Misogyny----anyone here guilty?

by Tatiana 43 Replies latest social relationships

  • hornetsnest

    ROTFLOL to both you nuts! LoneWolf

  • berten

    Estee wrote:

    >Good post Titiana!

    TITiana ? :-)

  • Tatiana

    TITiana ? lol

    Yeah, estee....

    what a slip!!!!

  • sandy
    Intimidated..........sounds like a dream come true to me! And I,ve always considered women equals. We may have different strengths but, no one should be subordinated to another.

    someone posted the above comment........ well said

    Hornetsnest: Will you marry me? LOL I love what you said in your wedding talk, that was great!

    AlanF: I had a feeling you were joking..........

    I do enjoy pleasing my "Honey" any way I can and I expect the same in return. But, of course we all get a little selfish at times and it may seem one is being taken advantage of. A good healthy relationship is based on love and respect from both sides.

  • Tatiana

    Sandy...too bad....Lone Wolf is married.

    What I really wanted to know was if any of the men here still had "leftover" feelings like this from being in the org so long? I mean, this is standard JW teaching. I wanted to know if most of the men here had changed thier ideas about "subjection", (assuming they believed it before), or if they still felt like women were inferior, would they admit it?

    If any men here felt strongly about sisters being in subjection when they were in the org, how did you get rid of those feelings? Was it hard? Or did you at all????



  • ThiChi
    I'm not a misogynist. I just don't care much for women, because they're not as smart as men.

    Can you give us some facts that make this true?)))))

    Easy. Who is running the world? Who is making more money? Its a man's world......True? Don't get mad a me. Get mad at the facts! Look at the mid-east.....you would be considered a property interest.


    The Biological Gender Differences that Influence Learning with Dr. Michael Gurian, author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently

    We've all sensed it--that boys and girls don't learn the same way or at the same rate. At last, there's scientific data to support what parents and teachers have known all along: biological gender differences exist. Dr. Michael Gurian, author of Boys and Girls Learn Differently, charts some of the contrasts found in boys and girls from the time they are toddlers until they are teens. Based on his findings, do you think boys and girls should be treated differently in the classroom?

    High School


    Social hierarchies tend to be fluid Boys: Social hierarchies tend to be stable


    Higher-than-normal estrogen level produces certain intellectual disadvantages Boys: IQ scores rise dramatically


    Social acceptance sought on the basis of peer relationships and beauty Boys: Social acceptance sought based on physical strength and athleticism
  • ThiChi

    One Viewpoint, just passing it on! FYI hehe


    The net effect of feminism is to make any population that practices it, dumber. The overall IQ of any population practicing feminism, will over time become lower. Why is that? Because the women with high IQ's of any such society will be drawn into the feminist web, and they will fail to reproduce at even a replacement rate.

    What is it about feminism that seeks out and destroys intelligence? Here are a few factors:

    • One of the primary goals of feminism is to promote the freeing of women from the "mundane" task of raising children. Feminism has set as one of its goals: zero children for women; a goal which is of course suicidal, but that does not slow them down.
    • Should a woman, who practices the religion of feminism, become pregnant, she will be encouraged by her fellow feminists to have an abortion, and terminate the child's life within her.
    • Women who are feminists, are driven to have careers. So, even if they want to have children, they view that as something to be done later, and to be done quickly. In other words, they will have only one, or at the most two children, if they get around to it at all. If they fail to have this attitude, they fear that the childbearing process will destroy their careers.
    • Women who do the best in school, the most intelligent, will be the most sought after by the feminist clergy who dominated the school system. These bright young women, will be pushed and directed away from any thoughts of being a wife and mother as a career. They will be pounded with rhetoric, and lies, about how terrible past women had it, and how important it is that they not give in and "go traditional." By the time they have finished college they have been through a top quality brainwashing campaign, and it is very unlikely that they will be able to overcome it on their own.

    What happens when all of the brightest young ladies fail to have children? It will leave only the less intelligent women to shoulder the burden of carrying on the most important task of all: creating the next generation. Women who are not doing well in school, do not draw the feminist sharks to them. They are allowed to proceed on their own course, and the Leftist propaganda, framed for confusing the intelligent mind into acceptance, passes lesser minds by. These woman, who often make wonderful mothers, will go out into the world and they will have families, as they should. However the higher IQ ladies are lost to the gene pool.

    If you think about it, it is the equivalent of an enemy army coming into a country and shooting all of the most intelligent men in the country. Those high IQ individuals will have their genes removed from the gene pool, and the next generation will be that much dumber than the previous generation. Being done generation after generation, the results of this feminist sifting process will accumulate over time. As it runs its course, there will be fewer and fewer intelligent people in each generation.

    In America today, thanks to Leftist philosophy in general, and feminism specifically, the best and brightest in our society are reproducing at a level well below the replacement level of 2.1 children. (The replacement level is the number of children, on average a group of families must have in order for that group to maintain its current population and to replace itself.) In fact the latest number I have heard is they are producing 1.5 children on average.

    Besides having dismantled our world class school system, the Leftists are now stealing our most intelligent children from the future generations by promoting the feminist religion to the members of our society. We will slowly but surely be forced into being a dumb, uneducated people who will be only too happy to reside in the third world society that is planned for our future.

    Taking genetic inheritance into consideration, would halt feminism in its tracks. What our society should be doing is to encourage the most intelligent women to reproduce in as large numbers as is physically possible, rather than hanging a "Condemned for a Career" sign over their womb. By having high IQ women producing large families we would raise the average IQ of the next generation. That means we would increase the standard of living for that new generation, because standard of living is directly tied to IQ. There are studies which show that criminal behavior is tied to lower IQ and that people with higher IQs are more likely to be law abiding citizens. So, by chucking feminism out the door, for the next generation, we can raise the intelligence, the standard of living, and at the same time lower the crime rate.

    Of course that will not mean anything to the average feminist. They are not interested in future generations, or else they would not support abortion, which has killed more young citizens of future America than there are people in the entire country of Canada. Feminists are only interested in power for themselves. Everything else is mere trapping, and window dressing. People like that are not open to reason. They are not sympathetic to other's difficulties. They are focused on their own selfish gain, not America's future.

    What are you focused on? The Leftist, Marxist view of "equality" that drove the Soviet Union into the horrors of mass exterminations, and bankruptcy? Or the "inequality" of America that built this great land, and produced long term marriages, the best schools in the world, and the freest society for men and women that has ever existed? Since 1960 we have been rapidly moving towards the Soviet model and leaving our American model farther and farther behind. Our marriages have broken up, our schools have fallen into decay, and our freedom has been squeezed into an ever more restrictive box.

    Those who support feminism do not care. The Leftists are celebrating the negative changes that have come upon our society. They do not feel robbed by the loss of freedom. They do not shed a tear over the collapse of our schools. They do not fret at all over the complete fragmentation of our homes. They applaud the enforcement of their agenda upon all others, as if totalitarian action is just fine. They can justify any outlandish action by "spinning" the motive to where it sounds "caring."

    Do you know where this is heading? The Marxist will not be satisfied with merely pushing feminist ideals down your throat with a billy club. If you have paid attention at all during the last few presidential elections, they are quite intent on removing financial forms of inequality too. "Caring" people will no longer accept the concept that rich people should have rich privileges, like living in a big house, or driving a nice car. That is not "fair" to the Marxist. He who produces has no claim on more privilege than he who fails to produce. We are all human and therefore we all should live at the same standard of living: dirt poor. We have seen this all before in Russia and we should be smart enough to tell these Leftist Stalinist clones, to shove off. Freedom was what made America great, not Marxism!

    Every time you give up some of your freedom, in order to promote "fairness" you are putting one more chain on. Every time you take another step to the Left, you are one step closer to the gulag. We have already gone a long ways down this road to destruction. We must wake up and turn around soon. It should scare all Americans to think that they have a president in the White House who actually has tried to nationalize our medical system. You can find excuses for nationalizing every industry in America if you want to, and believe me, the Leftists want to! The only protection from such abuses is to put our collective foot down and nationalize no industries. We must find our own solutions to problems, without the federal government. Or we will become the enslaved people of yet one more oppressive totalitarian state.

    In the mean time, think about what is happening to our future, as feminism drains the intelligence out of the gene pool. Soon, we will be too stupid to realize that we are enslaved.

  • ThiChi

    It was ment to be.....just taking AlanF's post one step out there! All you feisty women out there, you have my respect, and the world would be a poorer place without you! I love you all!!!

  • AlanF

    Sandy said:

    : AlanF: I had a feeling you were joking

    I wasn't. Really. Really really really really.

    On second thought, I can't remember anymore. I'm over 50, you see.

    But LoneWolf is over 60, last I heard, and that excuses him for a lot.

    Titiana said:

    : What I really wanted to know was if any of the men here still had "leftover" feelings like this from being in the org so long? I mean, this is standard JW teaching. I wanted to know if most of the men here had changed thier ideas about "subjection", (assuming they believed it before), or if they still felt like women were inferior, would they admit it?

    : If any men here felt strongly about sisters being in subjection when they were in the org, how did you get rid of those feelings? Was it hard? Or did you at all????

    I never had any such feelings. Frankly, it made me very uncomfortable to always hear such nonsense. I always knew that men and women are quite different, emotionally and in the way they 'process' information about the world around them, but I never really bought into the JW notion of how these differences should be reconciled -- Me Tarzan, You Jane, You Obey.

    I think this contributed to a lot of difficulties I had with my first wife, who is a thoroughly braindead JW. I don't mean that she wasn't bright, because in some ways, she was fairly intelligent. But she was emotionally crippled by her religious upbringing, and in the sense that she seems to have needed a man to truly dominate her in order to be happy, just as her non-JW father dominated her JW mother. Those two were very unhappy, though, to the point that mom-in-law almost committed suicide in the early years of their marriage.

    As for me, it was simply never in me to be domineering, and I could tell from time to time that had I asserted my "God-given authority" by being a solid JW husband and working at being domineering, she probably would have liked me a lot better. We divorced about eight years ago, and several years later she married a pretty solid JW man. I spoke at length with his ex-wife (now a happy ex-JW) and she told me how she had always bristled under his domineering personality. Yet my daughter informs me that my ex-wife is pretty happy under this domination. He instructs, and she performs. Of course, living several years on her own in between marriages, and having to work for a living in that interim, seems to have mellowed her a bit into even more acceptance of the traditional JW-wifely role. I think that a lot of this can be attributed to my ex's basic nature, and a lot to JW training.

    My present wife (posts once in a while as Jukief) was, like me, raised as a JW. She grew up in a very strict, virtually ideal-model JW family where Dad was a much loved but overworked "servant" and Mom was an overworked JW-ized Beaver Cleaver sort of lady. That lasted somewhat less than two decades and then the family collapsed under the strain of overwork, underpay, and a fatal disappointment where 1975 failed to release them from their burdens. Juliann married at 17 in 1971 to a newly converted JW and by age 20 had her first son. This guy's cultural heritage (Mexican) worked well with the JW man-woman philosophy but not with Juliann's psyche, and so after being married for 13 years she quit the marriage, the religion and town she grew up in, and started seeing the world, and went to college. She supported her two boys during four years of college by working hard, by loans and so forth (I just paid off the last of these loans in December; whew!). Near the end of college Juliann married a promising microbiology major, who turned out to be a complete dud who didn't want to work much. She supported him for several years and grew to resent his laziness. Finally she met me on the Net, and here we are. Her experiences showed her that an equal man-woman relationship was necessary to happiness, and that's pretty much what we have. She keeps me in line and I keep her in line. She's impulsive, but I tend to the opposite. I spend money, but she's conservative. I like sex and she likes sex. She's taught me a great deal about human relations and other sorts of relations, so that I've pretty much lost all of my JW prejudices. I've tried to teach her about microchip design and JW history and such, but she falls asleep right quick so it's a real struggle. So we compromise a lot, and joke a lot about our compromises.

    I suspect that Lonewolf and I have a lot in common in terms of man-woman relationships, even though our circumstances are very different. Too bad we don't live closer, Tom!

    Tatiana, I think you're a really cool lady to have hung in there all these years and come out on top to be the bright, witty and thoughtful person your posts show you are. My hat is off to you!


  • avishai

    Sexism hurts everyone, ......................especially broads!!!!

    But seriously, I DO agree w/ some of thi chis post, their are extremist women who hate men, & have an agenda. Feminism ,unfortunately, like many "movements" has become the near opposite from what it started as, From a "Let's empower each other" to "Lets preach a "victim" philosophy, i.e all heterosexual intercourse is rape, etc. Sick.

    It would be nice to hear from the men . . . I wonder why some men feel intimidated by intelligent, assertive or sexy women . . .Men???

    In answer to this question, stupid, passive,or aggressive, non-sexy people are generally intimidated by those smarter, more assertive & sexy than them. Period. Men like that are wussies, little boys w/ no sense of self, & are to be pitied. They are the equivalent of these "Victim" feminists. Who are also usually stupid, passive, or aggressive for that matter, & no matter how pretty, generally as sexy as masturbating with a cheese grater, you know, slightly amusing, but generally just painful.

Share this