21:24  |  10 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

FEMINISM

If single parenthood has its origins in feminism and female emancipation, is it conceivable that women are partly to blame for the decline and fall of Western civilisation?

After all, they want to mother everything, don't they, and get offended if you point out the irrationality of their emotions?

Are we not, as a society, morbidly infantilised and over-feminised? Is not Health and Safety run almost exclusively by bossy, over-nannying safety-obsessed women?

Perhaps there is a connection between the oppressiveness of health and safety regulation and women who wait until nearly the end of their fertility to have children because they had to develop their careers. (The loss of an only child by a woman who has come to the end of child-bearing years is of course a greater disaster for her than a woman still young and capable of having more children.)

This is understandable, but what sort of attitude does it create about taking calculated risks?

Is it healthy for boys to be tied to mother's apron strings and be seen jogging with their trendy mums?

Should European men be seen wearing baby slings and other baby-carrying implements, just like female peasants in third world countries? Is masculine pride now completely a thing of the past?

Cato: "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors."

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson10.html

Does a civilisation deserve extinction because it is irrational, infantilised, sclerotic and risk-averse, when it allows the quality of its next generation to be progressively impaired by its continuing tolerance of single-parenthood, illegitimacy and chauvinistic feminism - the kind of chauvinistic feminism that is allowed to claim that women are simultaneously

(1) equal to men
(2) better than men yet
(3) require and demand the financial support of men - such as Alyce Faye Eichelberger -

without fear of contradiction?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-562067/Dont-mention-wife-John-Cleeses-amicable-divorce-but.html

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.

The 63-year-old Miss Eichelberger, a psychotherapist, who married John Cleese in December 1992, is demanding half of his earnings since their wedding.

And in the meantime, her lawyers have submitted court documents that specify she needs an astonishing £71,250 a month to live on, this includes £2,000 for clothes, £5,000 on gifts, entertaining and holidays, and £1,000 for eating out.

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.

Not bad for a woman who was living with her two sons in a third-floor London council flat when she met Cleese 18 years ago.

Sharia law anyone?
Vote: Should men question chauvinistic feminism that allows women to simultaneously claim to be (1) equal to men (2) superior to men AND (3) the weaker sex in need of greater protection?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Jigaboo123456 11-May-2010 16:54
A very well-expressed outline of the debate( Andromeda?) in particular the question--

"Does a civilisation deserve extinction because it is irrational, infantilised, sclerotic and risk-averse, when it allows the quality of its next generation to be progressively impaired by its continuing tolerance of single-parenthood, illegitimacy and chauvinistic feminism - the kind of chauvinistic feminism that is allowed to claim that women are simultaneously

(1) equal to men
(2) better than men yet
(3) require and demand the financial support of men - such as Alyce Faye Eichelberger -

without fear of contradiction?"

The Answer is, sadly, yes, it does "deserve" extinction-- in the Darwinian sense it will undoubtedly achieve it.

Feminism, homosexual rights, mass immigration and other PC machinations have created a toxic cocktail that will destroy Western Civilisation, although it is, sadly,stretching the word somewhat as we are no longer "civilsed" we are merely technically advanced. Feminism is at best a wooly-headed nonsense, a naive belief that separate social roles for men and women is an unfairness rather than a common-sense arrangement where both parties may have to sacrifice something for the greater good of society.

At it's worst , feminism is a vile, evil assault on humanity - not least because of the Abortion Holocaust that had dismembered, chemically scalded or decapitated countless unborn children in the womb of their natural protector/

The man-hating(largely lesbian) Marxist feminism is a vicious gyno-supremacy, but it has no love of women, just a hatred of men. Every artifice and device is used by them and their front organisations (Women's refuges, rape crisis centers, "equality" hustlers, "reproductive health" baby-killers etc to avoid giving any inch of ground towards equality when it is women who must surrender a privilege to allow men to be equal.

Masculinity is derided as "macho bullshit" . Machismo itself is, like true masculinity, no bad thing. Not the macho of LA street gangs, but the machismo where men strive to be brave and honourable, strong and protective. (A masculine culture, e.g. such as the Bedouin, is not to be confused with that of other Arabians bloated and made soft by petro-dollar excess.

Bedouin generally care more for "true manliness" than wealth- they judge a man on his moral and physical courage, his hospitality and generosity of spirit.)

Sadly, my nation of birth has fallen for the " Progressive" tripe spread by the Zionists of The Frankfort School who sent out "to capture the institutions of capitalism" and succeeded in doing so thanks to many "useful idiots" in high places- -The Fabian Society, Common Purpose, Bildenberger, they abound, and feminism has been the main weapon in their armoury.

The great irony is that if they succeed in nannying masculinity of of our boys and young men, and they continue to permit them to slay their babies, we will be demographically defeated by the Islamic hordes who have invaded our shores. One consolation of this would be the complete and utter extinguishment of the evil philosophy of the FemiNazi.
dignitas 17-Dec-2008 20:39
there is not really much that i can add that Andromeda has not mentioned and of which i whole heartedly agree.

Andromeda 5-Jun-2008 8:46
Recylotron says he has missed the decline and fall of Western civilisation. I meant that it is a continuing process that is still happening so if he were to look around him he will see its evidence every day, in the irrationality of our actions and policies, the crime and disorder, the loss of our liberties, the fear and apathy everywhere.

Health and Safety is a womannish thing. I did know a female friend who said she was part of the Health and Safety executive. It is usually women who worry about people falling over and hurting themselves and complain that there are not enough safety rails around or whatever. Check your own company, I suppose, and find out how many of them in charge of H&S are women and then make enquiries of other companies.

Not sure what Lee Southend means means. I think he is saying if Muslims want peace, prosperity, law and order, families that stay together, then we don't because we hate them. Perhaps he will confirm if this is really what he means.

As for Jeffrey Marshall's point about the superiority of male strength, he is right. Greater strength is not necessarily the key to survival and success, greater intelligence is. After all the proletarians are physically stronger than the bourgeoisie and the political classes.

I suspect that men and women have been equal for a long time and the battle of the sexes is just a struggle for domination, shifting this way and that, depending on how well you play your cards and use what you have. Men dominate in order to submit. Women submit in order to dominate.

It does not much matter in civilisational terms who "wins" provided they are both capable of having happy and successful partnerships that bring up the next generation without impairing their quality.

I am suggesting that the quality of the next generation is being severely impaired by the existence of easy divorce, single parenthood, late motherhood and the working mother.

Heidelberg's quote that when young women use their looks when old their scalding tongues has a Shakespearean resonance.

Steve Moxon's book THE WOMAN RACKET puts it all in perspective. Women are prizes and trophies. Men compete with others for these prizes because women confer status and hope for the future, in the form of the next generation, ie children.

Women might as well enjoy this privileged status and pretend to submit to men (as their female ancestors have done) rather than struggle to earn a living, keep thinking they can do as well, have the worst of all possible worlds while the rest of society has to suffer the quality-impairment of the next generation.

My point is that women are now allowed to claim simulataneously

(1) equality with men

(2) superiority over men and

(3) inferiority to men (requiring greater protection of the law and financial support by men)

Only tyrants claim such arbitrary rights that are based on no rational basis except the unthinking acceptance of whatever orthodoxy that is being imposed.

It is time we questioned it.
jeffreymarshall 5-Jun-2008 2:58
If they are & do, Josie, then they probably don’t. It does depend on what the title of stronger sex is supposed to mean though. Does it refer to moral & emotional strength or merely a superior ability to pick up a bag of household rubbish & heave it outside? The latter type of relative strength is undeniable, whatever victories are racked up by feminism; the way, for example, you usually walk round a gym resetting all the weights on the exercise machines several degrees upwards if the previous user happened to be a woman. This never seems to change & nor will it, I imagine - suggesting perhaps this type of strength might not really matter much.
Recyclotron 4-Jun-2008 18:33
Sorry, I think I missed the decline and fall of Western civilisation, when did it happen exactly?

As for women running health & safety, is there any evidence for this sweeping claim?
LeeSouthend 4-Jun-2008 17:10
I voted yes but with reservations, in this time of creaping Islamism the people of Europe need to show extreme care when rolling back rights won over the years by women and gays etc as Islam seeks to disadvantage these same groups. We the British people should not aid our enemies even if we have the best intentions as we all know this is what paves the road to hell.
Heidelberg 4-Jun-2008 14:19
Most women want to have their cake and eat it.They use double think far more than men.
All men know women are manipulative of men like Lady Macbeth.When they are young they use their looks; when old their scalding tongues.

JOSIE 3-Jun-2008 19:43
Ask your self this ..If men are daft enough to let women walk all over them, do they deserve the title - The stronger sex?

Comment:
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
Correspondents
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
Community
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award
       
    Home