Why Feminism Wants to Dismantle the Family

Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#1
Watch this video:

People don't care about the truth. They care about the narrative that makes them feel good. And plus they're after power.

People will throw children, families and communities under the bus in the search for power. They're sellouts. And they'll sellout a whoooooole lot of people.

look at what's happened in the hood. Others might be willing to throw people under the bus and throw entire communities under the bus. But I am not willing to do so. I know what I've seen. And lots in the hood know exactly what I'm talking about and you can see the horrors its brought upon the people. I am not going to throw these people under the bus. And I am not going to throw those innocent kids under the bus. The sellouts can say whatever they want. The whole forum can go against me but I don't care what anyone thinks. I am not alone- lots of people are with me on this. The ones who know about this.

If you want to know what happened.... take a look below... and if you watched the video above, you heard the statistics for yourself..... and the ones who suffered were and are black children.... I have seen this myself and I'll be damned if I ignore it. If you don't care about minority children, I guess it's your decision to throw them under the bus in the quest for selifsh aims. But I refuse to throw the kids under the bus. Others can sweep kids and communities under the rug but I refuse to do so. You can sell out kids and communities but that's not me. I have dreams too but mine don't involve selling out vulnerable, innocent kids.









And for me personally- feminism is really a side issue for me. I'm not super obsessed with it and I'm into tons of different topics as anyone whose kept up with my posts is aware of.

But apparently it's a big issue and apparently it strikes a nerve when someone tells the truth about this topic. So let's examine some truth.

https://medium.com/@NikitaCcoulombe/why-feminism-wants-to-dismantle-the-family-long-4695d45bcf88

Why Feminism Wants to Dismantle the Family (long)

Image source: HeatStreet
Like many isms before it (Communism, religions, cults), feminism seeks to dismantle the traditional family unit for its own gain. Why? To the ism, old loyalties are like bad habits interfering with an individual’s ability to pledge unwavering allegiance. Isms want control, but families tend to put family members and their needs before the demands of the ism, reducing the ism’s power and influence and therefore undermining its control.
Throughout history, the family has been “the ultimate and only consistently subversive organization… the enduring permanent enemy of all hierarchies, churches and ideologies,” notes Ferdinand Mount, author of The Subversive Family.
Mount describes the sequence past isms have followed once they “have hardened into orthodoxies:”
First, hostility and propaganda to devalue family. The family is a source of trouble. It could distract apostles or potential apostles from following the new idea. The family is second-best, pedestrian, material, selfish. Alternative families are promoted — communes, party cadres, kibbutzes, monasteries.​
Feminist icons have not tried to hide their antipathy for the family unit:
  • Gloria Steinem described marriage as “an arrangement for one and a half people.”
  • Andrea Dworkin wrote, “How can anyone love someone who is less than a full person, unless love itself is domination per se?”
  • Kate Millett wrote, “so long as every female, simply by virtue of her anatomy, is obliged, even forced, to be the sole or primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.”
  • Betty Friedan wrote, “women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps… they are suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.”
  • Linda Gordon said, “the nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”
  • Robin Morgan said “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
  • Mary Jo Bane said, “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
  • Vivian Gornick said, “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”
  • Helen Sullinger said, “We must work to destroy [marriage]… The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.”
You’d think women seeking high-powered careers would be glad to enjoy less competition from other potential workers…
“Not if you understand the feminist ideology,” say Suzanne Venker and the late Phyllis Schlafly, authors of The Flipside of Feminism,
Feminists realize all too well that they can never achieve a level playing field in the marketplace as long as their male competitors have the advantage of homemaker wives… Women on the left know that in order to get ahead more easily, they must deprive men of their advantage in having stay-at-home wives. The desire to eliminate the full-time homemaker has been feminists’ goal all along. The need for a second income was never the goal.​
Feminism has made some “progress” over the last several decades. If you look at the poorest and least socially mobile areas in America, you will notice one variable consistently lacking: fathers. More specifically, mothers who are married to the father of their children. Over the last few decades, the birth rate for unmarried women in the US has risen steadily from 18 percent in 1980 to 41 percent in 2012.
Alarmingly, the majority of moms believe that absent or uninvolved dads can easily be replaced themselves or another man (see here and here) despite the evidence that stable marriages lead to happy, healthy, and motivated kids, which leads to stronger communities, more opportunities, and greater equality:
  • Physical health: Compared with children in intact, married families, children in cohabiting households (one parent and their girlfriend or boyfriend) are more likely to have a physical or mental health condition and are three times more likely to suffer physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Unhappy couples have depressed immune systems and their children have elevated stress hormones. Stress is regulated by social systems; the brain regions involved in social relationships are the same ones that control stress response. They develop together, and therefore development problems in the stress response can interfere with the development of social and emotional functioning and vice versa.
  • Mental health: Children raised by single moms are more likely to be on ADHD medication and are more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems (see here and here). As adults, children who grew up with married parents are less likely to have mental health problems (especially true for daughters).
  • Poverty: Both physical and mental health are influenced by socio-economic status. Children of single parents (4 out of 5 of which are women) are far more likely to grow up in poverty and have lower rates of upward mobility than children of married parents (see here, here, here). The current welfare system discourages single mothers from establishing a stable two-parent household despite a portion of welfare funds allocated to promote this kind of family structure. This is because women who marry or maintain a home with the biological father of their children can face the reduction or loss of their benefits. In turn, children who grow up on welfare are more likely to grow up and be on welfare themselves, continuing the cycle.
  • Teen pregnancy and crime: Daughters of single mothers are more likelyto engage in early sexual behavior and become teen moms, which, in turn, makes them more likely to rely on welfare and their children less likely to grow up with their fathers. The majority of inmates grew up without their fathers (see here and here).
  • Drugs and alcohol: Children of single parents have significantly higher rates of drug use. Teens who have less than three family dinners a week are four times more likely to use tobacco, more than twice as likely to use alcohol, two-and-a-half times more likely to use marijuana, and nearly four times likelier to engage in future drug use.
  • School: Children of married parents have fewer learning disabilities; scorehigher in reading, higher in verbal and problem-solving skills, better on most academic measures, and better on the majority of social competence measures. Children who grow up without fathers are less likely to attend college (especially true for sons).
  • Future income: One of the longest running studies on adult development, the Harvard Grant Study, found that men that had warm childhoods — those who had close relationships with their parents (who were married) and at least one sibling — make 50 percent more money than their peers who grew up with separated parents or in hostile households.
Given the information above, it could be argued that if feminism actually cared about helping all women, it would advocate for father involvement, so no daughter would grow up disadvantaged and every son would be a strong and capable partner to those daughters. Yet, while feminism purports itself to be the movement for equality, it is at best silent when it comes to father’s rights.
In fact, feminist organizations have opposed efforts for equal custody. For example, Marc Angelucci, an attorney and member of the National Coalition For Men, told me:
In 2005 we introduced a joint custody bill [in California], but feminist groups opposed it and lobbied various other groups like the state bar to oppose it. Feminist groups like California National Organization for Women have fought us not only on joint custody but also on paternity fraud legislation, move away issues, and inclusion of male victims of domestic violence in state funded services.​
Why would feminists try to prevent father involvement — the very thing that insulates against poverty and inequality? Because, they can profit from it! There would be no more need for the vast network of nonprofit organizations, not to mention life-long careers (and paychecks), which only exist because enough people bought into and continue to buy into the myth that women have it worse off than men (that myth debunked here).
Feminism needs gendered issues. Feminism doesn’t want you to know that women are about as likely to abuse their partner as men (see here and here) or that boys are at least as likely to suffer sexual abuse as girls (see here, hereand here) because it would impact their funding.
It is not in feminist institutions’ best interest to solve anything. In order to maintain a steady flow of cash, they now seek to preserve their own existence by perpetuating myths and inventing problems where there are none to reassure their followers that there is still an “us” and a “them.” Sexist pocketsanyone?
Intact families, married mothers and especially stay-at-home-married-moms are feminism’s number one enemy. Here are a few reasons why:
  1. Whereas feminism minimizes the role of nature, telling us that the differences between the sexes comes down to social conditioning, mothers notice innate differences between boys and girls. Psychologist Steven Pinker may have said it best: “It is said that there is a technical term for people who believe that little boys and little girls are born indistinguishable and are molded into their natures by parental socialization. The term is ‘childless.’”
  2. Married women tend to vote conservative while unmarried women tend to vote liberal (see here and here). Liberal votes = more $ for feminism. And more feminism = more liberal votes. It’s not a coincidence that former President Obama created a White House Council on Women and Girls but refused to create a White House Council on Men and Boys.

3. Married women are happier! A recent survey revealed that unmarried and working mothers are less happy than married and non-working mothers.
Over the past few decades, as technology liberated women, feminism told women, “you can have it all,” emphasizing equal rights while minimizing equal responsibilities. Of course, no one can have it all, but “trade offs” doesn’t sell as well. And women can’t hear what men don’t say; men didn’t tell women that work is often mind-numbing and unfulfilling. In order to dislodge homemaker wives from their families, feminism devalued their role (i.e. telling married women they’re half a person). Thinking men got the better deal, many stay-at-home moms were resentful, and divorce rates accelerated. Today, women ask for 7 out of 10 divorces (see here and here).
After divorce, these moms, while happy they had kids, express regret about their choices. They wish they had maintained a career so that when they separated they weren’t in such a tough position, having been out of the workforce for too many years to readily catch up with their peers. These moms then send inconsistent messages to their daughters; on the one hand they say they wouldn’t trade their kids for anything, but on the other hand they send the message that a career is more sustainable than having a family.
The deeper message that is passed on is guilt; when moms talk about how their lives would have been different (better) had they stayed in the workforce or communicate to their daughters that they do not want them to repeat “their mistakes,” they are indirectly telling their children that their existence is part of the mistakes, and has impeded the success they could have had. Thus the children must live according to her wishes as a form of payback.
Combined with the slew of celebrity mothers, such as Sofía Vergara, Gwyneth Paltrow and Heidi Klum, being toted as “superwomen” who do it all and have it all, and still look hot at 40 and 50 years old, feminism’s messages implanted via Mom leaves ordinary young women feeling anxious and confused, and eventually leaves them feeling disappointed when they realize they won’t have it all — and not even much of what they had imagined and were told their lives would and should be.
The problem with these messages given to young children is that they erode the underlying beliefs necessary for a trusting and caring relationship to be built around. In short, it’s divorce training.
Daughters who do not take on a full-time career can feel like they are betraying their mother’s wishes or the sisterhood. They don’t want to be vulnerable with their partners and pull away when conflict arises, thinking about plan B. Sons observe their mothers and wonder if they’ll ever be able to make a woman happy; how could they when Dad failed miserably in doing so?
On the other side of this sad ledger are all the dads who have watched their marriages disintegrate into a series of alimony and child-support payments. In one long-term study, just 10 to 15 percent of men won in custody battles. The ones who win are usually the ones who can afford lawyers. Even then, many men end up feeling like they are spending their lives working for people who have been turned against them. Some even go to prison for falling behind on child support payments — for example, in South Carolina, 1 out of 7 inmates is there for that very reason.
Obviously, this path we are headed down is unsustainable. If enough men opt out or get put in prison, we’re all screwed. Yet, men, like all people, respond to incentives. Why should they participate in and contribute to a system that doesn’t reward them?

Self-marriage is where we’re headed if these trends continue. This illustration might as well be called “Feminist Party 2025”
One could argue that feminism is now on the cusp between the first sequence Ferdinand Mount outlined and the second, which is:
Reluctant recognition of the strength of the family. Despite all official efforts to downgrade the family, to reduce its role and even to stamp it out, men and women obstinately continue not merely to mate and produce children but to insist on living in pairs together with their children, to develop strong affections for them and to place family concerns above other social obligations.​
If feminism follows a similar path to the isms that came before it, it will die a slow death. Mount describes what usually happens next:
Third, collapse of efforts to promote the alternative pseudo-families. Communes, crèches, kibbutzes, monasteries and nunneries lose the enthusiasm of their founders and decay. Either their numbers dwindle, or their members become cynical and corrupt, or both.​
Fourth, a one-sided peace treaty is signed. The Church or State accepts the enduring importance of the family and grants it a high place in the orthodox dogma or ideology. That does not mean the family is allowed to live its natural life. On the contrary, the Church or State still insists on defining what is good for the family and what makes a Good Family.​
Fifth, history is re-written to show that the Church or State always held this high conception of the family. The family is redefined as essentially Christian, or Communist, or Fascist or whatever — despite the fact that the earliest apostles are on record as having loathed and despised the family.​
Sixth, the family gradually manages to impose its own terms. The constricting, unnatural or impractical terms which were forced upon it gradually buckle under continuous social pressure — until the guardians of Church or State have no choice but to yield, while busily continuing to rewrite history and to maintain that the new concessions were always somehow implicit in the True Faith.​
Interestingly, Mount’s sequence resembles the five stages of grief, outlined by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross:
1. Denial (propaganda)
2. Anger (hostility)
3. Bargaining (treaties)
4. Depression (loss of enthusiasm)
5. Acceptance (family imposes its own terms, history is re-written)
At some point, when feminism alienates enough of its less radical members with its increasing irrationality and unsubstantiated claims, when the system can no longer support feminism’s constant consumption without contribution, it will be forced to move from denial and anger into the “bargaining” stage.
Looking at feminism through this lens, one wonders what feminism is grieving. My sense is that feminism is grieving the fact that it does not control mother nature. The instances where feminism accepts biological differences as a factor in outcomes are instances where feminism can benefit. Otherwise, feminism refuses to acknowledge that female and male brains have differences and that our different hormones drive us to have different preferences, approaches and values. But by telling women they must live as men do and compete with men, feminism has set itself up to fail, because male biology is advantaged over female biology in a capitalistic system.
It’s no wonder then, that feminism is a thinly veiled version of Marxism, blaming the “patriarchy” in place of capitalism. Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a problem if women perceived there to be enough “good men” to go around. But reading men’s forums, it now seems like there are no longer enough “good women” to go around, giving both sexes little incentive to compromise or improve themselves.
One wild card that has prolonged the denial and anger stages and will continue to prolong all the other stages are technological and medical advances such as the birth control pill. None of the other isms had that variable, or the prospect of artificial wombs.
Yet, even with “equalizing” technology that asserts control over mother nature, it is likely women and men will still want to have sex with each other and live together. Which makes me wonder who or what is really behind the movement, since the trajectory of feminism doesn’t improve the dynamic between women and men in the long-run. I guess, the who or what probably doesn’t really matter, because the result will be the same — a divided, untrusting population that can be easily conquered.
If you wanted to divide a population for your own gain, a great way to do that would be to tell one half that the other half is willfully oppressing them, and then make the former believe that they are inherently better people than the latter, that the latter is untrustworthy and doesn’t deserve to be in charge. Another way would be to infiltrate the education system - in 1968 liberal professors outnumbered conservative professors at a ratio of about 3 to 1 on college campuses; today they outnumber conservative professors 12 to 1.
While feminism in the West may be approaching the bargaining stage, the denial and anger stages are being exported around the world. Because feminism divides men and women and keeps poor people poor, it is an ideal ideology to impose on developing nations in order to continue to exploit and control them, all under the guise of liberation and justice.

Michelle Obama says 62 million girls are not in school. Never mind investing anything in those girls’ brothers and future husbands, because disenfranchised groups of men with nothing to lose has always ended well…
Feminism could also be a tool to push for open borders. As social trust decreases (see here, here and here), more men are choosing not to marry and are opting out of workforce. Currently 1 out of 6 young men is not employed or is incarcerated — a 45 percent increase over the last three decades. This decline justifies an increased need for more immigrants, especially as women’s fertility levels stay below “replacement” rate.
So what are we to do? For men, first consider these statements:

Next, consider what D.H. Lawrence wrote in A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover:
It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State… Do we then want to break marriage? If we do break it, it means we all fall to a far greater extent under the direct sway of the State.​
You have a choice to improve the system, or walk away from the system and perhaps get slightly less taken advantage of. You can mentor the younger generation, or let them flounder. The latter option will indirectly create more adherents to feminism, making life even more difficult for the next generation of men.
For women, it is my hope that those reading this will be open to considering whether or not feminism is truly serving their best interests and the greater good, whether compelling women to live like men is productive or damaging, whether creating a culture of victimhood is empowering or just a way to excuse personal responsibility and accountability (which I think actually build confidence in one’s abilities). When everyone is a victim, who will pick up the tab?
I believe it is technology, not feminism, that has and will continue to do more to offer women flexibility than anything else. The Internet in particular will continue to open up a multitude of opportunities and options that only existed as some far off dream decades ago. I for one, hope we get our act together before we collapse under the weight of our short-term thinking and selfishness.


http://kevscranium.blogspot.com/2013/12/black-feminist-hypocrisy-part-1.html

Why Black Feminism is a Joke (Part 1: the Criticism)
How this 'Fight for Equality' is Actually Detrimental to the Black Community.



This may offend some, but understand two things: a) this doesn't apply to every Black woman, and b) this doesn't apply to every Black mother. With that being said, I would like to offer a rant (kind of) regarding a seldom addressed issue in the Black community. This is only the first part, so please, by all means, stay tuned. Here are my reasons as to why Black feminism needs to come to an end.

1) It is hypocritical male-shaming.

You know the deal if you watch something like 'Maury' or 'Jerry Springer'. A Black woman is on the show bawling her eyes out about some guy who broke her heart or is dodging his responsibilities as a father. The host comforts her, then allows her to confront the source of her pain and misery by sending out the man, much to the disapproval of her and the crowd. After the screaming and yelling dies down, the guy explains his case briefly before another argument between the two former lovers break out. In Jerry Springer, it's usually two women fighting over the same guy for about a good 10 to 20 minutes. If it's Maury, it's about 5 to 10 minutes of the woman arguing with the guy over how much the baby looks just like him. When Maury finally steps in with the DNA results, the three wait in anticipation only to find out that he isn't the father. Shattered, the woman then runs backstage screaming and crying, with Maury trying to console her. If he is the father, he is berated even more, with the woman pointing her fingers in his face. This process repeats itself about 50 million times, making these shows a cult favorite built out of stereotypical minstrelsy.

From watching these shows, it is quite easy to point the finger at the guy for not being responsible. After all, the Black man is too busy trying to get girls to shake their asses to worry about things like 'responsibility'. This has been rebutted by the onslaught of othersleazy Hip-Hop music videos, by Oprah, and even by guys such as the radio host Michael Baisden.

Here is the hole in that logic. It takes two to tango, so if you got pregnant, there is a hugechance that it was consensual. In other words, if the guy is such an asshole who is only caught up in 'lookin' fly', then why don't you hesitate to sleep with him? Why do you have sex with multiple guys that are like that? Why do you look for your soul mate in a night club? On top of that, what's the big deal with things such as weaves, perms, and skin-lightening creams anyway? If it is true that Black girls rock, then why are we still caught up in the battle of skin tone? Why are so many women obsessed with a man's money?

This has been an issue featured in many Rap songs such as 'Jazzy Belle', 'We Luv Deez Hoez', 'Treat Her Like a Prostitute', 'Just a Friend', 'You', 'Ms. Phat Booty', 'Butter', 'Ho Happy Jackie', 'Slow Down', 'Black Girl Lost', 'Doo Wop (That Thing)' 'Groupie Therapy', 'Groupie Part II', and countless other songs that I can't think of right now. "Hold on though," you might say. "All Hip-Hop music does is degrade women." And you're right. But only to an extent. For every song that calls all Black women a bunch of bitches and hoes, there is an equal amount of songs that do just the opposite. Think about songs such as 'Gettin' Up', 'Let's Ride', 'Brown Skin Lady', 'I Got a Love', 'Searching', 'The Light', 'Come Close', 'You're All I Need', 'Cherry Wine', 'I Need Love', 'Loungin'' 'Similak Child', 'She Said', 'Tasty', 'Bonita Applebum', 'Electric Relaxation', 'Renee', 'Eye Know', 'Sounds Like Love', 'Betta Listen', 'Prototype', (even 'Around the Way').

So if all these songs promote maturity and monogamy (or at least maturity), why is the former more popular amongst Black women than the latter?

Ready for the answer?.......It's the famous 'chicks dig bad boys' excuse. A lot of Black girls think like this (sorry MC Lyte). In other words, they are too busy following the 'free and independent' dogma to actually pay attention to how they have lowered their standards for dating. Even other Black women have talked about this issue. These women love to complain and say, "Where all the good men at?" They never realize that these 'good men'are standing aloof, wondering about what is going on in your thought process.

So let me get this straight, you complain about how all men are dogs, yet at the same time, you lay with them in a heartbeat. You intentionally seek out 'Omar the bitch-slappin' thug' and overlook 'Andre the intellectual' who is a successful businessman and who would love to start a family.

To put this in football terminology, it's like having multiple all-star receivers on the same offense going out for a pass. Instead of throwing the ball to the wide open receiver running the underneath route (which is a 12-yard curl & post) near the left sideline, you instead either throw the ball to the receiver running a zero route (screen pass) with the corner biting on the ball, or you attempt to throw a 50-yard fade route up the right sideline to the receiver in triple coverage with the Free Safety coming up on the ball.You keep making these poor decisions time and time again, yet you are actually surprised that the ball gets intercepted and/or taken in for a pick-6/multiple pick-6's.

Too many Black women have drunk the kool-aid that is this mindless promiscuity know as 'sexual freedom'. They have been discouraged from the pursuit of a committed relationship because it's 'too much of a hassle'. Thus, they only see men as baby-makers, and nothing else, saying things like, "I don't need a man!", "All guys are the same!", and "You can't trust men anyway!" They never realize that because they don't want a 'hassle', they usually give it up to the easiest guy they can find, which is the 'bad boy'. Over time, she begins to actually have feelings for this guy. And of course, because he hasn't learned to be responsible, he runs away the moment things get serious. This vicious cycle continues for generations, with no one actually stepping back and looking at the type of men that they look for. There's nothing wrong with a one-night stand every now and then, but when you give it up to any and every guy that you know (especially the bums who sag their pants), don't be surprised when those same people call you a bitch.

I had an epiphany the other day about this. You what I realized?

'Hoes' are 'freaks' with no standards. Let me say that again. HOES ARE FREAKS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO STANDARDS (and/or dignity)! It is one thing to be really good at having sex. It is quite another to be spreading your legs for a guy when you don't even know his last name. This is why Meagan Good is lusted after so much. This is also why Eryka Badu is never really called a slut, whore, or skank, no matter how many times she takes her clothes off. How many guys can honestly say that they've had sex with either of them?

........................................

Exactly. Not many. On the other hand, Kiki and Shananay, the two ghetto-ass hoodrats from the neighborhood who love to go to the club and who each have 3-4 baby daddy's, won't get any respect because it's way too easy to 'hit it and quit it'.

2) It was purposely designed to drive a wedge in the Civil Rights movement.

This has been documented by the film Hidden Colors. By classifying and giving special attention and financial aid to Black women (welfare, WIC, etc.), it subliminally enforces the notion that Black women have to be strong and completely independent of males in order to succeed. This is mostly why the majority of Black kids today are born to single parent families. Get the women to think that they don't need the men, make them chase their men away, and you'll eventually cause a rift in the organization and push for freedom in the community. Why? because often times great change has actually started with the women and is picked up on later by the men. Think about Harriet Tubman or the Native Tongues phase of Hip-Hop.

Common addressed this mentality and hit it on the nail with this song.

(This is not to belittle women who are coincidentally single mothers, but it is to rather criticize those who like to have a lot of baby mama drama and what have you.)

This is the struggle over the last 50 years or so in a nutshell.

3) It conditions Black women to be aggressive and spiteful (and unreasonable).
One 'unintended' consequence of Black Feminism is that it encourages Black women to 'hold their ground', 'represent', and 'never let a man tell them what to do'. Because of this, they often turn their aggression to men of their own color.

...I've seen people caught in love like whirlwinds,
Listening to they squads and listening to girlfriends,
That's exactly the point where their whole world ends,
Lies come in, that's where that drama begins...
-Black Thought of The Roots, 'You Got Me'

Because of this hypocritical indoctrination, no one (generally speaking) who is a Black man can be in a relationship nowadays without having to deal with constant arguing over trust and responsibility. If it isn't that, it's the 'mind games' that some women play. (Also notice how certain shows profit off of their spoiled attitude, especially when it comes to marriage.) It's a result of the classic 'divide and conquer' strategy. Even the comedian Eddie Griffin addressed this nonsense (3:48-5:44). Who made the rule that as a Black woman, you need to have'attitude'? What's wrong with being peaceful and laid back? Why should you always yell at the kids for acting up, especially when a) they are allowed to eat a lot of junk food which messes them up, b) you know how it feels to be yelled at yourself, and c) kids naturally need to play due to their excess energy?

...Something in the way society rears us,
Commitment wears us, out it tears us, apart,
and makes us feel we don't need to,
and that turns into "I don't need you",
People want what grandma and granddaddy had,
But the ain't have options, nigga, we do,
and we choose, to act foolish,
Not Jewish, but when you hurt a man, baby he bruise/He-brews...

-Phonte, 'Sending My Love'


The funny thing about this is, it takes root growing up in school. Often, the same girls who go for the thugs because they think they can 'change' him (or because all they want is a quick hook-up) are the same ones who are crazy, delusional, and filled with unnecessary dramawhen the relationship is over afterwards. The ones who don't act that way are often mocked because they don't want to 'live a little'. Isn't that ironic? The worst part is, this carries over into their adult life, causing an even bigger rift in their relationships. No wonder so many women are unhappy.

This situation becomes especially damning because many of their erratic and destructive behaviors are justified by males who fail to see 'anything wrong' with what they are doing. This men, as a result, are called "simps". What is a simp? Let's stroll over to Urban Dictionary:

Simp
•A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.
•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .
•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification from women .
•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female.The perfect example of a "Simp" Man would be:
-The role Eddy Murphy played in the movie "Norbit",
-The role of Kevin James in the show "King of Queens",
-A "Yes Dear, Man" Simp
-by MackDamage December 07, 2012
These men also go by several other names, such as: "manginas", dudes with "no balls", and a "captain save a hoe". This situation is especially sticky because many guys are taught to be a gentleman (which they should be) who should value women in general, so when these women participate in very destructive behavior (and have waaaay too many criticisms of men in general), rather than avoiding these shallow-ass women altogether, they succumb their intestinal fortitude to these females. These females then treat these men like absolute shit, no matter how much they try to mend any wrongdoing, whether it be real or imagined. These guys either spend the rest of their lives being in a miserable relationship, or even the most passive and submissive of these men grow tired of all of her hypocritical victimization and get up and leave for good. Once again lonely, instead of these women looking in the mirror at their actions and self-esteem, they continue to point the finger at everyone exceptthemselves. Which brings me to another point.......


4) It encourages homosexuality through male bashing.

I know what some of you are thinking: "Oh, he's so homophobic!" No, I am not. Most of the time, I don't even care about what two girls or two guys do. But, what I don't like is how in order for you to not be considered homophobic, you have to complete the academic Olympics of tolerance and ass-kissing in order to be considered 'not homophobic', even if what you are being taught is secretly bullshit. Now don't get me wrong, I do understand how some Black people become gay because of abuse, molestation, heartbreak and/or inadequate sexual satisfaction. (Seriously, after hearing that poem, I promised myself to never brag about sex.)

BUT....

It still doesn't take away from the fact that a lot of this homosexuality stems from feminist criticism. When you are a kid (some of you), you are constantly forced to be around women in your family who do nothing except bash men (especially the dad) for acting like dogs. If you are a female, you are subject to the drama that Black Thought explained in The Roots song above. After your relationship ends, you are then fed the notion that instead of going for the man who is open, understanding, and who has his shit together, you should try to 'change' the thug. After that fails (and/or after the fails to satisfy you sexually), you are then consoled by that same friend who claims continuously that all men are dogs (still) and are not to be trusted. After this cycle repeats itself several times, you become sick of dating men and then start becoming a lesbian, much to the satisfaction of your supposed best friend. Andre 3000 absolutely nailed this thought process in the Outkast song 'Mamacita'.

If you are the son/nephew, you bear the brunt of the criticism, being blamed somehow for her being unhappy.Your natural and genetic masculinity is looked upon as being an evil thing, so in order for you to be accepted by your family members, you have to get rid of it. This is why Black feminists love being around gay Black men so much. Again, it's one thing to be a homosexual out of curiosity. It's another thing entirely if you have been subject to having Black feminism shoved down your throat and as a result become gay.

5) At the end of the day, it attempts to recondition Black women back into 'mammies' and shameless sluts (aka Negro bed wenches).

Really though, why do some Black women give all the hell and drama to the Black men, yet never let it translate to men of other races (especially white men)? Maybe it's because this 'push for equality' is really trying to get Black women to do this:



which leads to this:



in order to get them back to acting like this:



That's right. All this dogma about how "ain't no good Black men around" and "doing anything a man can do" is all a ploy to get Black women to start to act like the stereotypical 'mammies' and again. Don't get me wrong, it's one thing to date inter-racially due to mutual curiosity. However, when you feel that it is okay to support a show that basically enforces the stereotypical bed wench/mammy role of the Black women during slavery, while simultaneously berating a person that criticizes the women for having multiple baby daddy's, you probably need to start reevaluating some of the core values that you have been taught as a child. The Black Feminists and their push of 'freedom and independence from [Black] men' is totally not an idea directly lifted from the Willie Lynch Letter.

You see, we have become so used the getting lead around solutions to our everyday issues that when someone comes in and tells the truth straight up, we feel offended. This is why people like Tariq Nasheed and TJ Sotomayor are so controversial. Their sobering views are far cries from the everyday ego masturbation that a large portion of Black women go through. But if you if you were to point these things out, you could be in serious trouble.

Conclusion:

You may be wondering why I don't address the chauvinistic male mentality in some Black men. It's simple really. It has already been addressed several times, by several different people, including Richard Pryor. You might look at me and think, "What the hell does heknow about relationships? He's just a high school senior who listens to Hip-Hop all day!" And to that, I say....

LOOK AROUND YOU! I CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP! DO NOT JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! USE YOUR OWN TWO EYES!

*pauses*, *takes deep breath*

Look, I see that things aren't perfect. Sometimes, relationships just don't work out asplanned. It doesn't mean that we should be hostile. If we want things to get better, we have to have a mutual understanding of each other. Slum Village perfectly demonstrates this everchanging dating dynamic. If Black women want to be respected more, then quit acting like this:

A sad reality nowadays.
It's not okay to act like trained attack dogs. If we want to get back to our original greatness, we have to realize that we need to stop being participants in this never-ending petty ass battle of one-upsmanship between the male chauvinist pigs and the scandalous Jezebels that are these feminists. It's all a self-destructive cycle. And it all needs to end, NOW!


P.S. Even the most absurd male chauvinist will never utter the words, "I can do anything a woman can do!"

Further Reading/Watching:
http://www.rhymeswithsnitch.com/2012/04/kevin-hart-suing-black-women.html
http://bmawufbp.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-are-so-many-quality-black-women.html#.UqNvk_RDuJ4

I do noooooooot care what the sellouts think........ I have my principals and I intend to be true to them
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#2
Someone got mad at me cuz they was ranting against me....... and I sent them maybe a couple sentences.

I already did the epic-length posts regarding the matter. I reproduce them below:

Are we talking about feminism as it exists in actuality or feminism as it exists in theory?

If feminism in actuality was about going after pornography, going after prostitution, glorifying motherhood, promoting the family, attacking abortion, promoting feminity, then I'd be all for feminism in actuality.

Feminism in actuality is anti-feminity and sexist. It promotes the idea not that the woman is equal to the man. It promotes the idea that the woman can be equal to the man. The measure of her worth is how identical she is to a man. And so a certain idealized man is the measure of a human's worth, and the woman's worth is measured by how identical she is to this idealized man.

Therefore, if she is a lesbian, she gets feminist points. If she is promiscuous (as this idealized man is promiscuous), she gets feminist points. If she looks like a man, she gets feminist points. If she acts like a man, she gets feminist points. If she talks like a man, she gets feminist points. For maximum feminist points, I suppose she needs to begin receiving injections of testosterone and get surgery. Such would be this philosophy taken to its logical conclusion.

Her feminist points or lack of feminist points are based in how closely she resembles this idealized man.

Thus, the gospel of feminism in actuality is based on the premise that femininity is inferior to masculinity. A natural woman is inferior- but she can become equal by becoming as identical to an idealized man as possible.

Meanwhile, the theorists of "true" feminism are silent about all this. As long as they're silent, they're complicit.

Feminism in actuality promotes the degradation of women. Its supporters are pawns in a depopulation agenda. Rainerann is right to call out its hypocrisy.

And then my really epic-length post:

Apparently, feminism is incapable of doing anything wrong.

Rather than actually deal with the problems of feminism as it exists in actuality- instead there is no true Scotsman.





So feminism is incapable of doing anything wrong. It can destroy the family, promote degeneracy, obsess over non-issues but... that's not true feminism.

People can criticize Marxism but if you ask a Marxist to define Marxism, they can define it pretty clearly. Extremely clearly. "Read Marx's Das Capital." "Read Lenin." They can go into a whole long discussion into clearly-defined concepts such as exploitation, alienation, imperialism, seizing the means of production, etc.

If you ask a Marxist what Marxism is, they don't say "Marxism is the radical notion that the proletariat are people". That feminist cliche is a slogan, not a definition. And seriously shows something: feminists are more interested in a slogan than in an actual definition. They are not concerned with actual substance and are more interested in a cheap gimmick than in actually having specific demands: feminism is the radical notion that women are people, they say. So if you're not a feminist, you don't think women are people? It's a cheap, manipulative gimmick. And feminists are more interested in a cheap, manipulative gimmick than in actual substance.

And rather than really address all the absurdities that march under the banner of feminism- "that's not true feminism". So instead of addressing the problems, they're swept under the rug. So feminism is being used to promote degeneracy and the "true feminist" ignores it or sweeps it under the rug. They're not seriously going to address the problems. And if someone does, "that's not true feminism".

So you can't critique feminism. It's immune to critique. Being one of the vaguest and most ill-defined words in the English language is actually its asset rather than its liability. Since it doesn't mean anything specific, anything questionable is "that's not true feminism".

I do not care about a "true" feminism that exists in the sky. I am concerned about feminism that exists here on this earth. Until feminism actually address that, it's not worth taking seriously. Feminism doesn't mean anything specific and it's more interested in cheap gimmicks than in actual substance.

This is feminism:





I don't care what feminism is in theory. I care what it is in practice.

It is a force for sinking Western culture. This is why the people who actually care about Western culture are horrified. I understand. They want to save Western culture. I don't hate Western culture. I hate Western imperialism. I want an end to Western imperialism, Zionism, etc. And I'm not the only one.

And so feminism is a symptom of decadence, of the collapse of Western culture. I have a concrete demand which I can easily define- which is the end of Western imperialism. I guess totally sinking Western culture is one way that demand can be accomplished. And I'm not the one sinking Western culture. The feminists are useful pawns in a larger game that they don't understand. I don't think they have concrete demands, I think they're ego-driven. As well as driven by secularism and a loss of touch with God and nature.

Western culture has basically surgically removed God from its culture. You can't even mention God. People will have a heart attack.

The decline could be reversed. The West could repent from its sins, quit bothering others, let the immigrants stay home by not interfering with their home countries, stop engaging in imperialism, etc.

It's not like there are not concrete, objectively real sins. Both the anti-imperialists and the Western conservatives have a common interest: simply end Western imperialism and they can both be happy.

The Western feminists live comfortable, priviliged lives. Of course that comfort is built off the suffering of others (my own comfort as well).

And so they feel guilty. They feel guilty and so they want to feel justified. And so they want to feel radical.

They could follow the path of anti-imperialism, denouncing imperialism, etc. But that scares people. They're a timid lot. They want to feel radical. They want to feel radical without the consequences of actually being radical. Jesus in this sense was radical. Jesus was persecuted for his beliefs. Whether you define yourself as a conservative, leftist or whatever- to truly follow Jesus entails being persecuted for your beliefs. No one is persecuting these feminists. No one is seriously persecuting these vegans or the people talking about global warming, either. I do think global warming exists. But there are certain causes which people latch on to as a form of safe radicalism. Causes that enable the person to feel radical without having to worry about being persecuted.

But why do people want to feel radical in the first place?

There are real and concrete collective sins that have to be addressed. Collective sins are not fiction- the OT is full of discussion of them.

There are two necessities in order to save the West- the collective sins have to be addressed and the West needs a religious revival. It needs to turn towards God. And what it needs is deeper than Churchianity. It needs a true and real connection with God. The type that will lead people to be persecuted for their beliefs. It would need a growth in spirituality on a mass level.

The historical needs for the nations today are the same as they were in Old Testament times- God will judge among the nations and historical necessity dictates that we must turn away from our sins and turn towards God.

Would I be willing to sink the West just to get my demands met? I honestly don't know. I don't know the answer to that question. I have nothing to do with it. I am just a person observing. There is no reason to blame me.

But God apparently is willing to sink the West- or more accurately, to allow the West to sink itself.

A Sodom and Gomorrah culture is being promoted. At worst, the feminists are actively promoting a Sodom and Gomorrah culture. At best, they're indifferent to it. And the West is structured precisely so that this cannot be reversed. Denounce promiscuity? "Stop slut shaming!". Say anything- or even think anything- against homosexuality and they'll just about have a heart attack. Be against abortion? You're "anti-woman". Mhm. Say anything against imperialism- start talking about imperialism? People will become more and more hostile the more you talk. Mention God at all and they'll start becoming hostile.

So the decline is in progress and cannot and will not be reversed. The stage is being set for collapse. There is nothing any of us can do about it. The West is strapped-in for the ride. And that ride will end in horror. Someone might criticize me because my plan is to eat popcorn. I don't care. There is nothing I can do. What is destined is destined and it is not my place to try to interfere with what God has destined.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#3
All this nonsense this thread has been addressing...... I can't stop it. I can't stop the short-sightedness and selfishness of others. I can't stop coochie-whipped simps from being weak, pansy simps. But if I can contribute to awareness- even within the mind of a single individual- then I have achieved what I want.
 




Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,736
Likes
670
#4
I agree with you. While feminism did some good, it has in some ways destroyed aspects of society. Especially marriage, its just kind of sad. Not saying that women can't live on their own, I'm just saying that its in some ways ruined marriages and relationships, mostly because of third-wave feminism.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#6
Damn those women for wanting girls to be educated.
Logical fallacy employed: Strawman.

"A variation of ignoratio elenchi, known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute."

-Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

This applies to the male-feminist/simp* as well:



*Simp defined:

•A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.

•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .

•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification form women .

•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Simp
 




Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,968
#9
Logical fallacy employed: Strawman.

"A variation of ignoratio elenchi, known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute."

-Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

This applies to the male-feminist/simp* as well:



*Simp defined:

•A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.

•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .

•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification form women .

•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Simp
I sure do like to be Under Women, it's the best position.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#10
Feminism is needed. I don’t necessarily agree with everything new age feminism pushes but to write off the entire movement is silly.
Respect for women is needed. Consideration for women is needed.

But feminism basically functions as nationalism for women.

Nationalism is a force that can be used for good or bad.

Malcolm X's nationalism was meant to prepare people to struggle against racist oppression. Kwame Nkrumah promoted Pan-African nationalism as a way to free Africa from imperialism. Ho Chi Minh used nationalism to lead his people to victory.

Others use nationalism to promote oppression. The nationalism of someone like Tupac is not the same as the nationalism of someone like Donald Trump.

Nationalism is a tactic. It is very powerful. But encouraging a sort of nationalism for women is promoting conflict between women and men. This is not at all the same as Tupac encouraging people be against inequality. This functions as a weapon in the toolkit of maintaining social inequality and destroying communities.

All that feminism does is help to enable oppression.

If you want to destroy a group- you kill off the men and you spare the women. This is simply how things have been done for pretty much as long as human history. You kill the men and you spare the women.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -Numbers 31:17

Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters. -Surah 28:4

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. -Matthew 2:16

Feminists are speaking from the point of a vested interest.

I used to live in the projects. I've seen what I've seen. When you see something and you know it's true, you can't deny what you know. I know exactly what I've seen and people can try to gaslight me into not believing what I know to be the truth but I am sincere in my idealism and I am not willing to be a collaborator with what I know is wrong.

I'm not gonna say which projects I'm talking about but I am thinking of this woman I used to hang out with. It spooked the hell out of me that her brother was born almost the same day as me. Her brother is dead.

There is no man in the house. It's the woman and mom. Just the two of them. Does the woman have problems? Yes she has serious problems. Her and her mom both have serious problems. But her brother is dead. He was shot to death. I am not willing to sell him out.

I have a few dead people in mind. People I knew who died too early. I am a superstitious person. I believe in respecting the dead.

Collaborating with Pharoah brings rewards. Separating women into their own faction works right with Pharoah's strategy I described from the Quran verse.

Take a country with extreme poverty for example. The country is being robbed for its resources. What needs to happen is the people need to rise up. They need to free themselves from the exploiter- from imperialism. It is the imperialists who are the oppressors.

So of course it is the oppressors who will teach the women to turn against the men. The women are supposed to be fighting alongside the men. Instead the sell their men out, get rewarded and imperialism can continue. Exploitation and neo-colonialism can continue.

They sell their men out, they get rewarded and their men and their children are betrayed.

I understand that selling out gives rewards. So sell outs can expect rewards I guess but the masses of people are not stupid. Sell outs should not expect respect.

Women are equal to men. Therefore, male sellouts and female sellouts are equally disgraceful and are deserving of disrespect. It is important that they are disrespected.

If women are equal then women must also be protecting their families and communities. If they are collaborating with oppression then they deserve to be spat upon.







I am not a dummy. I know what I've seen.

I am not willing to throw poor communities and children under the bus for my own gain.

What is the best for the kids?

I am sorry women but you are not that important. Neither are us men. It is the children who are the future. It is the children who come first.

Children and family are what is important. Not women or men.

If we are focused on children and families, then we are against feminism. Only if we have forgotten children and families does feminism become viable. I am sorry but women can protect themselves better than children. Children are the most vulnerable people in society and they are targeted. The demonic society goes after children and they are the ones who most need to be protected.

Men are expected to roll up their sleeves and be self-sacrificing for the common good. A man who is willing to throw everyone else under the bus for his own selfish reasons should be despised.

If women are equal to men then they also have the duty to be self-sacrificing.

The man must put the family first and the woman must as well. Children need families and children need families in order to be healthy.

If a man throws his family under the bus, he should be despised. If a woman throws her family under the bus, she should be despised. If we accept that men and women are equal.

If a woman does nothing but engage in self-indulgence.... she should be despised. A man who does nothing but play video games is despised.

I am sorry but I see so much of these single-mother households... I am not an idiot. Single-mother households were not the norm before. We had capitalism. So the argument that it's capitalism is disingenuous nonsense. There was already capitalism yet single-mother households were not the norm.

We need to change the structure that generates these single-mother households.

And part of that is feminism's turning women against men. Dudes are not meeting up scheming against women. A lot of that MGTOW stuff is crazy and MGTOW is definitely a cult..... but that sort of thing wasn't even heard of before recently.

Whoever says feminism is not a part of the structure churning out these single-mother households is simply lying. And selling out those innocents kids who suffer. I am not a self-interested person speaking on behalf of obtaining personal power. I am speaking on behalf of making sure that children and families are put first. The family is before the individual. The female feminists are rewarded and after power. The male feminists are simps after sex. Or they're just seriously delusional simps. I am not looking out for my gender. I am looking out for family and chidren- for the future. For communities. Just not myself.

The feminism thing is just a Faustian bargain that promises women power in exchange for their souls.

I sure do like to be Under Women, it's the best position.
So it is about sex. My previous post is confirmed.
 




Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,968
#11
Logical fallacy employed: Strawman.

"A variation of ignoratio elenchi, known under the name of the straw man fallacy, occurs when an opponent’s point of view is distorted in order to make it easier to refute."

-Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

This applies to the male-feminist/simp* as well:



*Simp defined:

•A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.

•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .

•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification form women .

•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Simp
People who always throw out "logical fallacies" and words like "strawman" are themselves just deflecting from the weakness of their arguments. Anyway nothing you say can be taken seriously as you've held at least 7 different ideologies/theologies since you've been here.

1. I don't put myself in a subservient position to women, nor would I be with a woman who didn't "bring something to the table", it's supposed to be a partnership.
2. Women do have value, contrary to what you think, but people are unique and I value them for who they are as individuals.
3. Chivalry is sexist.
4. I do fine for skinny guy and have always been happy with my partners.\

Anyway Gloc the one thing you've always been consistent in is your hatred for women, just admit it you need women to be subservient to you.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#12
*ad hominem lies*
No, I am concerned for the kids in my projects. I am concerned for the kids in the slums. I am concerned for the poor communities. If being for families and against the normalization of broken homes is anti-women, I guess call me whatever. I was raised to put family first. You can keep distorting my words and saying lies about me but it means nothing. You should keep quiet when grown people are talking.
 




Last edited:
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#14
Of course, there should be taught respect for women. Of course. And of course the sexes are equal (although not the same).

But setting women and men against each other is Satanic. It is an attempt to break-up the family. That is why the Satanists support it.

They don't care about family, about children. They are not thinking about those things. They just want to use women for sex.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#15
4. I do fine for skinny guy and have always been happy with my partners.
More confirmation- it is about sex.

Sex is meant to be between husband and wife. Anything else is sin. Period. Whether we go off the Bible or the Quran.

Casual sex is wrong. I am sure you are fine with a break-down of the family structure. Families get thrown under the bus. But for people who just want some casual sex, it helps them in what they're after.
 




Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
885
Likes
2,154
#16
Respect for women is needed. Consideration for women is needed.

But feminism basically functions as nationalism for women.

Nationalism is a force that can be used for good or bad.

Malcolm X's nationalism was meant to prepare people to struggle against racist oppression. Kwame Nkrumah promoted Pan-African nationalism as a way to free Africa from imperialism. Ho Chi Minh used nationalism to lead his people to victory.

Others use nationalism to promote oppression. The nationalism of someone like Tupac is not the same as the nationalism of someone like Donald Trump.

Nationalism is a tactic. It is very powerful. But encouraging a sort of nationalism for women is promoting conflict between women and men. This is not at all the same as Tupac encouraging people be against inequality. This functions as a weapon in the toolkit of maintaining social inequality and destroying communities.

All that feminism does is help to enable oppression.

If you want to destroy a group- you kill off the men and you spare the women. This is simply how things have been done for pretty much as long as human history. You kill the men and you spare the women.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -Numbers 31:17

Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters. -Surah 28:4

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. -Matthew 2:16

Feminists are speaking from the point of a vested interest.

I used to live in the projects. I've seen what I've seen. When you see something and you know it's true, you can't deny what you know. I know exactly what I've seen and people can try to gaslight me into not believing what I know to be the truth but I am sincere in my idealism and I am not willing to be a collaborator with what I know is wrong.

I'm not gonna say which projects I'm talking about but I am thinking of this woman I used to hang out with. It spooked the hell out of me that her brother was born almost the same day as me. Her brother is dead.

There is no man in the house. It's the woman and mom. Just the two of them. Does the woman have problems? Yes she has serious problems. Her and her mom both have serious problems. But her brother is dead. He was shot to death. I am not willing to sell him out.

I have a few dead people in mind. People I knew who died too early. I am a superstitious person. I believe in respecting the dead.

Collaborating with Pharoah brings rewards. Separating women into their own faction works right with Pharoah's strategy I described from the Quran verse.

Take a country with extreme poverty for example. The country is being robbed for its resources. What needs to happen is the people need to rise up. They need to free themselves from the exploiter- from imperialism. It is the imperialists who are the oppressors.

So of course it is the oppressors who will teach the women to turn against the men. The women are supposed to be fighting alongside the men. Instead the sell their men out, get rewarded and imperialism can continue. Exploitation and neo-colonialism can continue.

They sell their men out, they get rewarded and their men and their children are betrayed.

I understand that selling out gives rewards. So sell outs can expect rewards I guess but the masses of people are not stupid. Sell outs should not expect respect.

Women are equal to men. Therefore, male sellouts and female sellouts are equally disgraceful and are deserving of disrespect. It is important that they are disrespected.

If women are equal then women must also be protecting their families and communities. If they are collaborating with oppression then they deserve to be spat upon.







I am not a dummy. I know what I've seen.

I am not willing to throw poor communities and children under the bus for my own gain.

What is the best for the kids?

I am sorry women but you are not that important. Neither are us men. It is the children who are the future. It is the children who come first.

Children and family are what is important. Not women or men.

If we are focused on children and families, then we are against feminism. Only if we have forgotten children and families does feminism become viable. I am sorry but women can protect themselves better than children. Children are the most vulnerable people in society and they are targeted. The demonic society goes after children and they are the ones who most need to be protected.

Men are expected to roll up their sleeves and be self-sacrificing for the common good. A man who is willing to throw everyone else under the bus for his own selfish reasons should be despised.

If women are equal to men then they also have the duty to be self-sacrificing.

The man must put the family first and the woman must as well. Children need families and children need families in order to be healthy.

If a man throws his family under the bus, he should be despised. If a woman throws her family under the bus, she should be despised. If we accept that men and women are equal.

If a woman does nothing but engage in self-indulgence.... she should be despised. A man who does nothing but play video games is despised.

I am sorry but I see so much of these single-mother households... I am not an idiot. Single-mother households were not the norm before. We had capitalism. So the argument that it's capitalism is disingenuous nonsense. There was already capitalism yet single-mother households were not the norm.

We need to change the structure that generates these single-mother households.

And part of that is feminism's turning women against men. Dudes are not meeting up scheming against women. A lot of that MGTOW stuff is crazy and MGTOW is definitely a cult..... but that sort of thing wasn't even heard of before recently.

Whoever says feminism is not a part of the structure churning out these single-mother households is simply lying. And selling out those innocents kids who suffer. I am not a self-interested person speaking on behalf of obtaining personal power. I am speaking on behalf of making sure that children and families are put first. The family is before the individual. The female feminists are rewarded and after power. The male feminists are simps after sex. Or they're just seriously delusional simps. I am not looking out for my gender. I am looking out for family and chidren- for the future. For communities. Just not myself.

The feminism thing is just a Faustian bargain that promises women power in exchange for their souls.



So it is about sex. My previous post is confirmed.
I’m too ADD to read all of that I’m sorry. Black women are single for a lot of reasons. One, we’re considered the most undesirable of all women. We’re literally taught to hate our natural hair and skin from a very early age and that sticks with you forever. Beauty is centered around Eurocentric standards, it’s bullshit. I’ve literally been told I’m pretty for a black girl as if that’s a compliment? Implying black women aren’t usually attractive. Two, black men have been taken from us due to mass incarceration. The black family isn’t destroyed because of black feminism. The black family is destroyed because our government has been hell bent on terrorizing black people since slavery. I’m not saying individuals don’t have to take responsibilities for their own actions but it’s hard to succeed when the system is built against you.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#17
I’m too ADD to read all of that I’m sorry. Black women are single for a lot of reasons. One, we’re considered the most undesirable of all women. We’re literally taught to hate our natural hair and skin from a very early age and that sticks with you forever. Beauty is centered around Eurocentric standards, it’s bullshit. I’ve literally been told I’m pretty for a black girl as if that’s a compliment? Implying black women aren’t usually attractive. Two, black men have been taken from us due to mass incarceration. The black family isn’t destroyed because of black feminism. The black family is destroyed because our government has been hell bent on terrorizing black people since slavery. I’m not saying individuals don’t have to take responsibilities for their own actions but it’s hard to succeed when the system is built against you.
When it comes to minorities, the men and women should be united against the evil system.

It is not the men who are the oppressors. They themselves are oppressed and targets of the system.

Feminism has been used as a tool against minorities.
 




Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
3,879
Likes
6,736
#18
I mean imagine if the US invaded Iraq and then taught the Iraqi women to turn against their men?

It would obviously be a tactic of colonialism to crush Iraqi resistance against invasion. And so the collaborators would clearly be collaborating with colonialism. Whatever they would gain from it would come at the cost of their souls.