One successful income is sufficient.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I’m Not Sorry
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
One successful income is sufficient.
Show me this "advice" in scripture.
You haven't studied the classics, have you.
I've said it before and I repeat it. The classic feminists: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — were very pro-family and anti-abortion. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Alice Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
As these women of old and so many others that I know today, our feminism has never desired nor included abortion or man-hating nor has it been founded on the cruel stepping and stomping on the faces of men or children as we "climb" some vain and imaginary ladder of societal status.
I may have to fight stereotypes and ignorance and mindless tradition, fighting sometimes quietly -sometimes not.
My status as a woman - my rights, responsibilities, contributions to family and society, worth, intellect, spirituality, expression of myself, carving out my own place, ability/practice of deciding things for myself, and forging a own destiny under God's leadership - well, these traits by the very definition of feminism must stand alone with me.
True feminism as never been about pushing away men and children as if they are hindrances to our accomplishing something. It's about pushing away faulty mindsets and traditions and practices that wrongly prevent us from accomplishing what we choose to accomplish and what God leads us to accomplish.
I can be a mother, wife, teacher, painter, musician, or I can be all of the above without neglecting anything.
Wow. Breathtaking in its naked stupidity.
Y'all realize that markets operate on supply and demand and the reason why women have jobs is because there is a demand for them.
So how does your bankster theory explain why Asian women work? Indian women work, because?...
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
That particular poster doesn't live in reality, in case you hadn't noticed. I'm amazed they let him stick around here at all. Nothing he posts has one hint of the air of truth in it. It's all from tin-foil-hat wearing pinheaded anarchis/conspiracy theory websites (and little of what he posts is his original thought).
poncho
Well-Known Member
Guess you haven't heard of "globalization", Bank For International Settlements, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, SPP, TPP . . .
Supply and demand? :laugh:
The "global" market operates on the creation of debt through fiat currency and guess who has the monopoly on the creation of debt through fiat currency?
Here an example of supply and demand the illegal "global" drug trade which the global banks are also involved in to the tune of 500 billion laundered dollars annually. And guess who the biggest drug running organization in the world is?
The US government and where does the US government turn when it needs more fiat currency?
To those who have a monopoly on the creation of debt through fiat currency.
The global bankers. Duh.
And they do it all right under your nose while you listen to their multinational corporate media talking heads tell you it just ain't so. You've been "educated" into stupidity by the very institutions you're always defending.
They don't call it "programming" for nothing you know.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stay focused. Could you simply tell me why Japanese women started working in the 1960s? Was it because Japan had a growing manufacturing base and lots of jobs that could not be filled by men only? Or was it because bankers wanted more taxable incomes?
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but in any case I could care less who may or may not be using it for gain. When something's right, it's right. I'm not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Slick trick. I've been involved in sales most of my life so I know this close. It's called the "ice cream" close. The object is to give the prospect the impression he/she only has two choices.
"Which do you prefer . . . the democratic party or the republican party?" This was the very first close I learned from reading Zig Ziggler. Maybe that's why I haven't fallen into the false left vs right paradigm as easily as most people here have. I know there are always more than just two choices.
There is a third choice to your question whether you like it or not.
The Japanese looked at their emperor as a god. When the US defeated the Japanese in WWII their god was defeated and the need for a new god arose. They chose our stronger god.
The US dollar and by extension corporate power which is backed by a financial oligarchy.
So the answer to your question is, both . . . and then some. :smilewinkgrin:
I'm guessing you don't play chess much do you? If you did you'd know that you cannot win a game of chess by focusing only on your opponent's pawns.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
You're right I haven't studied classic feminism and I never said you couldn't choose to be whatever you wanted to be. Far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want so long as you aren't harming others by doing it.
My problem is with those who do harm others with what they do. You don't have a problem with women choosing to be stay at home wives and mothers do you? Women should have that right also and not be made to feel less for making that choice. But the way the system is set up now seems to make many women feel they have to be in competition with men.
Competition isn't the answer to everything as this world system would have us believe. We'd all do much better as a species in my humble opinion if we'd cooperate with each other more and compete against each other less.
But then that isn't what we've been led to believe is the "American way" at all is it? Who would benefit from instilling such a belief? That's all I'm asking.
Last edited by a moderator:
You keep changing your position as your assertions are discredited. You stated that bankers were responsible for the rise of feminism but when I point out the flaw in your theory you change your tune.
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
I'm familiar with chess, thanks.
What I'm saying is that even if what you're saying is true (and no I don't think it is), I don't give a darn. I think gender equality is simply right. I consider gender equality the right to work, have a career, vote, and choose your own path in life. If a woman wants to simply raise a family, it's her right to do so and I'd honor that as well. As a little girl, I used to say that that was what I wanted to do in life. Well, these days, fresh out of my teens, I'm not entirely sure that raising a family is for me yet.
I'm not a fan of radical feminism, however. I saw a quote once that feminism should not be women demanding domination and men apologizing for having penises. I agree with that. And feminism certainly does get taken advantage of politically, one example being abortion being labelled as a women's rights issue in order to rally support to keep it legal.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Not so.
Have you ever tried to explain the the Hegelian Dialectic to a jack ass?
It's like that. :tonofbricks:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Right, I get it. You don't care who benefits from breaking up the traditional family unit.
Most people don't we limit ourselves to our own world and problems and just don't give a hoot about what's happening around us. It's an easy enough trap to fall into. Especially in this day and age where "me" and "mine" is what we are taught life is all about.
Mean while the "normal family unit" becomes two guys or gals "married" to each other or single parent families trying to make a home, work three jobs and teach their kids what their parents taught them. Me me me.
Look at the "role models" kids are given today. The Kardashians and "gangsta" celebrities they teach our girls to dress like "ho's" and our boys to act like "thugs". Someone is making alot of money by being a corrupting influence on our society and it's not just the "liberal and feminist" foot soldiers we all love to focus on.
Their at the bottom of the rung in the grand of things.
All I'm saying is we need start taking a hard look at who is benefiting from promoting all this and why instead of just chasing around whacking at the first moles we see.
Last edited by a moderator:
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
You assume a lot about me for not knowing me from Adam. I never said I'm against the traditional family. Quite the opposite.
I tried to make it clear that I am very much in support of family. Perhaps I didn't word that clearly enough.
Neither does feminism have to entail concentrating only on self, everyone else be damned. Radical feminism seems to, but as I have said I'm not a radical feminist.
For myself, I just question whether or not I'm capable of raising children. That is just me, though. Some certainly are and do a great job at it. I'm just not sure yet that I will be able to do a good job at it. Perhaps I'm one of those that God wishes to remain single.
Just because I might decide not to have a family and raise kids does not mean that I am all I care about. I want very much to be in a position where I can do some good for others, actually. I don't HAVE to have a family to do that. If that's what God calls me to do one day, then yeah I will. But as of currently I'm not sure.
But I am very thankful that I CAN choose not to go that route.
WHAT I'M SAYING in essence is that simply because some may be using something for evil doesn't make that thing bad in and of itself.
I tried to make it clear that I am very much in support of family. Perhaps I didn't word that clearly enough.
Neither does feminism have to entail concentrating only on self, everyone else be damned. Radical feminism seems to, but as I have said I'm not a radical feminist.
For myself, I just question whether or not I'm capable of raising children. That is just me, though. Some certainly are and do a great job at it. I'm just not sure yet that I will be able to do a good job at it. Perhaps I'm one of those that God wishes to remain single.
Just because I might decide not to have a family and raise kids does not mean that I am all I care about. I want very much to be in a position where I can do some good for others, actually. I don't HAVE to have a family to do that. If that's what God calls me to do one day, then yeah I will. But as of currently I'm not sure.
But I am very thankful that I CAN choose not to go that route.
WHAT I'M SAYING in essence is that simply because some may be using something for evil doesn't make that thing bad in and of itself.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
I wasn't assuming anything about you. I was speaking about the world we live in and how it tries to make us "conform" to it and how easily that can effect our decisions.
My daughter is going to turn thirty in a couple months. She feels the same way about having children. Okay that's fine by me. She loves her chosen profession as is very good at it. I'm very proud of her. She and her husband have decided children can wait for alot of very good reasons. Having reared a child of my own I understand how difficult it is and what kind of demands it puts on a person. It's got it's ups and downs and it isn't for everyone and it shouldn't be. I would no more begrudge a person the joys of being a parent anymore than I would look down on a person for deciding not to be a parent.
My daughter and I can talk about anything I think because I have always been open and honest with her she feels she can be open and honest with me. She and I have talked about how society tends to put pressure on us to "conform" to society's norms. It's natural to want to "fit in" but we don't have to if that's what we decide. It's okay to be different so long as we aren't harming others.
Although there are those here that will say being too different is a bad thing. If being different isn't causing harm to another I don't have a problem with it. Be different.
Look at me. I don't fit in here at all. I could, easily. All I'd have to do is "conform" to what others think of as "normal". Obviously I'm not going to do that no matter how much pressure is applied. And believe me there are some folks here who have tried to apply maximum pressure to get me to conform to their "world view".
I don't feel I have to belong to some "tribe" or group or subscribe to what some political party or some male or female club tells me I should believe in to be accepted and neither should you.
The point is be who you want to be not what somebody else thinks you should be. It's your life not theirs. But like I always tell my daughter when she comes to me looking for answers, no matter what you decide understand that others may be effected and offended by it and be ready to face the challenges that might come from it. Always do good to others and never beat yourself up for doing what you know is right and is right for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
I have no qualms with women who choose to stay at home. As long as no one is taking away their choice to do anything else. There are lots of stay at home moms who work an outside job from home. Their are lots of stay at home moms who don't work an outside job from home. If that's their choice and they are putting all their efforts into making that stay at home lifestyle a fruitful one - I say more power to them.
I think you are right. I have no desire to compete with a man. He'd lose. LOL!! Just kidding. :flower: :laugh: (JK!!)
Seriously, this isn't about competition. It's about the individual pursuit of happiness and following the calling of God. If a woman - a wife and/or mother - feels led to become a doctor, a weekend golfer like her husband, a writer, a mayor, or anything else in addition a homemaker - she should be allowed to pursue that without criticism.
Last edited:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
The greatest societal misnomer currently in effect. No one "is taking away" anyone's choice. Stay-at-home moms want to stay at home!! Why is that so freakin' difficult for some people to understand?? And why do they care that is their choice? Do they go to women in the corporate world and ask, "Why are you chained to this corporate giant and its rules and regulations?" No. They only ask stay-at home moms why they're "chained" to the husbands and kids. It's a ridiculous double standard, and those who criticize need to get over themselves. (Note: I don't necessarily mean you.)
Then why not just let them do so without bringing up their choice as somehow "odd" or "unique" when it isn't? More choose that route than choose the corporate route.
Look at the Proverbs 31 woman. She managed her household, took care of her husband and kids, bought and sold real estate and ran a small textile firm out of her household. Her husband and children "rise up and call her 'blessed.' " That's what the Bible teaches about women's choices. They are myriad. Somehow the radical feministas manage to overlook that passage when denigrating women of faith who choose that path.
Before you look down at Poncho's words as a "conspiracy theory" and laugh yourself silly, have you really thought about it?
He put it in a blunt way without much explanation and it led to a knee jerk reaction. Sure, it sounded a bit wild at first, perhaps for people who don't stop and think about what he meant.
There is an entire faction out there who despises traditional families. What is being taught to young people in colleges is sickening. They walk in fresh out of high school and are immediately bombarded with information and pressure to toss off their childish concepts of waiting until marriage, to be free and rid of a society where they are bound by children and husbands and the right to the basic needs of life which include being gratified without having to tie it to love or marriage. Be a free thinker. You're free of them now. Get your higher education, accept this, accept that, move on up, make your money, no more families, make more laws, put in more authority so kids won't be raised in the terrible, abusive, oppressive ways of thinking you were, and you will be successful and have power and money.
There are groups dedicated to encourage these efforts, ready to stand by and support them. The "peer pressure" there is far more intense than any peer pressure your child will ever come across in a public high school, the success of a person in the corporate world highly dependent on how well they take on the attitudes of the institution.
That's modern education. You have to fit in, belong to the groups, and the only wiggle room is for slight disagreement within the party lines, which end up reflected in the political system.
You don't think there are outside and inside groups in colleges?
You don't think think there's a reasons why people want families destroyed?
You don't think a strong movement calling themselves feminists exists, that pushes for the destruction of families?
Maybe you should think again.
And while I'm here, a freebie thought just for fun. You know what's really interesting? The thousands upon thousands of women who are willing to implant themselves with stuff or take daily pills to screw up their natural hormones to overcome nature in order to control it so they can be part of this movement to do what they want when they will and "control" their bodies, despite the known risks and side effects. Blood clots, certain cancers, who knows what. Pretty crazy! That's empowerment? Wow. How does the majority even fall for that one, especially when there are so many alternatives?
He put it in a blunt way without much explanation and it led to a knee jerk reaction. Sure, it sounded a bit wild at first, perhaps for people who don't stop and think about what he meant.
There is an entire faction out there who despises traditional families. What is being taught to young people in colleges is sickening. They walk in fresh out of high school and are immediately bombarded with information and pressure to toss off their childish concepts of waiting until marriage, to be free and rid of a society where they are bound by children and husbands and the right to the basic needs of life which include being gratified without having to tie it to love or marriage. Be a free thinker. You're free of them now. Get your higher education, accept this, accept that, move on up, make your money, no more families, make more laws, put in more authority so kids won't be raised in the terrible, abusive, oppressive ways of thinking you were, and you will be successful and have power and money.
There are groups dedicated to encourage these efforts, ready to stand by and support them. The "peer pressure" there is far more intense than any peer pressure your child will ever come across in a public high school, the success of a person in the corporate world highly dependent on how well they take on the attitudes of the institution.
That's modern education. You have to fit in, belong to the groups, and the only wiggle room is for slight disagreement within the party lines, which end up reflected in the political system.
You don't think there are outside and inside groups in colleges?
You don't think think there's a reasons why people want families destroyed?
You don't think a strong movement calling themselves feminists exists, that pushes for the destruction of families?
Maybe you should think again.
And while I'm here, a freebie thought just for fun. You know what's really interesting? The thousands upon thousands of women who are willing to implant themselves with stuff or take daily pills to screw up their natural hormones to overcome nature in order to control it so they can be part of this movement to do what they want when they will and "control" their bodies, despite the known risks and side effects. Blood clots, certain cancers, who knows what. Pretty crazy! That's empowerment? Wow. How does the majority even fall for that one, especially when there are so many alternatives?