Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Women as "Instruments of Peace and Security"

This is it. Women have their chance to save the world and prove they are a much more peaceful  force than men. How long have they bemoaned about the violent and harsh nature of men and that if only more women were involved a blanket of peace would cover the land. Well, this is their chance. Let's see how the next several decades go.
"The United States hopes to prevent and defuse conflicts by getting more women seated at negotiating tables around the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday.
Clinton said a new U.S. plan, signed by President Barack Obama, would help train and give more voice to female community members who often have a strong sense of how to address dangers and strains in conflict zones.

"Women are bellwethers of society and, in fact, sometimes they do play the role of canary in the coal mine. They know when communities are fraying and when citizens fear for their safety," she told a Georgetown University event."
Since at least the 1800s a women's delicate, peaceful nature, has mistakenly given rise to women as the morally superior sex. Because women appear more 'soft' than men they all of a sudden have a "strong sense" of how to handle conflict. What is always forgotten is that women, as much as they may appear as angels, are also fallen human beings with the same tendencies and gravitations toward sin that men have. Women can be more deceptive in their sin as they naturally are wearing sheep's clothing.

The campaign for women to vote was lead largely by the ideal of women as morally superior and that if only women could vote, the country would be changed around--that women would have a calming, peaceful effect on politics. Well, nearly 100 years later and has politics really changed now that women can vote? Of course what will be said, is that not enough women are voting or not enough women are involved in politics. "If we can just get MORE women involved, then we will see a difference".  There is always some magical amount of women being involved that we never reach, but yet is suppose to solve everything. What is hard for the modern woman to admit is that being woman by virtue alone does not make them a magical wand. Their sinful nature is not erased by their sex. 

Also, if women know when communities are fraying, they must have missed the boat here in America. Before they get involved in world conflicts, they could start mending the home front. Although ironically, they are the reason many communities are fraying; through feminism we have seen the destruction of the nuclear family--the heart of the community.
"As a result, U.S. combatant commanders will have an officer dedicated to gender issues to ensure protecting women is central to planning, and American diplomats will focus on bringing women into the political process as a core part of their work."
Why do they need protecting? If they are equal to men or superior to men in peaceful negotiating, they should be able to handle it like men. Plus their peaceful nature should instantly calm any foe out to do harm (sarc.).

69 comments:

Justin said...

It is certainly ironic that H Clinton is pushing the initiative, as she is a war hawk of seemingly limitless aggression, who has publicly cackled over the gruesome deaths of her enemies.

Anonymous said...

You are generalizing.

Some women have peaceful natures (whatever that means). Some don't. Same with men.

The fact that someone has a "peaceful nature" doesn't mean all enemies go away. Christ had a peaceful nature.

Speaking of Christ, I don't think posts full of sarcasm and anger are in keeping with the Christmas season, do you?

A J said...

@Anonymous

Umm, no, it is Hilary Clinton in the article who is generalizing by assuming that even more women in government will have a placating influence. The author, LGR, is actually pointing out the flawed logic in this generalization in addition to it having been tried before with ineffective and actually detrimental results.

Truly, reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.

Christ had a peaceful nature.

Hmm, really? When he chased the moneychangers from the temple with a whip did he do so in a peaceful way?

How 'bout his own words? "I have not come to bring peace into the world but division(sword)."

"If any one causes one of these little ones of mine to sin, it would be better if he had a large millstone tied around his neck and drowned in the sea."

"Woe to you, Tyre and Sidon! For if the miracles you had witnessed had been performed in Sodom and Gomorrah they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But will you be lifted up? No, you will go down to the depths!"

Speaking of Christ, I don't think posts full of sarcasm and anger are in keeping with the Christmas season, do you?

Well we are admonished to when angry, be angry and sin not. Anger is not a sin in and of itself. Regarding sarcasm, it's a useful tool of rhetoric, like hyperbole, metaphor, and analogy, to wittily and poetically state the truth. And is Christ not also the truth along with being the way and the life?

Read the book of Job; God was actually sarcastic with him in a couple passages.

Really, one would do well to think these points through before rushing to undeservedly patronize and shame the author.

Laura Grace Robins said...

AJ,
Thanks. You beat me to many of same points I was going to bring up.

Amy said...

Jesus had a violent nature? Really? I think we are reading a different Bible.

The fact that sarcasm might be "useful" doesn't mean it's right during a season of love and joy.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Jesus took the time to make a whip out of cords. He did not lash out in a crazy rage. He stopped and created something, giving himself a chance to calm down.

Have you ever made a whip out of cords? It takes quite a while.

Jennifer said...

It's good to have women voting, and even in more political positions, but my radar still went up when I saw that last part. I was just re-reading "The Flipside of Feminism" again, and how most women don't even want the exhausting jobs of politicians. Femmies, leave the women at home alone.

Jennifer said...

Jesus wanted peace, but not by accepting sin or what's morally wrong. That's the kind of man and woman we need more of.

Jennifer said...

I don't know if I'd call God sarcastic with Job; I'd put it more as challenging.

A J said...

@LGR

No prob.

@Amy

Jesus had a violent nature? Really? I think we are reading a different Bible.

I never said that He had an intrinsically violent nature. I was making the point that he was not beyond using force should the situation call for it. And using force is by definition not peaceful.

Also, I'm curious if you even read my post because I quoted three verses and referenced one passage. They are all easily found with a keyword search on BibleGateway.com. All the verses were from the Gospels and if you don't recognize them, then, with all due respect, how much of the Bible have you read?

The fact that sarcasm might be "useful" doesn't mean it's right during a season of love and joy.

So...when is it right then, during times of disdain and melancholy?

All facetiousness aside, if He is the reason for the season, as opposed to uncontextualized aspirations of love and joy, and He is the embodiment of truth, then it is definitely the season to speak the truth, using whatever repertoire we have available.

@Anonymous

Have you ever made a whip out of cords? It takes quite a while.

Again, it's putting words in my mouth to imply I meant that Jesus was inherently violent. I actually know that the Koine Greek word for "made" in the "making of the whip" meant "to fashion" so yes he did take his time.

That still doesn't negate the fact that he used force deemed necessary. And force at least in the moment is contrary to peace by definition, if not a complete antonym.

Dulantha said...

Men and women are not equal. Women are the female human beings of men who are male human beings. Men must be masculine and women must be feminine. There must be a balance between masculinity and the femininity in the society. Gender equality is not practical but the balance between masculine and feminine gender specifications is an important factor for the existence of the human kind.

Amy said...

"Men and women are not equal. Women are the female human beings of men who are male human beings. Men must be masculine and women must be feminine. There must be a balance between masculinity and the femininity in the society. Gender equality is not practical but the balance between masculine and feminine gender specifications is an important factor for the existence of the human kind. "

Maybe yes, maybe no.

But the reality is, there are female leaders out there today, leading us.

There are women in the military, whose commands must be obeyed by their soldiers.

There are women lawmakers, who laws you must follow.

We are under the authority to obey many female leaders. Remember that Scripture commands us to obey our government. The fact that you may not like the leaders is irrelevant; you need to obey God's Word.

Jennifer said...

Right-on, Amy. Female nature can be very aggressive, even in a different way from male nature.

gwallan said...

"As a result, U.S. combatant commanders will have an officer dedicated to gender issues to ensure protecting women is central to planning, and American diplomats will focus on bringing women into the political process as a core part of their work."

"protecting women is central to planning"

In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake aid orgs were refusing food to men and boys. Expect more of this. In disaster and conflict situations men and boys will be sacrificed so women can be safer.

Jennifer said...

@gwallan

WHAT?????

David said...

"Instruments of peace and security" is an interesting turn of phrase. It reminds me of 1st Thess 5v3 (ESV):

While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

Twenty said...

We are under the authority to obey many female leaders. Remember that Scripture commands us to obey our government.

And if our government should command us to renounce God, would we be obligated to obey? Were the American revolutionaries guilty of sin in their revolt?

The vast majority of "female leaders" enjoy no legitimacy in my eyes, as they are manifestly unsuited to their stations.

Jennifer said...

The American Revolution happened because England was tyrannical, not because the Americans disapproved of the English rulers' genitalia.

Twenty said...

The American Revolution happened because England was tyrannical ...

So the scriptural command (in your telling) is inoperative in some cases? Including "tyranny"? Do you really want to make the argument that George III was more "tyrannical" than Caesar Augustus/Tiberius/Gaius Caligula, &c.? Okay then.

For my part, I set little store by the notion that we are commanded by God to submit to illegitimate earthly authority.

Anonymous said...

"The vast majority of "female leaders" enjoy no legitimacy in my eyes, as they are manifestly unsuited to their stations."

It's irrelevant whether you think they are legitimate or not. No one cares.

Try disobeying one of their laws, and you'll get the same punishment as anyone else.

AJ said...

@Anonymous

It's irrelevant whether you think they are legitimate or not. No one cares.

Try disobeying one of their laws, and you'll get the same punishment as anyone else.


Not true; I care. And they can try this "punishment" you speak of if they like, but just like the Minutemen of two centuries past many of us keep our guns cleaned and loaded. I'll "fashion" a whip just for good measure.

Twenty said...

It's irrelevant whether you think they are legitimate or not. No one cares.

All revolt begins with the idea that obedience is not required. And I do more than think they are illegitimate. I say they are illegitimate.

Try disobeying one of their laws, and you'll get the same punishment as anyone else.

Before you can punish me, you have to catch me. All societies extract obedience through direct force in a tiny number of cases, fear in a somewhat larger number of cases, and habit in the vast majority.

The recognition of illegitimacy frees me from the habit, and reasonable risk assessment addresses the fear. Force is pretty easy to avoid.

Anonymous said...

Last week, I read a study which said around 40% of young men in the US would like to move to another country. That does not bode well for the US.
###
As a civilization grows, it is inevitable that women will get the right to vote.

Once women get the right to vote, it is inevitable they will eventually dominate the political system.

Once they dominate the political system, it is inevitable their demands for more and more protections (even against their own mistakes, for example, adulterous women getting the kids; the house; the car; and money for life) and benefits paid for by men will bankrupt the society, destroy marriage and the society will collapse. Please carry on, Jennifer.

Anonymous age 69

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Why is it so bad if 40% of the young men move out of the country?

Anonymous said...

". . . even against their own mistakes, for example, adulterous women getting the kids; . . ."

Perhaps they get the kids because the father thinks the kids are a "mistake", as you do.

I would never call a gift from God a "mistake".

Jennifer said...

Oh Anon. Keep these ridiculous thoughts to yourself.

Anonymous said...

"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. "

Sorry, Jennifer. It's not my thought, it's from Scripture.

Notice, it doesn't say "children born of a marriage are a blessing from the Lord."

It's all children. All of them. None are a mistake. You sound like you must be prochoice

Jennifer said...

LOL Nice try. You expect husbands to want to keep kids born out of their wives' adultery and then accuse me of being liberal? Talk about the ultimate guilt-trip on men.

Anonymous said...

You misread me. Someone was complaining that "adulterous" women got to keep the kids (as opposed to what men getting to keep them). He said that they were then benefiting from their "mistake"--they were adulterous and still got to keep the kids! Oy vey!

Nothing to do with your point that men should not have to support kids they have outside of marriage.

You prefer those kids go hungry, I guess. How Christlike. Merry Xmas to you.

Jennifer said...

No. He said they get protection AGAINST their mistakes, by laws allowing them to keep the kids and everything else inspite of their adultery. In fact, he was most likely referring to the children that were made WITHIN the marriage. Yes, he called the adultery a mistake, whether it produced children or not. OY VEY! How judgemental.

Anonymous said...

If adultery is a mistake, there are a lot of very powerful men making that mistake. Quite a lot of male politicians, in fact. (and very few female politicians. . . or at least they aren't dumb enough to be caught)

Still, there are lots of famous men making this mistake. It's because their wives aren't submissive enough, of course.

Jennifer said...

I agree about the silly submission blame. But if the men having affairs produced children, which their mistresses dumped on them, would you expect their wives to raise these children?

Anonymous said...

"But if the men having affairs produced children, which their mistresses dumped on them,. . ."

Dumped on them? You really don't like kids, do you? Have you forgotten these are innocent children, blessings in the eyes of the Lord?

The standard I use is "the best interest of the child." That's what the courts use, too. In most cases, it would not be in the best interest of the child to have an angry and resentful "mother". But if there were no other option, would you send such a child to foster care? WWJD?

Jennifer said...

Oh good Lord. You really do love dodging the issue in order to demonize everyone else, don't you?

Jennifer said...

Are you saying that you find those leaders illigitimate JUST because they're female? Or because they're unfitted for their roles for another reason, Twenty? And if you think the former, AJ, and really intend to keep guns loaded and a whip ready for these wicked females, nothing I could say could help you.

I certainly will carry on, Anon, not buying into the idea that women voting somehow = women demanding dominance and ultra-liberalism in everything. Maybe you should look into Phyllis Schafly's work, who took the trouble to point out, as did Margaret Thatcher, that they both came into powerful life-work without the help of feminism. And why? Because there's a huge difference between women voting, working and being in authority, and being an insane, ultra-leftist feminist. In fact, the U.S. was already heading towards women doing the former well-before the latter came around.

Rmaxd said...

@Amy

"Remember that Scripture commands us to obey our government. The fact that you may not like the leaders is irrelevant; you need to obey God's Word. "

The bible does no such thing ...

Rmaxd said...

@Jennifer

"not buying into the idea that women voting somehow = women demanding dominance and ultra-liberalism in everything."

So feminist lobbied, no fault divorce, & affirmative action for women, & child welfare, not voted for by women?

Women basically didnt vote to destroy marriage & families, precisely because they werent given voting power to do so?

What twisted delusional hole are you posting from? lol

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

Aren't you the same one who believes in "open" relationships and is rather slanted towards one sex yourself? Feminists did all those things, not every woman, and my point was that women wanting to vote is not anywhere near the same as wanting them to rule over men. Noting, again, the women mentioned above.

gwallan said...

Jennifer said...

@gwallan

WHAT?????


Yes, Jennifer, it really happened.

Amy said...
Remember that Scripture commands us to obey our government. The fact that you may not like the leaders is irrelevant; you need to obey God's Word.

Scriptures demand nothing of the kind.

Those who would be free must be prepared to fight, to disagree with and to disobey those who would defile that freedom.

Principle must stand above loyalty and obedience.

Rmaxd said...

@Jennifer

Wth are you delusional Jennifer

Feminists ARE women ...

The vast MAJORITY of women are feminist

Also the vast MAJORITY of women, EVEN in the 50's, 60's, 70's voted for welfare, & easy to get out of marriage clauses

Why do you think the vast MAJORITY of women voted for no-fault divorce

So yes, giving women the vote, was the MAIN reason they were able to destroy through divorce & families ...

The vast MAJORITY of women were given the vote & THEY used that vote to destroy men & their families

Read this carefully ...

NO VOTE NO POLITICAL POWER

The vast MAJORITY of women ABUSED that vote


Enough with the NAWALT drivel ...


Btw pathetic attempt at trying to use Laura & other traditionalists as NAWALT ...

Dont you ever get tired of being a pathological liar?

Rmaxd said...

Btw my bad, I noticed you werent referring to Laura ...

But still stands, you tried to use other women as NAWALT, rather pathetically ... & pathologically ...

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

You don't seem to comprehend much yourself; understand this: promoting votes for women is NOT the same as promoting female rulership. The country was already increasingly giving women the vote long before the ultra-liberal ideas of abortion and cracks on marriage began. While most women identify themselves somehow with feminism, the majority are unaware of what it's really about; I called myself one, then dropped the label, even before I read the stunning remarks the most severe ones made about men and how they should be decreased in numbers.

Rmaxd said...

Jennifer now your arguements, not all votes are like that?

Did you even ready my quote?

"Also the vast MAJORITY of women, EVEN in the 50's, 60's, 70's voted for welfare, & easy to get out of marriage clauses""

Do you even know how long women, REGULAR women have been calling for rulership over men through abortion?

It was REGULAR women spreading tales of coat hangers & back alley abortions since the 1920's


Women have been calling for rulership over men for CENTURIES, are you even aware of the garbage catholic nuns have been spouting against men for centuries now?

Who do you think was one THE primary movers against men & their families?

Celibate lesbian nunneries

It was lesbian nunneries, who were responsible for a large part of the earlier feminism

ALSO women've been calling for everything for affirmative action & equal pay for centuries, INCLUDING regular women, NONE of it is new

There is an UNDENIABLE FACT women want rulership over men


What did women do with the vote?

They voted to strip men of their right to their families & destroyed the family unit


PROVING women have always wanted rulership over men

No vote, no political power, its that simple ...


Obviously not simple enough for a woman excuser like yourself ...


Also theres NO such thing as subconcious feminism, the vast majority of women buy into it PRECISELY because they agree with its principles

There are NO innocents when it comes to hate & feminist radicalism


All women are innocent even proven guilty, right jennifer?


Face some BASIC facts jennifer


REGULAR women have been calling for feminism over men for CENTURIES, precisely because it gives them rulership over men


History proves it, the facts prove it, but then again you're not interested in logic, or reason

As you're a typical feminist woman, who happens to agree with some manosphere precepts ...


It's perfectly CLEAR, if women NEVER had the vote, there would be no no fault divorce, no destruction of families, no massive promiscuity & no destruction of religious & traditional social structure


& women have wanted that for CENTURIES

The need for womens Rulership over men didnt happen overnight, it has a long & clear obvious history

Jennifer said...

Women want rulership over men through abortions; seriously? Do you have any idea how many men are FOR abortion, so they don't have to pay for unwanted children? If women have wanted rulership, men have wanted and HAD rulership, and there have been some damn nasty members of both sexes for some time. Equal pay and jobs, what horrific, man-hating demands. And lesbian nunneries; wow. This is thus far the biggest manosphere conspiracy-theory bullsh** I've seen yet.

Rmaxd said...

So no real rebuttals, then Jennifer?

Not surprised ... typical fembot

Rmaxd said...

Lesbian Nuns Abuse other nuns just like priests abuse children.

Article archived at :

http://www.libchrist.com/political/lesbiannuns.html


A national survey, completed in 1996 but intentionally never publicized, estimates that a "minimum" of 34,000 Catholic nuns, or about 40 percent of all nuns in the United States, have suffered some form of sexual trauma. Some of that sexual abuse, exploitation or harassment has come at the hands of priests and other nuns in the church, the report said.


The survey is the only national scientific study dealing with the sexual victimization of nuns in the Catholic Church, according to its researchers. Despite the scope of its findings several years ago, no further studies have been done, they say.


The SLU study is the result of a 15-page survey returned by 1,164 nuns representing 123 religious orders throughout the United States. The large majority of nuns surveyed were highly educated; more than 9 of 10 who returned questionnaires had at least a college education.

Rmaxd said...

Fundamentalist Catholic Claims that Nuns Have Done 'Nuclear Damage' to the Church


in the wake of Vatican investigations into female religious orders, proclaimed that there should be no dialogue. He went on to explain that "modernist nuns" have done "nuclear damage" to the Catholic church.


He characterized modern day nuns as "priest wannabe, radicalized feminist, lesbian-loving, feminism run amok, New Age worshiping, goddess adoring heretics who seem more angry about not being men than anything else."

Voris claims that the only thing wrong with the investigations is that they have not occurred 30 years earlier.


http://www.goddiscussion.com/37634/fundamentalist-catholic-claims-that-nuns-have-done-nuclear-damage-to-the-church/

Rmaxd said...

So still a conspiracy theory jennifer?


Or are you going to wail conspiracy theory & run off?



Unlike your drivel, jennifer I've done my research, I KNOW how feminist scum've worked down through the ages ...

It's a pity you never will ..

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

That second report discusses "modernist" nuns, not nuns throughout all time. Not too surprising, except that most femmies want totally free-style lives. So your argument, then, is that all women are corrupt and want to dominate men? That a woman wanting to vote means she wants to ruin a man's life by default? Do you realize how easily it would be for me to claim the same about men (that they just want to dominate), including religious men? Moreover, nuns being abused by other nuns and priests have nothing whatsoever to do with ruling over men.

I've done plenty of research, and don't give a rat's ass about feminists; what I care about is trying to villainize ONE sex.

Jennifer said...

Doug, why were you even ON the site that you first linked to? Some gross, free--sex-for-all crap by people pretending to be Christian? That article about sexual abuse couldn't even be backed up.

Rmaxd said...

Catholic nun's have ALWAYS been feminist & progressive

In the 1500's nunneries were basically whore houses & lesbian riddled feminists


Sex and the Renaissance Nun

Why Venetian nunneries were once hotbeds of passion.

Historians have established that Venetian nunneries were the most liberated in Europe.

By the 1500s, the famous nunneries of Venice even attracted tourists

The Venetian diarist Girolamo Priuli denounced them as unofficial courtesans, sleeping with foreigners in exchange for financial presents.

This discreet arrangement exploded in scandal in 1561, when a convent founded for reformed prostitutes was discovered to be in business, with the Father confessor as pimp, having had relations with 20 of his charges himself.

Still, only one convent became so flagrant that it was closed by the pope in 1474 — Sant’Angelo di Contorta.

The others continued their libertine activities unabated. As the author Elizabeth Abbot sums up, in a line worthy of Pietro Aretino himself: “Unwilling nuns understood only the hot tingling of their yearning loins.”

If a nun fell pregnant, she would simply give birth in the privacy of the convent and the pass the child off as an orphan abandoned on the doorstep.

Church officials in Venice and Rome turned a blind eye to these activities, but reluctantly investigated some of the most blatant and scandalous cases.

Jennifer said...

Ewwweeeee. People should never try to use celebacy to repress strong sexual urges. There have been many devout nuns and priests, but the word "unwilling" in the sentence about fiery nun loins says it all: too many women, often after committing some indiscretion, were sent away back then to nunneries. And then what happened? Enough lustful girls fill it, they start acting out. Same with homosexuals, or horny hetero men, who either came onto nuns or other priests.

The Venetian nuns don't surprise me that much. Venice used to be very known for its courtesans, and such women were even allowed to be educated. It was actually considered by some to be an enviable position.

Rmaxd said...

Anyway back to why women shouldnt be allowed to vote ...

& in jennifers case, use the internet, or heavy machinery ...



TFH -
"Women voting can have positive (or at least neutral) effects at first. But by the 3rd and 4th generation, they have rigged so many things in their favor that society falls apart.

Also, manginas/whiteknights emerge much more in societies where women have the right to vote. There are far few in non-democratic societies except at the individual micro-level.

So part of the negative of women voting is that it also creates a mangina voting block. Thus, 70% of the electorate is actively seeking to rig things against men."

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

Women are now to blame for effeminate men? Men have been white knights for centuries, back then too doing more than we ever needed. We were already heading towards equality, but massive liberal movements, including feminism, soured everything. You, though, are thriving in it; were it not for such movements, you couldn't have the marriage-free promiscuity you enjoy now without public condemnation.

Rmaxd said...

lol jennifer theres no such thing as equality

The poor are poor, precisely because theyre poor at bettering themselves

Blacks & ethnics, are hated precisely because theyre foreign & are rightfully treated as invaders usurping the local economy & assisting corporate exploitation


Women are hated in corporations & in the workplace, precisely because they dont know how to compete in environments created for men & their biology is designed for localised social networks


So are you still arguing women should be allowed to vote or not?


Give women the vote, & they'll use it to destroy other women, & men

In the exact same way, women destroyed their own nunneries & institutions & turned them into institutes of prostitutes & whores

Without men, women debase themselves to the point of prostitution & turn into social degenerates

In the exact same way, feminists without men are basically degenerates, & resort to lesbianism & degenerate lifestyles such as feminism & single mothers, in their attempts to replace men in their lives

Jennifer said...

"Without men, women debase themselves to the point of prostitution & turn into social degenerates"

You're insane. There wouldn't BE prostitution were it not for its MALE customers and the pimps. You blame all that junk on nuns when priests have been shown to be equally guilty? You blame abortion on women when it's been largely male doctors performing them, not to mention countless boyfriends promoting it? Doug, look at you: you're being the kind of man described above. You're allowing your live-in partner to whore herself and you're doing the same. You don't give a damn about honoring her, or raising her children, or honoring yourself; you paint a blind picture of men that you don't even fit.

"Blacks & ethnics, are hated precisely because theyre foreign & are rightfully treated as invaders usurping the local economy & assisting corporate exploitation"

Even greater insanity. When was the last time blacks as a whole were FOREIGNORS? Oh yeah: when they were carted into the country to be slaves. The only invaders are ILLEGAL aliens; those who are legal are as American as you, maybe moreso in their lifestyles, raising kids and supporting families, practicing traditional faith.

Jennifer said...

"In the exact same way, feminists without men are basically degenerates, & resort to lesbianism & degenerate lifestyles such as feminism & single mothers, in their attempts to replace men in their lives"

In this, I'll agree; men and women need each other. And while society has a DAMNED hard time understanding it, we're meant to have one lifelong partner in our lives. I see gamers complain about feminism, and I don't blame them, but then they whine that women should just accept that men were "meant" to have numerous partners; they hate feminism, but don't mind the spoils, or increasing the casualties that liberalism brought us. It was the liberal absence of God that really began to do us in.

Anonymous said...

"@Amy

'Remember that Scripture commands us to obey our government. The fact that you may not like the leaders is irrelevant; you need to obey God's Word.'

The bible does no such thing ..."

Yes, actually, it does do such a thing. For example, Romans 13:1-6
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing."


"Unlike your drivel, jennifer I've done my research"

Yes, you obviously know as much about history as you do about scripture.
From your well-informed post on The Spearhead:
"Women have in fact been stayathome moms for centuries, theyve NEVER had to work for centuries, they have now had centuries of shelter & protection from corporations, theyve had massive amounts of leisure, in fact more leisure then most working males through out history."

"Blacks & ethnics, are hated precisely because theyre foreign & are rightfully treated as invaders"

Yes, unlike the white folk who are indigenous to the Americas... oh, wait...

Jennifer said...

Thank you, Anon; we ARE told to obey the authorities, with exceptions if they're corrupt. Women didn't work for centuries? Raising kids, washing their clothes, tilling farms, being pioneer wives? Or Native American women? As for some rich women, perhaps they wished for something more than being listless. In any case, now fathers have the choice of being home with their children if they wish, and that's work too. It's a rare arrangement, but a valid choice.

sestamibi said...

"Well, nearly 100 years later and has politics really changed now that women can vote? Of course what will be said, is that not enough women are voting or not enough women are involved in politics. "If we can just get MORE women involved, then we will see a difference".

Or maybe men should be precluded from voting and political participation because they caused all the problems. Expect to hear such an idiotic proposal to be seriously advanced in 10-20 years.

Jennifer said...

Sesti, I'm sure in more private feminist quarters it's been suggested already.