FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Draft America's Daughter's Act
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(05-19-2016, 09:51 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]DS, I saw this article and thought of all your anger and frustration.  Thought I might share.  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/19/the-...an-haters/

Now, keep in mind, I'm not trying to open a can of worms here.  The article expresses some of your frustration but also points out some positives attached to marriage.  Please, please, please don't shoot me for sharing it.

Very sad, but not surprising.

"Social scientists estimate that about 42 percent of first marriages end in divorce and about 66 percent of divorces are initiated by women. This means that a lot of men are divorced unwillingly, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for not-so-good reasons."

Why put all that effort and sacrifice in, when you're constantly told about how much of a burden children are, and you know their mother can take it all away from you in an instant? No-fault divorce is right up there with contraception and abortion in the destruction of the family, and I think the goal of much of the feminist movement was exactly that. Get rid of "father knows best" and replace it with "the government knows best", and you've got the perfect leftist society. Marriage, with protection for men through few divorce laws and laws favouring the father when it comes to custody, encourages men to sacrifice and protect their families. What we have now encourages men to look out only for themselves, with women being taught they can't trust men, and we see the results.
Horrible isn't it!  It's just so sad that marriage has been corrupted so completely.  We deserve better.  Our children certainly deserve better.  I can't imagine ever keeping my husband away from his children: they need him.  They need his guidance, his love.  Dads have a profound influence on their kids.  This is all just so wrong . . .
There's a list floating around the Internet that was entered into the Congressional Record in 1963. It's from the book The Naked Communist, written in 1958 by a former FBI agent. It's debated whether it's authentic or not, but if it isn't, it's completely believable:

1) US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2) US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3) Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength."

4) Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5) Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites.

6) Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7) Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.

8) Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN.

9) Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10) Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN.

11) Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo).

12) Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13) Do away with loyalty oaths.

14) Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office.

15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US.

16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.

18) Gain control of all student newspapers.

19) Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.

22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.

23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man".

31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture": Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35) Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36) Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37) Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.

43) Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44) Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45) Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
(05-18-2016, 10:48 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to touch the whole, "you've got to do something to change the world" thing.  I am a teacher, a mom, work in my community and try very hard to effect change.  I'm not sure what to do.  Do you have an idea of what I can do to make feminazis shut up an accept that they aren't the center of the universe.  I think that's a job so big I don't even know where to start.

Well, you can't force them to accept they are losers. What you can do is organize a counter-feminist group that provides an alternative POV to women's issues based on tradition. There is a group, for instance, Feminists For Life that support pro-life efforts. I still have a problem using the word feminist, but you get the point. Although one could argue that Catholicism already does this, unfortunately the religious label scares people away. As much as I would like to see Catholicism be welcomed back into the public sphere I think we have to accept for now that if we want to reach the maximum number of people there has to be a secular argument.

(05-18-2016, 10:48 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]As for the whole, letting men lead, I think you didn't quite get what I mean.  I'm not talking about a confrontation between a pro-abort lunatic who is screaming at you and telling you not to have an opinion.  I'm talking about letting the man lead in the context of family life.  I'm all for telling that pro-abort to shove it and I'd be happy to step up to the plate - even if it wasn't my husband taking the brunt of her tirade. 

But at home, our boys can't learn to lead if they don't see their father do it.  Our daughters can't accept male authority if they never experience it.  A lot of women like to be the authority on all things child related and tell their husbands what they do wrong.  They berate even under the guise of submission.  Pilgrim wasn't always the leader of our family.  As I said to Zubr, I was the primary bread winner and even his boss at one point.  I had to choose to submit in order to find peace in our home.  When I say women need to be encouraged to let men lead, that's what I mean.  The same thing needs to happen in our parish communities.  If we want men to be involved, then we need to back off a bit and let them do it.  They are grown men and don't need to be micro-manged.  Now, if my husband wants my help (or my opinion), I'm right there with him.  I'm happy to do it. 

.....

I have no disagreement with this, but I was speaking specifically on how to push back the forces of evil in the culture war in society at large. Teaching kids at home is a start, but we have to recognize that many kids will not get such instruction from their parents so there needs to be an alternative way for them to get such exposure.

(05-19-2016, 09:51 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]DS, I saw this article and thought of all your anger and frustration.  Thought I might share.  http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/19/the-...an-haters/

Now, keep in mind, I'm not trying to open a can of worms here.  The article expresses some of your frustration but also points out some positives attached to marriage.  Please, please, please don't shoot me for sharing it.

Don't worry, my flamethrower is out of fuel at the moment! The "positives" as "Turd Monkey" pointed out are rather subjective. What good is living longer if you are living in misery? I do however think that the idea of bedding a lot of women as "pay back" is counter productive and still gives women an undue amount of influence over a man. No one can escape the psychobiological consequences of sex. Whether you are a man or woman your brain is forever altered by a sexual encounter with the opposite sex. These guys that think bedding a lot of women is the way to emerge victorious is signing their own treaty of surrender. The end result is they only end up angrier.

I also take issue with them saying it is a minority of men. I think a minority is vocal, but a majority is on board with at least eschewing marriage. Rather than listen to the concerns, feminists and their political operatives just want to sweep them under the rug. Only a matter of time before men give up all together IMO. The ironic this is this. The one who says "NO" actually has more influence than the one that says "YES." The reason being is that the desire of the one who desires can be exploited. Sooner or later women will have to accept men's terms if they want to have a family or do it on their own via in vitro. Raising a kid by yourself is not exactly something people loo forward to doing so its not likely to become the best option.

The silver lining to all of this though is that it will become harder and harder for feminist or feminist-influenced women to have kids effectively putting an end to passing on their godless ideology. Natural selection of a higher order IMO.........
I'm not totally in love with names like "Feminists For Life."  There has to be a better name than that.  :)  The moment you call yourself a feminist, you take on a mantle and claim a parity to most feminists and that works against the message - at least I think so.  But I will figure something out.  There have to be some counter-feminist authors out there with a following.  I'll do some research and see what I can manage.

I can't educate every child out there but that was a huge advantage in the school I used to teach at.  It presented strong gender roles, respect, and championed virtue in ways the average public school can't.  I loved teaching there.  It was an extraordinary place to be.  It still is.  Pilgrim and I give a lot of time to projects there.

I'm glad your flame thrower is out of fuel.  :grin:  That article was truly depressing.  If that's what men think and how they feel, it is truly tragic. 

I've looked at that silver lining at lot and I keep hoping.  :)
(05-19-2016, 04:10 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not totally in love with names like "Feminists For Life."  There has to be a better name than that.  :)  The moment you call yourself a feminist, you take on a mantle and claim a parity to most feminists and that works against the message - at least I think so.  But I will figure something out.  There have to be some counter-feminist authors out there with a following.  I'll do some research and see what I can manage.

I can't educate every child out there but that was a huge advantage in the school I used to teach at.  It presented strong gender roles, respect, and championed virtue in ways the average public school can't.  I loved teaching there.  It was an extraordinary place to be.  It still is.  Pilgrim and I give a lot of time to projects there.

I'm glad your flame thrower is out of fuel.  :grin:  That article was truly depressing.  If that's what men think and how they feel, it is truly tragic. 

I've looked at that silver lining at lot and I keep hoping.  :)

Exactly! Apparently the famous feminist slogan "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" had its roots in an anti-God saying (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/fitting/). Not surprised.
(05-19-2016, 07:49 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-19-2016, 04:10 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not totally in love with names like "Feminists For Life."  There has to be a better name than that.  :)  The moment you call yourself a feminist, you take on a mantle and claim a parity to most feminists and that works against the message - at least I think so.  But I will figure something out.  There have to be some counter-feminist authors out there with a following.  I'll do some research and see what I can manage.

I can't educate every child out there but that was a huge advantage in the school I used to teach at.  It presented strong gender roles, respect, and championed virtue in ways the average public school can't.  I loved teaching there.  It was an extraordinary place to be.  It still is.  Pilgrim and I give a lot of time to projects there.

I'm glad your flame thrower is out of fuel.  :grin:  That article was truly depressing.  If that's what men think and how they feel, it is truly tragic. 

I've looked at that silver lining at lot and I keep hoping.  :)

Exactly! Apparently the famous feminist slogan "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" had its roots in an anti-God saying (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/fitting/). Not surprised.

You've got to stop reading Dalrock and the rest of the manosphere. It will only add fuel to the fire. You're better off reading this: https://bonald.wordpress.com
(05-21-2016, 11:04 PM)introvert Wrote: [ -> ]You've got to stop reading Dalrock and the rest of the manosphere. It will only add fuel to the fire. You're better off reading this: https://bonald.wordpress.com

1) That bonald guy sounds interesting....he's dropping lots of science terms so he speaks my language. I'll check him out. FYI, he links to Dalrock.

2) Not giving up Dalrock or what you call the "manosphere." They aren't perfect, but sometimes a guy needs a place to go blow off steam in the absence of women.
(05-21-2016, 11:18 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2016, 11:04 PM)introvert Wrote: [ -> ]You've got to stop reading Dalrock and the rest of the manosphere. It will only add fuel to the fire. You're better off reading this: https://bonald.wordpress.com

1) That bonald guy sounds interesting....he's dropping lots of science terms so he speaks my language. I'll check him out. FYI, he links to Dalrock.

2) Not giving up Dalrock or what you call the "manosphere." They aren't perfect, but sometimes a guy needs a place to go blow off steam in the absence of women.

I honestly don't think any woman should be participating at Dalrock, and they do. It's become a male space only recently. I'm also not calling Dalrock and so forth the manosphere, as they readily identify as such. There's the locker room manosphere (where I consider Dalrock to be, and dare not venture), and there's the more Catholic room of the manosphere, like Bonald. I don't consider them manosphere bloggers much anyway, because their philosophies are often in contradiction with the ongoing vein if you pay close attention.

Tbh, as Catholics, we should be careful what we read, as a lot of the stuff out there is contrary to our faith and the way we should be conducting ourselves. It's why I don't read a lot of alternative right blogs anymore. If they don't identify as TLM Catholics or traditional Catholics, and aren't family-oriented I hesitate to read.

If you think Bonald's interesting, you should try https://orthosphere.wordpress.com and https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com
(05-18-2016, 10:25 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]DS, this is the most civil conversation I've had with you and I am really enjoying it.  I'm glad you're back!

:) That makes me happy to read that.

I want to tell you all something about DS that you might not know: it's HE who spent a LOT of time and energy making the new software upgrade to this forum, and who tweaks it now, adding mods and so forth. He's also offered to always be there if I need any help with the tech end of things. IOW, DS has been nothing BUT kind and good to me, a woman.

I totally understand his anger at feminism. I have the same anger, trust me. They're making men's lives -- and women's lives -- Hellish. I worry a LOT about the world my grandson is growing up in -- a hundred times so because he's male.  I disagree with some of DS's points (I am very much not egalitarian, nor would I push for egalitarianism to get feminists back -- though I can absolutely understand imagining schadenfreude at the idea!), and sometimes lament how he goes about -- or went about? -- making those points, but seriously, DS is not a "woman-hater." I know this from "real life" (well, internet life) correspondence and dealings with him. He's been nothing but very generous and sweet to me, and I'm grateful. He's simply righteously angry (and, IMO, sometimes goes too far with regard to his solutions and in terms of how he expresses what he's very often absolutely right about) (and I sometimes disagree with his analysis of things -- e.g., the restroom issue, and I very much appreciate non-cucky "white-knighting" in the form of male protectiveness). But he's a good person at core, and I'm glad he posts here. So, YAY to getting along :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7