beliefs held by feminists.
They're impractical to say the least ... extremely delusional.

So I'm asking you to explain what effect they are having on society and to show where this effect is taking place. So far it seems to be imaginary.

I'm also asking you to elaborate and explain who you think is brainwashing me and to what end.

Harold Weiss

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, that's not even the question you asked anymore.

It's a dumb, emotive rethorical questions and because I didn't dignify it with a response you accused me of being ok with violence against women.

If I'm asking dumb questions then I must only have dumb answers.

You misinterpreted the point I was making but it's obvious anyway you don't believe men and women are equal and I'm tired arguing with you about it.

I think it's pretty clear men and women aren't equal in society, but you believe what you want.

It's funny actually. On the one hand you're almost saying "Men and Women are equal" then you acknowledge "we're not equal"

Harold Weiss

Harold Weiss wrote: »

If I'm asking dumb questions then I must only have dumb answers.

You misinterpreted the point I was making but it's obvious anyway you don't believe men and women are equal and I'm tired arguing with you about it.

I think it's pretty clear men and women aren't equal in society, but you believe what you want.

It's funny actually. On the one hand you're almost saying "Men and Women are equal" then you acknowledge "we're not equal"

Men and women are equal. If a man and a woman of comparable weight classes wanted a match, then more power to them. I wouldnt watch cause I dont watch boxing (or sport in general anyway.)
I dont support domestic abuse or violence against women.

So could you now actually discuss the conspiracy theory?

Who is brain washing me and what do they gain?
Please point to an actual example of the ill effects of feminism.

Harold Weiss

HAHA!

I never said you supported domestic violence against women, I'm merely exposing how you perceive the roles of men and women in society like most people.

You clearly don't view men and women as equals but you want to deny it on a public forum to appear politically correct.

You're more in conflict with your own mind than with me.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

What are you talking about? I've already stated clearly enough specific jobs in society are dominated by either men or women. Construction industry, dominated by men and Nursing dominated by women, are you disputing that? I'm not addressing these nonsensical arguments anymore.

Hmm. I'm talking about your statement:
"women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do. When do you expect women to be out on a battle field fighting for example? Working in an abattoir butchering animals?" Which was proven incorrect.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Over 80% of suicides in Ireland are males, why do you suppose that's the case if men are permitted to express emotions other than anger? Not an easy question to answer.

Well, it's reasonably easy to answer. No study have ever found any link between mens inability to express emotions other than anger and suicide. Actually, not reasonably easy. Very easy. By the way, do you think suicide is an expression of anger?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Right, right...so you're going to put Katie Taylor up against a male boxer (let's say same age, weight) and think it's a fair fight?

Again with the wanting to see women fighting men. It's starting to sound a bit fetishistic? Is a woman less equal if she doesn't fight a man? Why?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

How many people in society would want to watch that? You're simply ignoring how society perceives women and men.

Well, I think I'm seeing how you perceive women and men...

Harold Weiss wrote: »

A lot of men would be intimidated by Katie Taylor because she's a boxer. Do you prefer masculine women? What about female body builders, you think they're attractive?

Do you think she's intimidating? Do you find her masculine? Is this something you think about being attractive a great deal?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I hate repeating myself, Absalom so if you don't mind, can we move beyond this as it was already answered in previous post. Maybe you enjoy ruminating about the same question and answer but I don't.

I don't think you did answer it. I think you said that certain jobs are dominated by specific sexes (and in the context of your other points, I do find your choice of the word dominated interesting), but you haven't yet managed to acknowledge that the fact that there are women currently engaged in pretty much every job, despite your original assertion.

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure at this point if you're even reading my responses with some objectivity.

I assure you, I have read your points carefully. You have claimed twice that society reflects nature, but on neither occasion been able to point out how. So, how?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

It's been stated clearly enough that specific industries in society have disproportionate numbers of male and female. I've given 2 examples of many and I don't find it helpful to keep repeating myself.

Yes, you've given examples of two occupations which have both male and female workers, and a preponderance of one or the other. How do you think this is society reflecting nature, and how does that have anything to do with communism creating feminism?

weisses

I was paired up with a female during firefighting exams and that made it more difficult for me, she was a fine built, small but lovely girl she had to lift me up and drag me out of a staged fire ... I am 6'3 and 16 stone, it didn't go well for her, she passed in the end. But the efforts made by the higher ups (men) to accommodate for women in the fire brigade where ridiculous. And I am not even talking about operating the heavy machinery used to cut open cars.

Man and woman are not equal ... period ...

On the other hand 0.5 percent of UK midwives are men, love to see the reaction when by positive discrimination that level would be increased to 50%

I am all for equality on some levels but the equality agenda pushed by feminism isn't helping imo

Sacksian

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

I am still looking for the answer but a number of facts seem strange. It is well known that Marxism/Communism wages a war on the nuclear family

There is nothing traditional about the nuclear family. Arranged marriages for economic, social or political gain, marital rape and child brides are far more traditional.

Avah Squeaking Staffer wrote: »

Was the whole Feminist movement engineered by groups seeking to destroy Christian civilization?

No. It was engineered by groups who sought to address the massive inequalities in opportunities enjoyed by and afforded to women and their participation in education, the labour market and politics (amongst other things).

The marriage bar which forced women to resign from public services jobs when they got married was only lifted in 1973. Marital rape was only outlawed in Ireland in 1990. Were these practices informed by the values of Christian civilization?

If you want to promote Christian civilization, its ideas and values, then you have to accept that other people will want to promote their ideas and values, which may run contrary to yours. It doesn't have to involve a communist plot.

If it's a conspiracy to promote women's equality and full participation in social and political life, then any efforts to promote the opposite view equally involve a conspiracy.

Sacksian

As a footnote, this conspiracy theory is linked to the Freemasonry and Asian mail-order threads by the writings of Henry Makow, inventor of the board game Scruples, who believes that:

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

Behind this is a banking cartel, which:

controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.

And that:

Modern Western culture is Masonic. Based on Luciferianism, Freemasonry teaches that man and not God determines reality. (Naturally, they need to overrule natural and spiritual laws in order to assert their own control.) They have noticed that people are diffident malleable creatures who prefer to believe what they are told than trust their own reason or perception. Thus, for example, the media successfully promotes homosexual values that conflict with our natural instincts.

This is linked to the mail order bride thread by a book he wrote for (older) men looking for (younger) women with more traditional values, called A Long Way to Go For a Date, which details his efforts (at 47) to escape the emasculation of western feminism by marrying an 18 year-old from the Philippines.

If people like this are the standard-bearers for Christian values, I don't think the communists have much to worry about.

Harold Weiss

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. I'm talking about your statement:
"women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do. When do you expect women to be out on a battle field fighting for example? Working in an abattoir butchering animals?" Which was proven incorrect.

All you've proven to me is you're in conflict with yourself about the role of men and women in society. Like King Mob, you'll insist "Men and Women are equal" then on specific issues admit "well, we're not really equal"

Again with the wanting to see women fighting men. It's starting to sound a bit fetishistic? Is a woman less equal if she doesn't fight a man? Why?

Discussing this topic with you is like talking to a brick wall.
You keep avoiding the answer because you know fine well, it contradicts your assertion men == women.

Men != women. I think it's fairly obvious to any rational human being.
Next, you'll tell me an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Harold Weiss

For you Absalom from 'Something About Cats'
17 Accessories Every Misandrist Should Own

Some of the most shameful sh1t I've ever seen.

sarkozy

Ultimately, I cannot ever see equality as a 'conspiracy theory'. Feminism is about equality. I am a man and a feminist.

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

All you've proven to me is you're in conflict with yourself about the role of men and women in society. Like King Mob, you'll insist "Men and Women are equal" then on specific issues admit "well, we're not really equal"

Did I do that? I didn't notice I did that. I did notice you said "women will never undertake ALL jobs that men do. When do you expect women to be out on a battle field fighting for example? Working in an abattoir butchering animals?". That turned out to be wrong, didn't it?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Discussing this topic with you is like talking to a brick wall. You keep avoiding the answer because you know fine well, it contradicts your assertion men == women.

And yet you continue to return to the subject of intimidating masculine body building women fighting with men. What do you think compels this?

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Men != women. I think it's fairly obvious to any rational human being. Next, you'll tell me an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Fruits eh? Interesting....

Absolam

Harold Weiss wrote: »

For you Absalom from 'Something About Cats'
17 Accessories Every Misandrist Should Own

Some of the most shameful sh1t I've ever seen.

You find it shameful, yet you not only look at it, but you deliberately share it with others. How does that make you feel?

weisses

Harold Weiss wrote: »

For you Absalom from 'Something About Cats'
17 Accessories Every Misandrist Should Own

Some of the most shameful sh1t I've ever seen.

The only fitting answer

So to be clear no one can actually point to either a motavation behind a conspiracy, point out any plausible conspirators or show or suggest any possible ill effects?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So to be clear no one can actually point to either a motavation behind a conspiracy, point out any plausible conspirators or show or suggest any possible ill effects?

Try to Google Feminist conspiracy ...plenty of results

Absolam

weisses wrote: »

Try to Google Feminist conspiracy ...plenty of results

Genius Is there a two word combination you can Google that doesn't produce plenty of results?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Try to Google Feminist conspiracy ...plenty of results

I did. It was depressing. I just came up with lots of sexism and even a little homophobia thrown in for good measure.
What I didn't find was any of the stuff I asked for.

And even if I had, it would not have answered what the people here who believe such a conspiracy is true or might be true thing.

I'm more interested in discussing the conspiracy theory than bashing feminism.

weisses

Absolam wrote: »

Genius Is there a two word combination you can Google that doesn't produce plenty of results?

Fact of the matter is that it points towards a conspiracy the motivation and possible conspirators ... According to KM no one can point it out but 2 words in google gives you plenty of information.

You don't have to agree with the search results but it anwsers his question I think

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I did. It was depressing. I just came up with lots of sexism and even a little homophobia thrown in for good measure.
What I didn't find was any of the stuff I asked for.

And even if I had, it would not have answered what the people here who believe such a conspiracy is true or might be true thing.

I'm more interested in discussing the conspiracy theory than bashing feminism.

Agreed .... it is depressing allright