The modern woman has a career and children, all without the help of any man...

[bodecea]

Don't even try to patronize me. Why were there no women at the constitutional convention? Why was there no role for women in public policy to begin with? You completely skip over the fact that women, one half of the population, were completely fenced out of the political process by men to begin with and then men constructed a fantasy that they somehow represented women. This has nothing to do with raising children.

Voting is a direct demonstration of the individual's will. Supposedly we have a nation based on government by the will of the people. One half of the people are female. Yet this half of the people had to fight for it.

It's a crying shame, then, that most women vote like absolute dunderheads, isn't it?

Those with no real self-esteem voting for an avowed misogynist.....true.

Link showing Trump avowing misogyny please, or admit that you just made that up, so you could insult women you disagree with.

He's bragging to younger men about how being famous helps with sexual conquests.


A lot of women judge men by their social status. That is not having contempt for women, that is dealing with the reality of the situation.


Indeed, I would bet money, that Trump thinks it makes complete sense for women to do that.


So, that is your position, refuted. So now, does that make you a misogynists, since you said bad stuff about women?

That is clearly declared misogyny. No getting around that.

 

[Markle]

The incidence of women being single parents by CHOICE is very low.

The premise of this thread is stupid

Oh, NOT true. The War on Poverty, the crown jewel of the Johnson administration destroyed the black family unit. That permeated throughout our society. Bad behavior is rewarded, good behavior punished. Progressives never see this coming.

 

[Correll]

The incidence of women being single parents by CHOICE is very low.

The premise of this thread is stupid

What do you base that on?

 

[Correll]

It's a crying shame, then, that most women vote like absolute dunderheads, isn't it?

Those with no real self-esteem voting for an avowed misogynist.....true.

Link showing Trump avowing misogyny please, or admit that you just made that up, so you could insult women you disagree with.

He's bragging to younger men about how being famous helps with sexual conquests.


A lot of women judge men by their social status. That is not having contempt for women, that is dealing with the reality of the situation.


Indeed, I would bet money, that Trump thinks it makes complete sense for women to do that.


So, that is your position, refuted. So now, does that make you a misogynists, since you said bad stuff about women?

That is clearly declared misogyny. No getting around that.

Except he doesn't say anything negative about women at all. So, why you being crazy?

Apologize to all female Trump supporters or admit to being misogynist yourself.

 

[Lysistrata]

The fundie phoney "Christians" seem to have a preoccupation with sex in all of its forms, heterosexuality, homosexuality. When are you idiots just going to get over it and shut up? Sex has been around for millennia. Go home, do what you will, actually talk to the person in your bed, and shut the hell up.

What are you raving about?

The phony "Christians" who constantly obsess with sex and other people's sex lives. Oh "abstinence only," "keep your knees together," "gays are terrible." Blah blah blah. Why are these jerks doing this? Why can't they just stay home and do whatever? Always snooping and bleating. There are much more important things to be worried about in this world than what one's neighbor is doing in bed. Keep personal things private and get on with it. People are starving in this world.

I am so tired with this junk brand of Christianity.

If people like you kept your personal things private, instead of demanding pubic celebration of them, you would have a lot more of a point.

Most people keep their personal things private, but sometimes they get out, and some people, like the Duggars, advertise it and make a buck. If somebody is eight months' pregnant, you can kind of tell that something was up (no pun intended). Who is demanding a "public celebration"? Celebrate anything you want. Or don't. Just don't go snooping or trying to tell anybody else what to do.

 

[Correll]

The fundie phoney "Christians" seem to have a preoccupation with sex in all of its forms, heterosexuality, homosexuality. When are you idiots just going to get over it and shut up? Sex has been around for millennia. Go home, do what you will, actually talk to the person in your bed, and shut the hell up.

What are you raving about?

The phony "Christians" who constantly obsess with sex and other people's sex lives. Oh "abstinence only," "keep your knees together," "gays are terrible." Blah blah blah. Why are these jerks doing this? Why can't they just stay home and do whatever? Always snooping and bleating. There are much more important things to be worried about in this world than what one's neighbor is doing in bed. Keep personal things private and get on with it. People are starving in this world.

I am so tired with this junk brand of Christianity.

If people like you kept your personal things private, instead of demanding pubic celebration of them, you would have a lot more of a point.

Most people keep their personal things private, but sometimes they get out, and some people, like the Duggars, advertise it and make a buck. If somebody is eight months' pregnant, you can kind of tell that something was up (no pun intended). Who is demanding a "public celebration"? Celebrate anything you want. Or don't. Just don't go snooping or trying to tell anybody else what to do.

You guys are, when you do shit like have a parade and demand everyone thinks it is great, or demand that we pretend that marriage was always about any two people instead of a man and a woman, or when you demand that we pretend that a guy is a girl or visa versa.

 

[22lcidw]

It's a crying shame, then, that most women vote like absolute dunderheads, isn't it?

Those with no real self-esteem voting for an avowed misogynist.....true.

Link showing Trump avowing misogyny please, or admit that you just made that up, so you could insult women you disagree with.

He's bragging to younger men about how being famous helps with sexual conquests.


A lot of women judge men by their social status. That is not having contempt for women, that is dealing with the reality of the situation.


Indeed, I would bet money, that Trump thinks it makes complete sense for women to do that.


So, that is your position, refuted. So now, does that make you a misogynists, since you said bad stuff about women?

That is clearly declared misogyny. No getting around that.

Mysogyny!....Stop stealing the Moneyonogy from the taxpayer suckers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

Disir has stated that she does not have blind faith.


I agree. What she has is blind skepticism.


Neither is a virtue.

I think conservatives and liberals are just skeptical about different things. Conservatives tend to be skeptical about the future (I know I am) whereas liberals tend to be skeptical about the past. Those are generalizations, but they hold mostly true, I think.

Are we better off today than we were in, let’s say, 1962? I don’t think we are.

Depends on how you measure it. From a material stand point we are WAY better off.

 

[thanatos144]

1 in 4 women experience abuse. It isn't just the left who created this situation.

I question your statistic.

I could as easily say that 1 in 4 women are abusive, and just as easily defend it with tales of children beaten and left alone.

But neither figure is truthful in a meaningful way.

1 in 4 girls are sexually abused in this country before they reach 18.....most by hetero male family members and friends. These are "men"?

That is a bullshit stat taken from a statement of a idiot sheriff

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

I've provided several links. Read em and weep for our children.

Weep about what? The fact is the stat is a lie.

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Disir]

And then what happened? Outsourcing R&D.

Running excess production so they could cover inventory for the big move.

Nostalgia. How old were you then?

36 ...served my country in two branches of the military including combat, went back to my factory town...and the factories closed over the next 9 years.

How old are you now?

I feel just about half way there.

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

How about the pinnacle of the United States ascendancy post World War2? Greatest economic boom and advancement in science, math, physics. USA was number one with our economy and military. But NAFTA and other dumb trade agreements destroyed the economy where I come from. “Nostalgic” fucking right. Sad...fucking right.

And then what happened? Outsourcing R&D.

Running excess production so they could cover inventory for the big move.

Nostalgia. How old were you then?

36 ...served my country in two branches of the military including combat, went back to my factory town...and the factories closed over the next 9 years. They had been going since the 1900’s. My father, uncles, everyone retired from manufacturing. Old days. It wasn’t just my area, but others just like us. Forgotten people. White privileged, rural, multiple veteran families that got a bad letter on more than one occasion from the War Department and had sad singing and slow walking that week. Gold Star homes.

I'm sorry, Bush92.

 

[citygator]

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

Women rarely marry DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. It is women at the top who actually have a seriously limited pool of men to partner with.


A woman at the bottom, can benefit from partnering with just about any man who is actually planing to even try.


THe magic of sharing rent is an obvious benefit, even if the guy has some issues.

As long as both are sharing rent. It's the whole trying part. Plans are a dime a dozen and is usually the problem; it's the follow through that counts.

Women don't marry down the ladder despite the romance novels of the blue collar worker meets wealthy heiress/journalist/rancher/CEO/financial adviser. It's not the norm. I agree. However, the odds of a woman working the register at a local convenience store meeting, falling in love and marrying the banker are slim to none. So, they are dating whomever is in their community.

The point being that many women picked up the pieces from whatever relationship they had and either created the opportunity or obtained work to provide housing, food for the children that they had. Same as they do now. I don't care what time frame we are talking about because curling up in a fetal position has traditionally not been an option.

Meh. I am in an industry that produces many successful women. Most ceo or EVP women I know have a husband that stays at home or has some side job like restoring boats or bikes. You could argue that is marrying down but they find what they need and that isn’t another high powered business guy she spends all day with anyway.

 

[Correll]

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Select group? Oh...you mean the vast majority of Americans. I see. Not supposed to get pregnant outside marriage.

Again. Dichotomy. Not supposed to do a lot of things. I'll be sure to codify that as soon as I have completed my takeover of the universe. Here is the reality. There were just as many shiftless men in the 1950s as there were in the 1910s etc.

Here is the really fun part. Women that are further down the socioeconomic ladder have a limited pool of men to partner with. So, at the bottom we have mentally ill men, felons, sex offenders, ongoing addictions, intellectually disabled men, etc. and so on. They are just as susceptible today as they were 60-100 years ago to the whole concept of a knight in shining armor and the fairy tale romance. You still have a very large percentage of young girls that drop out of high school and want to be stay at home mothers and wives. That is what they want to do.

The "modern woman" has a career and children today for the same damn reason that they had children and a career 100 years ago without a man. Rent and food. The number of women that make a "lifestyle choice" are few and are usually independently wealthy or financially stable in established careers.

Women rarely marry DOWN the socioeconomic ladder. It is women at the top who actually have a seriously limited pool of men to partner with.


A woman at the bottom, can benefit from partnering with just about any man who is actually planing to even try.


THe magic of sharing rent is an obvious benefit, even if the guy has some issues.

As long as both are sharing rent. It's the whole trying part. Plans are a dime a dozen and is usually the problem; it's the follow through that counts.

Women don't marry down the ladder despite the romance novels of the blue collar worker meets wealthy heiress/journalist/rancher/CEO/financial adviser. It's not the norm. I agree. However, the odds of a woman working the register at a local convenience store meeting, falling in love and marrying the banker are slim to none. So, they are dating whomever is in their community.

The point being that many women picked up the pieces from whatever relationship they had and either created the opportunity or obtained work to provide housing, food for the children that they had. Same as they do now. I don't care what time frame we are talking about because curling up in a fetal position has traditionally not been an option.

Meh. I am in an industry that produces many successful women. Most ceo or EVP women I know have a husband that stays at home or has some side job like restoring boats or bikes. You could argue that is marrying down but they find what they need and that isn’t another high powered business guy she spends all day with anyway.

The numbers I've seen say that is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Disir]

It's operating from a place of nostalgia and does not accurately represent the time period.

Except the experience of the people in that time period, was that it was a very good time.

For some. Not for others. The Gilded Age provided people that had experienced a very good time as well.

No time is a utopia. But refusing to acknowledge that there have been periods when people have had good times in the past, I am not seeing a benefit.

IMO, if someone references a time of past glory, then the next question should be, what made it good and what can we learn from that.


What, in your mind, is wrong with that idea?

Doesn't that depend on what you are trying to recreate? The Beat Generation?

Duck and cover? The anxiety of the cold war? The pretense that nothing is awry like..........substance abuse?

It's nostalgic. At issue is it would be based on emotion.

If I can butt in....

I think my fellow conservatives have it right when we say that certain conditions net good results. The intact family, biological mom and dad at home, married. Good results for children, yes with all kinds of caveats. I don't have to tell you this, I know.

We are guilty of looking back in time and pretending that there were generations where this was done well, even "very well". There were times it was more the norm, surely....but those times often had a seedy underbelly too, and I think that's what conservatives too often ignore.

I will never forget reading about the prostitutes kept in Chinatown on the west coast in the Victorian age. It's an abject horror. They were kept in cages, in conditions no one would keep a dog these days. They were kept there and made to serve dozens of men a day, looped out on opium constantly. Their life span was usually less than a year. Their bodies were often ravaged by syphilis, or they committed suicide.

So when we wax nostalgic about how great the morality was "back then", I think about those women in cages. It was great in some ways. In other ways it was a living 9th circle of Hell.

I agree 100 percent that certain conditions net good results. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make people do what I think they should do. But, they don't. For myself, all generations have the same issues crop up. It was good for some, bad for some and remained the same for still others.

I wanted to finish this but I have to go.

 

[thanatos144]

3rd wave feminism is a lie. It is just Marxism with abortions

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Lysistrata]

The fundie phoney "Christians" seem to have a preoccupation with sex in all of its forms, heterosexuality, homosexuality. When are you idiots just going to get over it and shut up? Sex has been around for millennia. Go home, do what you will, actually talk to the person in your bed, and shut the hell up.

What are you raving about?

The phony "Christians" who constantly obsess with sex and other people's sex lives. Oh "abstinence only," "keep your knees together," "gays are terrible." Blah blah blah. Why are these jerks doing this? Why can't they just stay home and do whatever? Always snooping and bleating. There are much more important things to be worried about in this world than what one's neighbor is doing in bed. Keep personal things private and get on with it. People are starving in this world.

I am so tired with this junk brand of Christianity.

If people like you kept your personal things private, instead of demanding pubic celebration of them, you would have a lot more of a point.

Most people keep their personal things private, but sometimes they get out, and some people, like the Duggars, advertise it and make a buck. If somebody is eight months' pregnant, you can kind of tell that something was up (no pun intended). Who is demanding a "public celebration"? Celebrate anything you want. Or don't. Just don't go snooping or trying to tell anybody else what to do.

You guys are, when you do shit like have a parade and demand everyone thinks it is great, or demand that we pretend that marriage was always about any two people instead of a man and a woman, or when you demand that we pretend that a guy is a girl or visa versa.

Nobody is "demanding" anything. If you don't want to go to a parade, don't go. Just perform your legal obligations as a member of U.S. society and go home. Marriage is defined under civil law. What you do in your faith sect is your own business. Many faith communities choose to isolate themselves in the United States, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Mennonite, etc. If this is how you want to live, go do it.

 

[thanatos144]

What are you raving about?

The phony "Christians" who constantly obsess with sex and other people's sex lives. Oh "abstinence only," "keep your knees together," "gays are terrible." Blah blah blah. Why are these jerks doing this? Why can't they just stay home and do whatever? Always snooping and bleating. There are much more important things to be worried about in this world than what one's neighbor is doing in bed. Keep personal things private and get on with it. People are starving in this world.

I am so tired with this junk brand of Christianity.

If people like you kept your personal things private, instead of demanding pubic celebration of them, you would have a lot more of a point.

Most people keep their personal things private, but sometimes they get out, and some people, like the Duggars, advertise it and make a buck. If somebody is eight months' pregnant, you can kind of tell that something was up (no pun intended). Who is demanding a "public celebration"? Celebrate anything you want. Or don't. Just don't go snooping or trying to tell anybody else what to do.

You guys are, when you do shit like have a parade and demand everyone thinks it is great, or demand that we pretend that marriage was always about any two people instead of a man and a woman, or when you demand that we pretend that a guy is a girl or visa versa.

Nobody is "demanding" anything. If you don't want to go to a parade, don't go. Just perform your legal obligations as a member of U.S. society and go home. Marriage is defined under civil law. What you do in your faith sect is your own business. Many faith communities choose to isolate themselves in the United States, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Amish, Mennonite, etc. If this is how you want to live, go do it.

Until some trans asshole sues a church for catering thier wedding . You know like 5he one who sued because women in a place wouldn't wax his balls?

Sent from my SM-J737T1 using Tapatalk