Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Wrangler]

I don't mean to be missing out on discussion. There is a lot to handle personally right now. Sorry everyone

Wynona, you are only missing out on laps covering the same ground. While we recognize feminism is bad, there are those that deny it, holding to an ideal form that we are ignorant of.

I pray you navigate the personal trials and tribulations with God's grace.

 

[Mink57]

Sure it has! Who told you the Patriarchy has not been around for most of human history?

You're in denial that the Patriarchy did not start as a women hating movement. It was a survival strategy! A successful survival strategy.

There is Anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary psychological evidence to suggest that most prehistoric societies were EGALITARIAN, and that Patriarchy didn't take root until about 10,000 years ago.

Feminism is not needed just as cancer is not needed.

More like Patriarchy is not needed just like cancer is not needed.

Women in the house. Men out in the world, at the perimeter of the house. This includes men representing the family in voting.

Why?

So, whenever feminist leaders talk about making the world better for feminist's victims (women), they are undermining traditional roles.

Hmm, let's see...Patriarchy been around for about 10,000 years, give or take. Prehistoric societies have existed for about 300,000 years, give or take. Prehistoric societies have been egalitarian. So, it could stand to reason that Patriarchy undermined the traditional values of Egalitarianism.

I always find it funny how feminists claim equality but also want/demand special accomodation AND never for men who have not been treated equally by society. My wife's eyes were opened when we went on a cruise and there was a mandatory safety lecture. Imagine the outrage if men and children got preferential seating on life boats?

Special accommodation? For what?

Women leaving the homes did not start with 19th century feminism. It is a cycle throughout all of human history that indicates the end of society is near.

The Iroquois have been under matrilinear rule for all of their history. The women plow the fields, plant the fields harvest the fields, store the food, cook the food, take care of the kids...AND, they hold positions in government, including the right to veto the status of any chiefs who step out of line. They are also part of war councils. They also lead most ceremonies and have the final say in decision-making processes. Their societies aren't "ending" anytime soon.

See The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb. And the reason is so obvious! It takes only one generation to be neglected by their mother's teaching them proper morals for society to loose its cohesion. America is ripe for collapse. Glubb's observations of signaling the end is near:

1. Women leaving the house to enter business and politics.
2. Lowering of sexual mores (homosexuality, permiscuity).
3. Lowering birth rates.
4. Spending on benevolent programs beyond the the public treasury's capacity to fund.

Does any of this sound like modern day America? Feminism is the disease not the cure!

Mother's AND father's are BOTH responsible for teaching their children proper morals.

 

[Wrangler]

There is Anthropological, archaeological and evolutionary psychological evidence to suggest that most prehistoric societies were EGALITARIAN, and that Patriarchy didn't take root until about 10,000 years ago.

Proving you are not a Christian on a Christian site since the Bible indicates the universe is about 6,000 years old.

Regarding your ‘-al’ evidence, don’t confuse observational with historical science.

 

[Wrangler]

More like Patriarchy is not needed just like cancer is not needed.

Borrowing my line won’t help your cause.

Feminists have conclusively proven they need the Patriarchy over the last half century. Rather than having a husband, they demand the government provide. How are these provisions obtained?

By reducing the fruit of man’s labor given voluntarily to their woman to being taken by coercion.

It’s a well known fact that only men are net tax payers while women are net tax benefit recipients. It’s so funny to see feminists abandon equality in favor of wealth transfer payments of children’s fathers.

 

[Wrangler]

Special accommodation? For what?

For every enterprise outside the home that feminists penetrate. See special programs to get women into college (even though they make up a majority of college students), sexual harassment laws in the workplace, women only sports teams, WIC, etc.

 

[Wrangler]

The Iroquois have been under matrilinear rule for all of their history.

Making up stuff as you go. Typical Liberal, you know so much that isn’t true. http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/class_text_052.pdf

including the right to veto the status of any chiefs who step out of line.

Who are these chiefs?

 

[Wrangler]

Mother's AND father's are BOTH responsible for teaching their children proper morals.

No you don’t! You cannot be the primary care giver but only equally responsible for the care of children.

Men sacrifice this role for the material benefits he can provide in exchange for good women properly educating their children on morals.

When women abdicate this traditional responsibility, the next generation learn the morals of the street or indoctrination by government.

 

[Mink57]

Proving you are not a Christian on a Christian site since the Bible indicates the universe is about 6,000 years old.

Regarding your ‘-al’ evidence, don’t confuse observational with historical science.

Some Christians take the Bible literally in every sense. Others take it metaphorically. Still others see SOME parts of the Bible in literal terms, but other parts in metaphorical terms. Just because I don't subscribe to the YEC point of view doesn't mean I'm not a Christian.

 

[Mink57]

Making up stuff as you go. Typical Liberal, you know so much that isn’t true. http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/class_text_052.pdf

Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here, I'll save you the trouble: I wrote, "The Iroquois have been under matrilinear rule for all of their history."

Meanwhile, you provided me with 14 pages about Matriarchy, which mentions the Iroquois in one scant paragraph:
"Even the Iroquois, once a stronghold for “matriarchists,” turn out to be matrilineal only, although Iroquois society still comes the closest to representing Bachofen’s ideal “gynocratic state,” since Iroquois women played a decisive role in lineage and village politics. Yet in spite of the substantial power wielded by women, men were chosen consistently as political leaders. At most, the Iroquois today are considered a “quasi-matriarchy” (Wallace, 1971)."

As you can see by my words, I never said that the Iroquois are matriarchal. I specifically said they were matrilineal. I know the difference. Apparently, you do not.

Who are these chiefs?

The chiefs of the various tribes of the Iroquois.

 

[Wrangler]

Just because I don't subscribe to the YEC point of view doesn't mean I'm not a Christian.

I stand corrected. It means you don't believe the Bible.

Here, I'll save you the trouble: I wrote, "The Iroquois have been under matrilinear rule for all of their history."

Meanwhile, you provided me with 14 pages about Matriarchy, which mentions the Iroquois in one scant paragraph:

I guess you missed the title of the link I provided, The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society or part of what you quoted.

men were chosen consistently as political leaders

I guess you are redefining what egalitarian and Patriarchial societies are to suit your purposes, advancing an anti-Scriptural myth an anti-Scriptural morality, aka feminism.

 

[Mink57]

No you don’t! You cannot be the primary care giver but only equally responsible for the care of children.

Of COURSE you can! Being a primary care giver doesn't mean that the caregiver is the SOLE caregiver. It simply means that one parent is responsible for MUCH of the child's care giving; but not ALL of it.

Men sacrifice this role for the material benefits he can provide in exchange for good women properly educating their children on morals.

What a crock! So, if your child comes to you for moral guidance, you'd send the child to his/her mother? Just because you may be schlepping at work 40 hours a week doesn't let you off the hook to provide SOME of the care/moral guidance for your own offspring...
...offspring that YOU 'helped' to create!

Also, more and more men are becoming stay-at-home-dads. That means that THEY are the primary care giver, so it would be up to THEM to provide the 'moral guidance'.

When women abdicate this traditional responsibility, the next generation learn the morals of the street or indoctrination by government.

Oh, pish posh. Parents--especially mother's-- are not the ONLY influences in their children's lives. Plenty of good mothers out there who, despite being a darn near SAINT, may end up with an unruly, rebellious, socially inept, moral deviant child. Nature vs. Nurture. A mother can control how she nurture's a child. But she can't control nature.

 

[Mink57]

I stand corrected. It means you don't believe the Bible.

No, it means I don't believe in the Bible the way *you* believe in your interpretation of the Bible. I Have read the Bible cover to cover twice so far...and have read the NT 3 times.

I guess you missed the title of the link I provided, The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society or part of what you quoted.

No, I didn't. More like *you* missed the boat by submitting an article about Matriarchy, when I referenced a Matrilinear society.

I guess you are redefining what egalitarian and Patriarchial societies are to suit your purposes, advancing an anti-Scriptural myth an anti-Scriptural morality, aka feminism.

I'm not redefining anything. But it does seem that that's what YOU are doing. You've been trying to define Feminism under false terms.

Not anti-Scripture. I just interpret Scripture differently than you do.

 

[Wrangler]

You've been trying to define Feminism under false terms.

Not at all. Me and @Wynona are only sharing the negative consequences of the evil ideology that is feminism.

 

[Mink57]

Not at all. Me and @Wynona are only sharing the negative consequences of the evil ideology that is feminism.

It's not an 'evil' ideology. It's a misunderstood ideology.

Earlier up-thread, I asked you:

Define 'traditional' roles.

You responded with:

Women in the house. Men out in the world, at the perimeter of the house. This includes men representing the family in voting.

Then I asked you, "Why?"
WHY can't women be 'out in the world' with men?
WHY can't women have their OWN vote?

 

[Wrangler]

It's not an 'evil' ideology.

Yes, feminism most certainly is an evil ideology. It seeks to glorify (feminine) self rather than God.

Then I asked you, "Why?"
WHY can't women be 'out in the world' with men?
WHY can't women have their OWN vote?

And I answered that.

Women leaving the homes did not start with 19th century feminism. It is a cycle throughout all of human history that indicates the end of society is near. See The Fate of Empires by Sir John Glubb. And the reason is so obvious! It takes only one generation to be neglected by their mother's teaching them proper morals for society to loose its cohesion. America is ripe for collapse. Glubb's observations of signaling the end is near:

1. Women leaving the house to enter business and politics.
2. Lowering of sexual mores (homosexuality, permiscuity).
3. Lowering birth rates.
4. Spending on benevolent programs beyond the the public treasury's capacity to fund.

Does any of this sound like modern day America? Feminism is the disease not the cure!

 

[Mink57]

Yes, feminism most certainly is an evil ideology. It seeks to glorify (feminine) self rather than God.

LOL! Same can be said about Patriarchy. It seeks to glorify (masculine) self rather than God.

And I answered that.

No, you didn't.

 

[Wrangler]

LOL! Same can be said about Patriarchy. It seeks to glorify (masculine) self rather than God.

No. As I said, the Patriarchy is a survival strategy. It is a very successful survival strategy.

It’s not a coincidence that feminists are looking to move out of the home AFTER men made society safe for them to do so. Instead of gratitude, these hateful people have contempt for the very ground they stand on, the backs of the Patriarchs.

 

[Mink57]

Not at all. Me and @Wynona are only sharing the negative consequences of the evil ideology that is feminism.

Interesting...
Wynona began this thread with a commentary on Proverbs 31:10-31.

But I think Wynona missed the mark when she made the assumption that the Proverb was revering a woman/wife/mother for being a homemaker ONLY...

That's not what Proverbs 31:10-31 was talking about.

The woman in the Proverb is a working woman; OUTSIDE the home. She's not only a woman who is not ONLY a homemaker, but one who has other responsibilities OUTSIDE the home.

Maybe you BOTH should read that Proverb again...

 

[Wrangler]

It's not an 'evil' ideology.

If you do not recognize feminism as an evil ideology, then you don't know what an evil ideology is. There is hardly an ideology in human history more evil than feminism. Worse than communism and fascism combined!

 

[Wynona]

Interesting...
Wynona began this thread with a commentary on Proverbs 31:10-31.

But I think Wynona missed the mark when she made the assumption that the Proverb was revering a woman/wife/mother for being a homemaker ONLY...

That's not what Proverbs 31:10-31 was talking about.

The woman in the Proverb is a working woman; OUTSIDE the home. She's not only a woman who is not ONLY a homemaker, but one who has other responsibilities OUTSIDE the home.

Maybe you BOTH should read that Proverb again...

I am not against wives and mothers making money. But the Proverbs 31 woman sold her goods based on the overflow of work she did for her family.l, she didn't leave to work for a boss 8 hours a day five days a week.

"24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant."

II watched a video on how linen was made in by hand. Its made with a spindle and distaff. This would be done at home. She had extra to sell but she didn't work for a company, she was preparing her family with linen for warmer months and wool for cold ones. Her priority was preparing her family and the goods she sold was an overflow of that.

TBesides that, Scripture clearly calls women to be keepers at home.

Titus 2:3-5
King James Version
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


I was shocked that no one talks about that verse but it is a blessing. Maintaining a full-time career competes with the needs of husband and children.

Its not that women don't work hard to balance it all. My mother did. But it cost her in physical, mental, and emotional health. We were not designed nor called to "do it all."