This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
peepee

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,428

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 10:55 am » wrote: Big intrusive government...
...the puppet :o  sucking republicrat-level authoritarian condemns 'Big intrusive government'!!!...  :rofl:   :clap:   :lol:    :die:   :lol:  

User avatar
Polar1ty

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 3,336

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 9:07 am » wrote: Which makes the point even more valid… why was wages so much higher in the sixties, when we have automation, hence abundance so much greater now?

As society gains more wealth, the average worker becomes more poor.  **** this country, I’m done with it.  I am glad that 2 of my income streams are totally undetectable by the feds, and cannot be taxed.
Because 'they' don't need you to assemble auto parts or weave clothing or build refrigerators and TVs anymore.

The employee peons aren't paid by productivity, they're paid what the market will bear/tolerate.

​​​​​​
 

User avatar
Polar1ty

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 3,336

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 9:56 am » wrote: Feminism told women that facing deadlines, office politics, workplace stress and a early grave for low pay was infinitely more rewarding that watching her children grow.. and they bought it. Jewish propaganda is powerful.
Conservatives used to oppose feminism but got on board with it after they realized it would lower wages. 

Sort of like illegal immigration. 
 

User avatar
Neo

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 35,015
Politics: Conservative

Roll Out
Polar1ty » 21 Jul 2021, 1:04 am » wrote: I posted this in another thread, maybe someone with basic math skills can compute/comprehend (regardless of how low IQ this place is, at least a few ppl will "get it"):

And indeed, if you do the math, $35-40 an hour would easily enable a family breadwinner to purchase a 1200 sq ft house (average size of a house back then) and pay off the mortgage within something like 6-8 years. 

​​​​​Not that $70-80K is anything to brag about, but at least you're no longer having to clip coupons just to buy the cheapest groceries or expired meat that's been repackaged and sprayed with red food coloring at Lucky's or Safeway.
Thank you feminism for doubling the workforce. 
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Neo » 21 Jul 2021, 4:24 pm » wrote: Thank you feminism for doubling the workforce.


And for doubling divorce, single parent households, broken homes, destroyed family values and traditional nuclear family unit.

And for cutting wages in half, and eventually causing utter confusion about gender itself.  Thanks, feminism!

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:31 pm » wrote: And for doubling divorce, single parent households, broken homes, destroyed family values and traditional nuclear family unit.

And for cutting wages in half, and eventually causing utter confusion about gender itself.  Thanks, feminism!
Man you hate freedom 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 4:34 pm » wrote: Man you hate freedom

Women should be free to be nurturing and maternal, and true to their femininity.  That is the ultimate expression of the female spirit.  Now, women are shamed for it and told to get into the workforce.  The stay at home mom is literally frowned upon.

Women are now free to compete with men in a daily soulless grind for minimum wage.  That's freedom to you?

There was no society-wide systematic oppression of women. Women were simply not required to be tax slaves for the state in the way that men were. Women were under the care and provision of men rather than government (from father, to husband.) Feminist “independence” today, is for many women, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, a farce. They are not truly independent, there has simply been a change of hands in who governs them.

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:42 pm » wrote: Women should be free to be nurturing and maternal, and true to their femininity.  That is the ultimate expression of the female spirit.  Now, women are shamed for it and told to get into the workforce.  The stay at home mom is literally frowned upon.

Women are now free to compete with men in a daily soulless grind for minimum wage.  That's freedom to you?

There was no society-wide systematic oppression of women. Women were simply not required to be tax slaves for the state in the way that men were. Women were under the care and provision of men rather than government (from father, to husband.) Feminist “independence” today, is for many women, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic strata, a farce. They are not truly independent, there has simply been a change of hands in who governs them.
They are free to do that.  Or free to work as well.  So basically you are saying men are tax slaves


How about we let people have choice?



It's called freedom 
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 4:45 pm » wrote: They are free to do that.  Or free to work as well.  So basically you are saying men are tax slaves

How about we let people have choice?

It's called freedom



Rather than pledge allegiance to a man in the context of common goals, love and family creation, women have instead vacuously pledged their allegiance to ideology. This ideology is then used by government as a tool for power consolidation. Women have effectively been used by government as a demographic of “useful idiots.” Frame something as a woman’s issue and you can get them to agree with anything. Government married itself to feminist ideology because it was an effective way to divide and conquer.

It allowed government to better control the population by playing on woman’s instinctual and irrational fear. By doing this and painting all the blame on men, government can justify the subjugation of man by portraying itself as “the protector of women.” Historically feminists were a loud but small minority who did not like the status quo, whilst most women were content with it. Women were not chained up in kitchens, forced to pop out babies and obey the every desire of man in the way that vitriolic feminist rhetoric would have you believe. Such rhetoric is not only farcically and factually incorrect, but likewise deeply disrespectful of our ancestors.

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:48 pm » wrote: Rather than pledge allegiance to a man in the context of common goals, love and family creation, women have instead vacuously pledged their allegiance to ideology. This ideology is then used by government as a tool for power consolidation. Women have effectively been used by government as a demographic of “useful idiots.” Frame something as a woman’s issue and you can get them to agree with anything. Government married itself to feminist ideology because it was an effective way to divide and conquer.

It allowed government to better control the population by playing on woman’s instinctual and irrational fear. By doing this and painting all the blame on men, government can justify the subjugation of man by portraying itself as “the protector of women.” Historically feminists were a loud but small minority who did not like the status quo, whilst most women were content with it. Women were not chained up in kitchens, forced to pop out babies and obey the every desire of man in the way that vitriolic feminist rhetoric would have you believe. Such rhetoric is not only farcically and factually incorrect, but likewise deeply disrespectful of our ancestors.
The ideology is called freedom.  If a woman wants to be a surgeon she should be one.


You just hate freedom and democracy 
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 4:50 pm » wrote: The ideology is called freedom.  If a woman wants to be a surgeon she should be one.

You just hate freedom and democracy
Owning property, working in the factories and voting weren’t things that the women of pre-feminism were really concerned with. They didn’t care about those things. Modern day women indoctrinated by feminism have been taught to want those things, so they assume that women in history did too. They then continue down this slippery slope and deduce men must have oppressed women by denying them these things. If you don’t want to do something and you don’t have “the legally assured right” to do it, then you’re not going to be bothered that the law doesn’t give you that right.

The majority of women were more concerned with securing a good mate, having children and nurturing their loved ones. Not going to work in the factories or fighting in wars. Feminists/suffragettes have been around since the late 19th century and were predominantly upper middle-class white women allied with a radically misandrist lesbian minority who were perceived by larger society as an obscure subculture. It was the ideological rhetoric peddling that “men are evil so women need civil rights” which acted as a superficial front for the culturally destabilising movement known as feminism.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:52 pm » wrote: Owning property, working in the factories and voting weren’t things that the women of pre-feminism were really concerned with. They didn’t care about those things. Modern day women indoctrinated by feminism have been taught to want those things, so they assume that women in history did too. They then continue down this slippery slope and deduce men must have oppressed women by denying them these things. If you don’t want to do something and you don’t have “the legally assured right” to do it, then you’re not going to be bothered that the law doesn’t give you that right.

The majority of women were more concerned with securing a good mate, having children and nurturing their loved ones. Not going to work in the factories or fighting in wars. Feminists/suffragettes have been around since the late 19th century and were predominantly upper middle-class white women allied with a radically misandrist lesbian minority who were perceived by larger society as an obscure subculture. It was the ideological rhetoric peddling that “men are evil so women need civil rights” which acted as a superficial front for the culturally destabilising movement known as the feminism.
They are concerned about it now.  Times change.  They want freedom and they vote for it


You just hate democracy 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 4:54 pm » wrote: They are concerned about it now.  Times change.  They want freedom and they vote for it

You just hate democracy

The majority of women pre-feminism were in loving relationships where they were taken care of by men who worked very hard. These men were vetted rigorously by the young woman’s mother and father to ensure he was of noble character and worldly means. Their fathers were not spousally raping their mothers on a whim and nor were they selling off their daughters to the nearest salacious man for a goat and three oxen. Women were not the sex objects they have become today: the sluts of marketing, the prostitutes of job promotion and the eager cum buckets of wealthy male harems.

Instead they were respectable people: mothers, wives and supportive members of their local community. In part this was due to a lack of effective contraception which acted as a natural safeguard in quelling the volatility of the female sexual appetite. Women had consequences biological and sociological for indulging their promiscuity, so giving in to instinct came with harsh disincentives. In essence, men and women were expected to forego vices and defer gratification for what was considered to be the greater good: the betterment of the family. 

Feminism destroyed that natural bulwark against immorality.

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:55 pm » wrote: The majority of women pre-feminism were in loving relationships where they were taken care of by men who worked very hard. These men were vetted rigorously by the young woman’s mother and father to ensure he was of noble character and worldly means. Their fathers were not spousally raping their mothers on a whim and nor were they selling off their daughters to the nearest salacious man for a goat and three oxen. Women were not the sex objects they have become today: the sluts of marketing, the prostitutes of job promotion and the eager cum buckets of wealthy male harems.

Instead they were respectable people: mothers, wives and supportive members of their local community. In part this was due to a lack of effective contraception which acted as a natural safeguard in quelling the volatility of the female sexual appetite. Women had consequences biological and sociological for indulging their promiscuity, so giving in to instinct came with harsh disincentives. In essence, men and women were expected to forego vices and defer gratification for what was considered to be the greater good: the betterment of the family. 

Feminism destroyed that natural bulwark against immorality.
Dude they choose freely.  They vote....they choose.  No one cares if you approve.


Its called democracy 
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 4:57 pm » wrote: Dude they choose freely.  They vote....they choose.  No one cares if you approve.

Its called democracy

Women of the-then time commonly enjoyed monogamous commitment/marriage, multiple children/grandchildren and aside domestic chores and child-rearing, had very few significant problems plaguing their everyday lives. Just because women did not go out to factories and get their hands dirty or go and fight on the front lines in wartime, it did not mean society did not value women. In fact I would argue, pre-feminism, that patriarchy treated women far more righteously than feminism has. 

Women were valued for their femininity and encouraged to embrace their instincts. They were not shamed for their lack of masculinity and encouraged to “be independent from men by becoming more like men.” Women pulled their weight, but in contrast to men: they led simpler lives.

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 4:59 pm » wrote: Women of the-then time commonly enjoyed monogamous commitment/marriage, multiple children/grandchildren and aside domestic chores and child-rearing, had very few significant problems plaguing their everyday lives. Just because women did not go out to factories and get their hands dirty or go and fight on the front lines in wartime, it did not mean society did not value women. In fact I would argue, pre-feminism, that patriarchy treated women far more righteously than feminism has. 

Women were valued for their femininity and encouraged to embrace their instincts. They were not shamed for their lack of masculinity and encouraged to “be independent from men by becoming more like men.” Women pulled their weight, but in contrast to men: they led simpler lives.
They disagree.  They have freedom.   They dont care what you think is best for them

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 5:03 pm » wrote: They disagree.  They have freedom.   They dont care what you think is best for them


Business, politics, academia, law and making sure the world didn’t implode were all the purview of men. Men built and furthered civilization whilst women helped to maintain it – they worked in tandem. It was not oppressive, it was cooperative. In return for this cooperation, women got to live out their sexual imperative by having children and being a part of a family that cared about them.

They were not relegated to corporate wage slavery, cat herding and watching episodes of Sex In The City whilst crying into a bucket of comfort-inducing, waistline-widening Ben & Jerry’s. They were not alone or “left on the shelf” because they got married young. They invested in their families in youth, and in turn their families invested in them when they reached their elder years.

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 5:06 pm » wrote: Business, politics, academia, law and making sure the world didn’t implode were all the purview of men. Men built and furthered civilization whilst women helped to maintain it – they worked in tandem. It was not oppressive, it was cooperative. In return for this cooperation, women got to live out their sexual imperative by having children and being a part of a family that cared about them.

They were not relegated to corporate wage slavery, cat herding and watching episodes of Sex In The City whilst crying into a bucket of comfort-inducing, waistline-widening Ben & Jerry’s. They were not alone or “left on the shelf” because they got married young. They invested in their families in youth, and in turn their families invested in them when they reached their elder years.
No one gives a **** what you think is best.  You get one vote


That is why you lose every time.  Lol
 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,390
Politics: Green

Vegasgiants » 21 Jul 2021, 5:08 pm » wrote: No one gives a **** what you think is best.  You get one vote

That is why you lose every time.  Lol

Women have always had to choose between family or career. Contrary to feminist dogma, women did work before feminism. Pre-feminism, the majority of women prioritised family. Post-feminism, the majority prioritise career and play Russian roulette with their fertility in the process. Pre-feminism, very few women were genetic dead-ends. Even today, in spite of feminist propaganda, settling down and having a family is high on the list of priorities for the majority of women.

It is through naivety and indoctrination that women continue to buy into the feminist lie that “they can have it all.” Women do not opt to start families in their peak fertility window anymore (their 20’s.) Instead they indulge in drug-fuelled parties and casual debauchery, leaving the creation of family until their less fertile 30’s. 

The destruction of the family unit via the replacement of the father would create a need for a bigger more powerful government. This was the core agenda (and chief political reason) for the endorsement of what once was perceived to be a “wacky, niche social movement.” By emancipating women from men, women would be alone in the world for the first time confused and vulnerable. Effectively they were “abandoned” but it was for their own good “because men are evil pigs anyway!”

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 15,202

SJConspirator » 21 Jul 2021, 5:11 pm » wrote: Women have always had to choose between family or career. Contrary to feminist dogma, women did work before feminism. Pre-feminism, the majority of women prioritised family. Post-feminism, the majority prioritise career and play Russian roulette with their fertility in the process. Pre-feminism, very few women were genetic dead-ends. Even today, in spite of feminist propaganda, settling down and having a family is high on the list of priorities for the majority of women.

It is through naivety and indoctrination that women continue to buy into the feminist lie that “they can have it all.” Women do not opt to start families in their peak fertility window anymore (their 20’s.) Instead they indulge in drug-fuelled parties and casual debauchery, leaving the creation of family until their less fertile 30’s. 

The destruction of the family unit via the replacement of the father would create a need for a bigger more powerful government. This was the core agenda (and chief political reason) for the endorsement of what once was perceived to be a “wacky, niche social movement.” By emancipating women from men, women would be alone in the world for the first time confused and vulnerable. Effectively they were “abandoned” but it was for their own good “because men are evil pigs anyway!”
How many times do you have to hear this a democracy?


No one wants your nutty ideas
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Bill Gates [Bot], Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Deezer Shoove, Famagusta, FOS, GHETTO BLASTER, Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Independent, Jantje_Smit, jon, nefarious101, neue regel, OdeToJoy, Older Guy, omh, PaperLi [Bot], Pengwin, Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, razoo, RollingRock, Semrush [Bot], SJConspirator, sooted up Cyndi, Squatchman, Steve Jobs [Bot], Taipan, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, Yahoo [Bot], Yandex [Bot] and 603 guests