The idea that Christians shouldn't support morally questionable candidates is stupid
#11
(12-07-2017, 11:53 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: The Western world, esp. the U.S., is so sexually sick, it's hard to believe. When Our Lady and the examples of female Saints were thrown out, everything was set up for this sort of thing to happen. And those female Saints, note, weren't all like Ste. Therese of Lisieux (whom I adore); Catholic women owned businesses, taught in universities, led nations as Queens, led men in battle, ran hospitals and monasteries, etc. And most were homemakers, because, if everyone would shut the Hell up -- if the disgusting rad-trad and "White Sharia" types would stop belittling women and treating us like needless idiots, and if the feminists would stop pressuring every woman into some STEM field -- nature will out, and most women would want to raise children and make a home, while outlier women could get on with their fine selves. Win-win-win.

Oh If only that could happen.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#12
Women entering the work force en masse has to to be one of the worst and stupidest things that has ever happened to mankind. It really is. It's not like we're talking about every women who entered the workforce ended up getting high level degrees or are executives at big corporations or whatever. Nope, just like the vast majority of men, women are slaving away at 9-5 (or worse) crappy jobs. They gave up homemaking to work in an office for some corporation, or to be a nurse, teacher, secretary, or better yet to work at McDonalds, or to sell merchandise for Macy's, or whatever else. From a pure economic standpoint you've doubled the workforce, which in essence drives down compensation. Add into the fact that the prices of housing and everything else also increases because if two people are working then they have more to spend therefore we can charge more. Etc. 

However, we're kind of stuck at a point of no return. How can we go back? My only thoughts are automation to the point where there aren't enough jobs anymore or a complete economic collapse that shakes society to the point where things eventually self-regulate back to how they were.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
[-] The following 1 user Likes GangGreen's post:
  • BC
Reply
#13
(12-08-2017, 10:46 AM)GangGreen Wrote: Women entering the work force en masse has to to be one of the worst and stupidest things that has ever happened to mankind. It really is. It's not like we're talking about every women who entered the workforce ended up getting high level degrees or are executives at big corporations or whatever. Nope, just like the vast majority of men, women are slaving away at 9-5 (or worse) crappy jobs. They gave up homemaking to work in an office for some corporation, or to be a nurse, teacher, secretary, or better yet to work at McDonalds, or to sell merchandise for Macy's, or whatever else. From a pure economic standpoint you've doubled the workforce, which in essence drives down compensation. Add into the fact that the prices of housing and everything else also increases because if two people are working then they have more to spend therefore we can charge more. Etc. 

However, we're kind of stuck at a point of no return. How can we go back? My only thoughts are automation to the point where there aren't enough jobs anymore or a complete economic collapse that shakes society to the point where things eventually self-regulate back to how they were.

This.  No offense to the ladies but this is the gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about.  The pressure for every woman to work outside the home has contributed to more of society's problems today than most want to acknowledge.  To even suggest to the contrary is verboten.

Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO - Filmmaker and elite Aaron Russo

Aaron Russo, Academy Award nominated film producer and director, gave an interview before his death that explains what feminism was truly about. As a former friend and confidant of Nick Rockefeller and a Hollywood insider, Russo was privy to a lot of inside information. (Russo also warned about the coming implantation of RFID chips into the world population to establish complete control over the society. The first step to putting all money on the chips will be the removal of the $100 bill from the monetary system.)
In this classic interview, Russo recounts one of his conversations with Rockefeller.

Quote:Well, one of the things he told me was that — he was at the house one night and we were talking and he started laughing, he said, “Aaron, what do you think ‘women’s liberation’ was about?”
And I said — I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point — I said I think it’s about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
And he started to laugh and he said: “You’re an idiot.” And I said: Why am I an idiot?
 
He said, “Let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded Women’s Lib. And we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and televisions — The Rockefeller Foundation. You want to know why?”
There were two primary reasons.
 
And one reason was: “We couldn’t tax half the population, before Women’s Lib. And the second reason was: Now we get the kids in school at an early age. We can indoctrinate the kids how to think. So that it breaks up the family. Your kids start looking at the State as the family. As the school, as the officials as their family, not as the parents teaching them.”
And so, those are the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. When I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from when they created it, the thought of it, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.




Comment: 

Feminism is consistently supported by big business and government alike.  Why?

Big business benefits by getting two workers for the price of one from every household.  In the 1950's, one worker (typically male) could support a household by working 40 hours per week.  Now both husband and wife must work, often 50 hours a week or more each.  That's what happens when you double the workforce.  You push down the price of labor.

Government benefits because feminism allowed it to tax women's labor for the first time.  Government taxes women's income, plus imposes sales tax on the extra stuff they need to buy to maintain a job (e.g., another car, fuel, eating out, etc.).  Women working also makes it look like the GDP is growing, which makes government look good.

Everybody (besides "sexists")  has been conned...

We will never get a restoration of society if we have so many women outside of the home sending their children off to be raised by strangers.

We have the aberrant situation where homes and neighborhoods are ghost towns during the day, and huge cities of office parks are ghost towns at night.

Women used to have the community of other women around them for support and to socialize during the day.  These were real communities and not the meaningless "communities" we have today.  Because of the loss of ethnic neighborhoods, women feel isolated during the day and can't stand the thought of not working outside the home.  
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#14
(12-08-2017, 11:09 AM)BC Wrote:
(12-08-2017, 10:46 AM)GangGreen Wrote: Women entering the work force en masse has to to be one of the worst and stupidest things that has ever happened to mankind. It really is. It's not like we're talking about every women who entered the workforce ended up getting high level degrees or are executives at big corporations or whatever. Nope, just like the vast majority of men, women are slaving away at 9-5 (or worse) crappy jobs. They gave up homemaking to work in an office for some corporation, or to be a nurse, teacher, secretary, or better yet to work at McDonalds, or to sell merchandise for Macy's, or whatever else. From a pure economic standpoint you've doubled the workforce, which in essence drives down compensation. Add into the fact that the prices of housing and everything else also increases because if two people are working then they have more to spend therefore we can charge more. Etc. 

However, we're kind of stuck at a point of no return. How can we go back? My only thoughts are automation to the point where there aren't enough jobs anymore or a complete economic collapse that shakes society to the point where things eventually self-regulate back to how they were.

This.  No offense to the ladies but this is the gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about.  The pressure for every woman to work outside the home has contributed to more of society's problems today than most want to acknowledge.  To even suggest to the contrary is verboten.

Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO - Filmmaker and elite Aaron Russo

Aaron Russo, Academy Award nominated film producer and director, gave an interview before his death that explains what feminism was truly about. As a former friend and confidant of Nick Rockefeller and a Hollywood insider, Russo was privy to a lot of inside information. (Russo also warned about the coming implantation of RFID chips into the world population to establish complete control over the society. The first step to putting all money on the chips will be the removal of the $100 bill from the monetary system.)
In this classic interview, Russo recounts one of his conversations with Rockefeller.

Quote:Well, one of the things he told me was that — he was at the house one night and we were talking and he started laughing, he said, “Aaron, what do you think ‘women’s liberation’ was about?”
And I said — I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point — I said I think it’s about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
And he started to laugh and he said: “You’re an idiot.” And I said: Why am I an idiot?
 
He said, “Let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded Women’s Lib. And we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and televisions — The Rockefeller Foundation. You want to know why?”
There were two primary reasons.
 
And one reason was: “We couldn’t tax half the population, before Women’s Lib. And the second reason was: Now we get the kids in school at an early age. We can indoctrinate the kids how to think. So that it breaks up the family. Your kids start looking at the State as the family. As the school, as the officials as their family, not as the parents teaching them.”
And so, those are the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. When I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from when they created it, the thought of it, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.




Comment: 

Feminism is consistently supported by big business and government alike.  Why?

Big business benefits by getting two workers for the price of one from every household.  In the 1950's, one worker (typically male) could support a household by working 40 hours per week.  Now both husband and wife must work, often 50 hours a week or more each.  That's what happens when you double the workforce.  You push down the price of labor.

Government benefits because feminism allowed it to tax women's labor for the first time.  Government taxes women's income, plus imposes sales tax on the extra stuff they need to buy to maintain a job (e.g., another car, fuel, eating out, etc.).  Women working also makes it look like the GDP is growing, which makes government look good.

Everybody (besides "sexists")  has been conned...

We will never get a restoration of society if we have so many women outside of the home sending their children off to be raised by strangers.

We have the aberrant situation where homes and neighborhoods are ghost towns during the day, and huge cities of office parks are ghost towns at night.

Women used to have community of other women around them for support and to socialize during the day.  These were real communities and the meaningless "communities" we have today.  Because of the loss of ethnic neighborhoods, women feel isolated during the day and can't stand the thought of not working outside the home.  
Ethnic  neighborhoods were useful in building a parish community but now it seems that Catholics no longer have it.

I don't think that we can ever go back to the glory days of the Church and the world before the 1960's.

The Church leadership should encourage Catholics to simply build our own isolated communities where we can practice our Faith and Morals without secular culture around.
Reply
#15
(12-08-2017, 11:09 AM)BC Wrote: We will never get a restoration of society if we have so many women outside of the home sending their children off to be raised by strangers.

We have the aberrant situation where homes and neighborhoods are ghost towns during the day, and huge cities of office parks are ghost towns at night.

Women used to have the community of other women around them for support and to socialize during the day.  These were real communities and the meaningless "communities" we have today.  Because of the loss of ethnic neighborhoods, women feel isolated during the day and can't stand the thought of not working outside the home.  

Good point. Although, even for the women who are homemakers, the majority don't home school their kids. So once the kids are starting school what do the women do all day who are housewives? Modern luxuries have made housework take a fraction of the time that it used to. So instead you have women who just sit around all day watching their computers, cell phones, or TVs until the kids and their husband get home. I can imagine that it can get lonely. 

You would need to also overhaul the whole schooling system. I'm not sure that every parent has the intelligence or ability to home school their kids, but they should have involvement in their children's education regardless. There's no reason to keep kids in school for 6 or so hours per day if they can get a decent portion of their education at home. One would think that any person of average intelligence can do the job that most teachers do anyway. Most teachers only become good at what they do by doing it for a long time. Throw a teacher into a new subject matter and they have to learn the material just like anyone else. You aren't getting PhDs in mathematics teaching algebra in any US high school, let's be honest. What's funny is if every single family home schooled their children even until let's say high school age, you could eliminate 8 years of schooling. Know how much money that would save?
Reply
#16
(12-08-2017, 12:55 PM)GangGreen Wrote:
(12-08-2017, 11:09 AM)BC Wrote: We will never get a restoration of society if we have so many women outside of the home sending their children off to be raised by strangers.

We have the aberrant situation where homes and neighborhoods are ghost towns during the day, and huge cities of office parks are ghost towns at night.

Women used to have the community of other women around them for support and to socialize during the day.  These were real communities and the meaningless "communities" we have today.  Because of the loss of ethnic neighborhoods, women feel isolated during the day and can't stand the thought of not working outside the home.  

Good point. Although, even for the women who are homemakers, the majority don't home school their kids. So once the kids are starting school what do the women do all day who are housewives? Modern luxuries have made housework take a fraction of the time that it used to. So instead you have women who just sit around all day watching their computers, cell phones, or TVs until the kids and their husband get home. I can imagine that it can get lonely. 

You would need to also overhaul the whole schooling system. I'm not sure that every parent has the intelligence or ability to home school their kids, but they should have involvement in their children's education regardless. There's no reason to keep kids in school for 6 or so hours per day if they can get a decent portion of their education at home. One would think that any person of average intelligence can do the job that most teachers do anyway. Most teachers only become good at what they do by doing it for a long time. Throw a teacher into a new subject matter and they have to learn the material just like anyone else. You aren't getting PhDs in mathematics teaching algebra in any US high school, let's be honest. What's funny is if every single family home schooled their children even until let's say high school age, you could eliminate 8 years of schooling. Know how much money that would save?

At my high school there was a teacher with a PhD in mathematics I believe.
Reply
#17
(12-08-2017, 12:55 PM)GangGreen Wrote: You would need to also overhaul the whole schooling system. I'm not sure that every parent has the intelligence or ability to home school their kids, but they should have involvement in their children's education regardless. There's no reason to keep kids in school for 6 or so hours per day if they can get a decent portion of their education at home. One would think that any person of average intelligence can do the job that most teachers do anyway. Most teachers only become good at what they do by doing it for a long time. Throw a teacher into a new subject matter and they have to learn the material just like anyone else. You aren't getting PhDs in mathematics teaching algebra in any US high school, let's be honest. What's funny is if every single family home schooled their children even until let's say high school age, you could eliminate 8 years of schooling. Know how much money that would save?

Yeah my concern is more about strangers raising children in their formative years (0-5) when they really need their mother, because the mother has to go to work.
Reply
#18
(12-08-2017, 01:55 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote:
(12-08-2017, 12:55 PM)GangGreen Wrote:
(12-08-2017, 11:09 AM)BC Wrote: We will never get a restoration of society if we have so many women outside of the home sending their children off to be raised by strangers.

We have the aberrant situation where homes and neighborhoods are ghost towns during the day, and huge cities of office parks are ghost towns at night.

Women used to have the community of other women around them for support and to socialize during the day.  These were real communities and the meaningless "communities" we have today.  Because of the loss of ethnic neighborhoods, women feel isolated during the day and can't stand the thought of not working outside the home.  

Good point. Although, even for the women who are homemakers, the majority don't home school their kids. So once the kids are starting school what do the women do all day who are housewives? Modern luxuries have made housework take a fraction of the time that it used to. So instead you have women who just sit around all day watching their computers, cell phones, or TVs until the kids and their husband get home. I can imagine that it can get lonely. 

You would need to also overhaul the whole schooling system. I'm not sure that every parent has the intelligence or ability to home school their kids, but they should have involvement in their children's education regardless. There's no reason to keep kids in school for 6 or so hours per day if they can get a decent portion of their education at home. One would think that any person of average intelligence can do the job that most teachers do anyway. Most teachers only become good at what they do by doing it for a long time. Throw a teacher into a new subject matter and they have to learn the material just like anyone else. You aren't getting PhDs in mathematics teaching algebra in any US high school, let's be honest. What's funny is if every single family home schooled their children even until let's say high school age, you could eliminate 8 years of schooling. Know how much money that would save?

At my high school there was a teacher with a PhD in mathematics I believe.

That's a rarity. Most people with PhDs who teach do so at the university level
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#19
(12-07-2017, 11:53 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: The Western world, esp. the U.S., is so sexually sick, it's hard to believe. When Our Lady and the examples of female Saints were thrown out, everything was set up for this sort of thing to happen. And those female Saints, note, weren't all like Ste. Therese of Lisieux (whom I adore); Catholic women owned businesses, taught in universities, led nations as Queens, led men in battle, ran hospitals and monasteries, etc. And most were homemakers, because, if everyone would shut the Hell up -- if the disgusting rad-trad and "White Sharia" types would stop belittling women and treating us like needless idiots, and if the feminists would stop pressuring every woman into some STEM field -- nature will out, and most women would want to raise children and make a home, while outlier women could get on with their fine selves. Win-win-win.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)