what is a good male role model? And how has feminism abandoned it?
Feminism has done a number of things...now i'm going to have to be very careful how i discuss this because as some of the replies to my posts recently show people are sometimes quick to jump to the wrong conclusions when someone tries to discuss this stuff
It's to avoid being misunderstood that i'm going to say a few things first to avoid being misunderstood
First off i believe men and women should have equal say in decision making
Secondly I think men and women should compliment each other, not compete and that they should recognise that they are part of a community that must work together in order to reproduce and to meet its various needs
That community of...lets call them 'workers' to borrow from marxist terminology are always exploited by another group of people...lets call them the 'capitalist class'
The 'workers' so the rationale goes...are those that work for a living
The 'capitalist class' are those that live off their investments
So the vast majority of men and women are actually working for a living and are therefore 'workers'. You could therefore argue that they are on the same team and that in order to build a platform whereby they are not exploited by the capitalist class they must work together
making sense so far?
So men and women HAVE been working together as a team for thousands of years. They both shared the various labours required to reproduce and to take care of the needs of the community.
Then in more recent times the game has been changed into a more modern work environment with the 'industrial revolution'. People flooded into the cities from the coutnryside to find work often being pushed off the land to make way for sheep (who in turn would provide wool on an industrial scale) or for industrialised scale farming
These men and women AND children were horribly exploited working in factories, mines and mills (what william blake called the 'dark satanic mills')
Even child labour was exploited because childrens smaller stature was seen as an advantage in some areas for example every home had an open fire (no central heating then) so boys were often used by chimney sweeps and sent up chimneys to clear blockages and so on
Boys were also conscripted into the military to serve on ships or as drummer boys in the army or as boy soldiers/sailors
Girls and boys were both used in the mills where they were made to crawl around under machinery picking up debris and their smaller hands were seen as advantageous for certain jobs requiring great dexterity
The pioneering work of social reformers like Robert Owen saw an improvement in living standards for workers with children being sent to schools set up near the mills and adults beginning to have some more humane working hours and conditions
Cooperatives began to form, as well as peoples societies where people paid their dues and received support in return; these then evolved into the trade unions
All through this time men AND women were being exploited in the work place
The poor who could not find work were put to work in the 'work houses' and charles dickens spent a time in one, as boy, and this experience sparked a lot of writings about the hardships of work houses as shown in his novel 'oliver twist'
The trade unions began to build some rights for workers and the 8 hour working day and weekends off became enshrined in the work place
We then entered the age of steel with ship building and railway building and of course the mining of iron ore and the extraction of the iron and manufacturing of the steel
This kind of work was brutal and suited men better. Women were still working but the yards and factories began to favour the muscle that men could provide. Women began to take on a more domesticated role and were able to do this more because the workers were able to negotiate a better deal whereby their womenfolk and children weren't constantly exploited in the work place too
This bring us upto the 20th century where whole generations of working men were decimated in a series of wars including the two world wars
The el-ites had to start making concessions to the workers not only because of the rise of working class politics but also because hundreds of thousands of battle hardened men were returning from the wars and could easily topple the capitalist class if they united with that goal
The workers were given a national health service in the UK and prefabricated homes ('homes for heroes') and better living conditions
Women had taken over mens jobs whilst the men were away fighting and this was fuelling calls for women to take a more active role in the workplace
I'm saying all this to destroy this perception some modern middle-class feminists seem to have that men have been enjoying freedoms that women haven't throughout history; the reality is that both men and women have been toiling through difficult and horrible conditions throughout history
So womens working rights were advancing regardless of modern 'feminism' which was basically hijaked by the marxists who sought to ride on the back of womens dissatisfaction at having to give up front line jobs on the return of the menfolk from war
The 1950's housewife had to give up the jobs she had done whilst the menfolk were away and was given a load of labour saving devices by the el-ites such as hoovers, toasters, electrical ovens, electrical irons etc etc so we see technology begin to change the domestic environment as well as the work environment
Although the work environment has favoured men upto this point due to the physical nature of a lot of the work a key thing to note is that only one of a couple had to work for them to be able to afford a home, a car and children etc
But with the process of women entering the work place enmasse something happened to disrupt that equilibrium
I want to be clear that i'm NOT advocating that women stay out of the work place and i'm NOT advocating a return to the old system i'm just at the moment looking objectively at how the process has rolled out
So what happened with women entering the work place is that the capitalist class (some of which were funding marxist feminism) suddenly had DOUBLE the workforce to choose from which by the law of 'scracity' meant that the value of the worker went DOWN
I want to pause for a minute here to remind the reader that men and women have been working together through history on the same team and that the idea of women v's men is a recent development
So suddenly men and women are being pitted against each other in competition for jobs and those jobs are now paying a much reduced wage because of the value of the workers going down which in turn requires both partners to work to make ends meet
The capitalist class are sitting rubbing their hands together because now they can pay their workers less because they are easier to replace and they can provide worse working conditions because the workers will put up with worse in order to get a job and also they are happy because team 'worker' is now divided along gender lines and fighting amongst itself which in turn means it is not able to build a strong and unified platform from which it can negotiate a better deal from the capitalist class
The el-ites are also happy because now they are able to tax both men and women
So this brings us upto date. The other development that occurs with women entering the workplace is that now there is no one to look after the children so the children will increasingly go into state sponsored childcare which is one of the aims of the marxists because the marxists want to replace men with the state
The state is to become the husband of the woman and the father of the children
The state has created a 'welfare system' whereby women who leave their male partner can be supported by the state financially through money paid for by the taxes extracted from male and female workers; this enables the state to replace the man of the house as a provider; this destroys mens currency making them nothing more than sperm donors
Men are still paying for the children through their taxes but now single mums can pretend that men aren't paying for their children because they can tell themselves that the state is paying for them...but the state gets its money from the taxes it takes from the workers who are subsidising other peoples children as well as their own
The other thing the state does is it takes on the role of a parent raising the children in childcare so that the men and women can go to work to get the money to pay for the taxes to keep the state holding onto their children
The marxist state wants the children in its care so that it can indoctrinate them and the british business community has just published a paper calling for more childcare
The marxist state does not want parents passing on their values to children it wants to pass on its values to children; the states values are that everyone works for and is the property of the state and that they must obey the state in all things
The feminists speak about overthrowing 'patriarchy' but what they fail to realise is that all they have done is remove male powers and replace them with state powers and the state is a far more domineering, controlling and oppressive influence than any man can ever be
if people don't think this then they are going to be in for a big suprise as the state increases its powers over the coming years; the state wants total control over every aspect of peoples lives and it has technological capabilites and legal capabilites to do things that no man can ever do. A state can take your home, it can take your children, it can spy in your home, it can lock you up, it can beat you, it can inject things into your body by forcful innoculation or microchip implantation, it can do almost anything to you but a man cannot do all these things
So 'patriarchy' (rule by male el-ites over the other men and women) has been replaced by the el-ites (with the help of the feminists) with startarchy (rule by psychopaths of both genders who can do whatever they like to you through their godlike state powers)
The el-ites who want a powerful state that they can control in order to then control the workers with it are also the people who masterminded the ideology of 'consumerism' which was born out of the work of sigmund freud
Consumerism works on peoples subconscious desires in order to get them to want things that they don't need and to get them to confuse 'needs' with 'wants'
One of the ways consumerism does this is to use sex to appeal to the subconscious desires of the consumer. For example a public relations firm hired by a car manufacturer to sell their cars will create an advert with a scantily clad woman lying suggestively on the bonnet of a car to associate sex with the product (the car) so that the consumer will on a subconscious level associate the car with sexual desire
Women too are manipulated in this way but women are often sold something different to men through this process. Just as men are bombarded with sexually suggestive images of women all the time on TV, online, in newspapers, on billboards, in magazines, in womens fashions etc women too see the same images; the effect on women is that they are then trained to see the world through the eyes of men
Women don't fantasise about sleeping with the sexy woman in the image they fantasise about becoming the woman in the image and they then spend lots of money on beauty products and clothes and plastic surgury and diet courses and all the rest thereby driving consumerism on even more
So what we have seen is the state replacing men in the household and we have seen feminism telling women to become more aggressive and more assertive so that they compete with men in the work place
This has created a conflict between the sexes which has been labelled the 'battle of the sexes' which is keeping the workers divided and more easily exploited by the capitalist class who have been able to drive down wages thereby requiring both parents to work and the children to go into state care
Women have been more aggressive with men and are supported by the law courts to break up with men because the law courts financially rewards women for divorce by giving them a large share of what the man has managed to build up through his labours and often the man is required to pay continued maintenance for the rest of his days
So there is every incentive for women to use men to get sperm to have a child and then to push the man away and to use the state as her new fella; thi smeans women can act less responsibly as they don't need to worry about the effects of their actions
This means women don't need to worry so much about love and stability in a relationship and instead can go for guys they are excited by (even if the guy is an ammoral psychopath with lots of money) or whose genes they desire for their children
Hector spoke in another thread about how women often don't fall in love with a man but rather fall into respect for them; this is referring to female desire for a strong alpha man which in our society would be men from the capitalist class who will be favoured over and above men from team worker (even though men in the capitalist class might be lacking or devoid of empathy)
If a woman falls out of respect for her man for example if he loses his job then there is every incentive for her to push him away and to start again or to fall back on the state welfare system (in contrast to the marriage vow of sticking together through thick and thin)
Another poster posted a youtube clip about 'misandry' which made the point that women are often never satisfied because of their evolutionary desire to keep chasing that alpha male; under this argument women will always be looking to trade upwards their man (and their status items such as their car, house, clothes etc for greater status); perhaps this is the reason behind the lyrics of the song ''when you're in love with a beautiful women you'd better watch your friends!!!'
So all the checks and balances on female dalliance have been removed and in fact they are now financially enouraged to break off from guys by the state; this has fuelled a wholesale destruction of the nuclear family which in turn means that many boys and girls are raised without a male role model who would in the past have acted as an example for those youngsters by showing them correct behaviour, disciplining incorrect behaviour and also he would have challenged them with adventurous play and sport and would have helped their self esteem, skills an knowledge
The loss of the male role model and father figure and their replacement with an unfeeling state and immature females who now no longer need to act responsibly is going to have drastic consequences for our society in terms of social stability
The feminists in turn say that this kind of talk is merely a male fear of 'female sexuality' and they say that miley cyrus twerking with her tongue out and a teddy bear on her chest in front of an audience of teenagers is 'empowering' but one has to wonder.....which is fuelling which? is female sexuality fuelling the miley cyrus performance or is miley cyrus fuelling female sexuality by conditioning the young with ideas of how they should act?
So it seems the marxist state wants women to be: overtly sexualising society, not living with the fathers of their children, working all the time, aggressively pushing men around, buying lots of consumer items and letting the state raise their kids
So where do the marxist state want men to be in all this? It would appear we too are to be taxed wage slaves with few rights regarding our children, who we must step aside and watch the sate raise; we are also to be exposed to the sexualised society but where men are to then go to get the sex that all this subconscious triggering is going to create a demand for i don't know
Aldous Huxley had insight into the ideas of the marxist fabians and he wrote in his book 'a brave new world' of public state organised orgies called 'orgy porgies' where human sexual desire was released in a state controlled way; children were born and raised in a laboratory by the state
So perhaps the sexual release aspect envisioned by the marxists is yet to be put in place although pornography, online dating and the underground prostitution trade is currently fulfilling that role in a messy and inelegant way
