T
Timothy17
Guest
Or so it would seem, but hence I urge you to read my homily for the necessary elaborations on the seperate points ; again, i) economy and philosophy, and ii) economy and technology, and how these all correlate.
Tim
- Status
Tim
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I think I’ll just accept that I’m not up to your abilities in economy and philosophy and leave it at that.Or so it would seem, but hence I urge you to read my homily for the necessary elaborations on the seperate points ; again, i) economy and philosophy, and ii) economy and technology, and how these all correlate.
Tim
T
Timothy17
Guest
Oh, and you but give me one more reason to be sad for you, for such things are not beyond anyone’s grasp.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Sadly, it would appear so.
J
Julianna
Guest
This discussion as gone far a field of the topic.
You don’t need a homily filled with flowery, guilt ridden adjectives to “change the subject” of the discussion.
Homilies have there place. This isn’t the place. A question was asked and answered by many several pages ago.
As a woman, the positive results of feminism are
You don’t need a homily filled with flowery, guilt ridden adjectives to “change the subject” of the discussion.
Homilies have there place. This isn’t the place. A question was asked and answered by many several pages ago.
As a woman, the positive results of feminism are
- vote
- to hold elected office
- work outside the home and/or be a SAHM
- prosecute my husband/boyfriend if he physically abuses me
- own property, drive, have my own money
- education
C
Cambridge
Guest
I guess you could call that the “consensus opinion,” but I think it is superficial at best and just plain wrong, at worst. Basically, those things are toxic to families and hence, nations.This discussion as gone far a field of the topic.
You don’t need a homily filled with flowery, guilt ridden adjectives to “change the subject” of the discussion.
Homilies have there place. This isn’t the place. A question was asked and answered by many several pages ago.
As a woman, the positive results of feminism are
Let’s stick to meat and potatoes of this discussion.
- vote
- to hold elected office
- work outside the home and/or be a SAHM
- prosecute my husband/boyfriend if he physically abuses me
- own property, drive, have my own money
- education
Naturally, they would be toxic to religious bodies as well. So, it is hard to believe, unless one is a “lover of death,” that those are positive things. However, you probably think I’m just nuts or something
Still, I feel like explaining myself. So… I think, in order to claim that Feminism has resulted in anything positive, you would first have to prove that Patriarchy had resulted in anything negative, because Feminism has undermined, attacked and tried to replace Patriarchy (with, somewhat ironically, Matriarchy). A lot of people would think that proving Patriarchy was wrong/needed major reforming, would be easy to do, but I don’t
However, I do think that men and women became corrupted by their leaders, who had become Degenerates. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude, that neither party (man or woman) felt they could trust the other party anymore. So, Degeneracy seems to have led to an understanding among the corrupted, that they needed “protection” from each other! I guess you could call Feminism a sort of cultural prophylactic. The logic I’m using here reminds me of a controversial comment, some would say recklessly, made by a sitting Pope.
C
Cambridge
Guest
If I take these one by one, they don’t seem quite so beyond criticism, as so many would assume. For example, voting. It doesn’t seem so great to me. Last Presidential election I got to choose between one guy who promised to end war (which I knew he wouldn’t anyway) and another guy who promised to end abortion (and I knew he wouldn’t either)! So, my vote seems worthless.As a woman, the positive results of feminism are
Let’s stick to meat and potatoes of this discussion.
- vote
- to hold elected office
- work outside the home and/or be a SAHM
- prosecute my husband/boyfriend if he physically abuses me
- own property, drive, have my own money
- education
In regards to holding “elected” office, that seems like nothing more than a paycheck and the “privilege” to drive in excess of the speed limit and, maybe, get a big desk to sit at. O.k., so it is just a good job; you don’t get to do anything that the regime doesn’t want you to do. So again, it is just about a paycheck and some status.
Working outside the home. First, women have always worked. But, assuming she means anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for women, then again I would say, it’s just about money and perhaps, some status.
Own Property, drive a car and legally possess money. Again, I think husbands have always been able to leave their estates to their wives, if they chose to, a woman could drive a car, if she had one and a woman could buy a house, if she had the money (which she could always possess), but that isn’t what I think she’s talking about here. I think what she means is using Media and Public Education and whatever means necessary, to coerce/convince men into treating women that way.
Men didn’t have a blank check to murder their wives or kidnap them. Need I say, that the percentage of women murdered by their husbands has not significantly changed as a result of all these sacrifices that have been made to our Civil Liberties, in the name of “protecting” women. Remember, when men lose their Civil Rights in one area, it gets generalized to other areas for EVERYONE
Can you say, “Police State?” Nobody seems to connect these dots maybe it’s got something to do with……Education; the term “education” has become a meaningless term. Nowadays, a kid graduates from high school, but can’t read or write. A prisoner is declared reformed and winds up on the six o’clock news crime report. Cable Television, again, need I say more? Yeah, I probably do. O.k., M.T.V., for example, seems dedicated to stimulating Vice and ridiculing Virtue. Well, that’s certainly one kind of education! You spend eight years getting a P.H.D. and wind up waiting tables! Your parent’s both work, you spend all day in school, watching t.v., hanging out with your friends or reading Time magazine and you are declared “raised” at age 16 or 18. We seem to live in a culture where people are irrationally afraid of the weather, the water, the food, the fuel, their houses, their clothes, their tools, their families, their bodies and The Church. Yet, we are told, ad nauseam, that we are living in the most enlightened era of mankind! Education, I’m not sure that we are getting the kind of teaching that we need. Again though, I don’t think this is what she means. I think she means women should be encouraged to get whatever Training/Credentials are required to get the highest paying and highest status jobs. So, again, it appears to be all about money and status.
Of course, it is also about Independence, taken to the extreme. The justification for which appears to be, women don’t want to depend on men in a culture that has abandoned Faith and Reason (not mind you, because of a failing on “men’s” part, but because “women” realize to reform men would require a return to Reason and Morality, which they, like men, are unwilling to do). So, the “positives” of Feminism appear to be the moral equivalent of a prostitute wearing a condom to protect their customer from getting a venereal disease. In other words, if one moral law hadn’t already been broken, there wouldn’t appear to be a need to break another, to prevent, what appears to be, an even greater tragedy. Where does it end? Well, I guess that depends on which direction you are headed.:christmastree1:
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Toxic! Please explain how each of these is “toxic” unless one is a “lover of death.”I guess you could call that the “consensus opinion,” but I think it is superficial at best and just plain wrong, at worst. Basically, those things are toxic to families and hence, nations.
Naturally, they would be toxic to religious bodies as well. So, it is hard to believe, unless one is a “lover of death,” that those are positive things. However, you probably think I’m just nuts or something
One by one, please. I’m especially interested in your reasoning on the first and fourth.
- vote
- to hold elected office
- work outside the home and/or be a SAHM
- prosecute my husband/boyfriend if he physically abuses me
- own property, drive, have my own money
- education
S
StTommyMore
Guest
This is hate speech hiding behind the veneer of “Christianity.” Repulsive.If I take these one by one, they don’t seem quite so beyond criticism, as so many would assume. For example, voting. It doesn’t seem so great to me. Last Presidential election I got to choose between one guy who promised to end war (which I knew he wouldn’t anyway) and another guy who promised to end abortion (and I knew he wouldn’t either)! So, my vote seems worthless.
In regards to holding “elected” office, that seems like nothing more than a paycheck and the “privilege” to drive in excess of the speed limit and, maybe, get a big desk to sit at. O.k., so it is just a good job; you don’t get to do anything that the regime doesn’t want you to do. So again, it is just about a paycheck and some status.
Working outside the home. First, women have always worked. But, assuming she means anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for women, then again I would say, it’s just about money and perhaps, some status.
Own Property, drive a car and legally possess money. Again, I think husbands have always been able to leave their estates to their wives, if they chose to, a woman could drive a car, if she had one and a woman could buy a house, if she had the money (which she could always possess), but that isn’t what I think she’s talking about here. I think what she means is using Media and Public Education and whatever means necessary, to coerce/convince men into treating women that way.
Men didn’t have a blank check to murder their wives or kidnap them. Need I say, that the percentage of women murdered by their husbands has not significantly changed as a result of all these sacrifices that have been made to our Civil Liberties, in the name of “protecting” women. Remember, when men lose their Civil Rights in one area, it gets generalized to other areas for EVERYONE
…Education; the term “education” has become a meaningless term. Nowadays, a kid graduates from high school, but can’t read or write. A prisoner is declared reformed and winds up on the six o’clock news crime report. Cable Television, again, need I say more? Yeah, I probably do. O.k., M.T.V., for example, seems dedicated to stimulating Vice and ridiculing Virtue. Well, that’s certainly one kind of education! You spend eight years getting a P.H.D. and wind up waiting tables! Your parent’s both work, you spend all day in school, watching t.v., hanging out with your friends or reading Time magazine and you are declared “raised” at age 16 or 18. We seem to live in a culture where people are irrationally afraid of the weather, the water, the food, the fuel, their houses, their clothes, their tools, their families, their bodies and The Church. Yet, we are told, ad nauseam, that we are living in the most enlightened era of mankind! Education, I’m not sure that we are getting the kind of teaching that we need. Again though, I don’t think this is what she means. I think she means women should be encouraged to get whatever Training/Credentials are required to get the highest paying and highest status jobs. So, again, it appears to be all about money and status.
Of course, it is also about Independence, taken to the extreme. The justification for which appears to be, women don’t want to depend on men in a culture that has abandoned Faith and Reason (not mind you, because of a failing on “men’s” part, but because “women” realize to reform men would require a return to Reason and Morality, which they, like men, are unwilling to do). So, the “positives” of Feminism appear to be the moral equivalent of a prostitute wearing a condom to protect their customer from getting a venereal disease. In other words, if one moral law hadn’t already been broken, there wouldn’t appear to be a need to break another, to prevent, what appears to be, an even greater tragedy. Where does it end? Well, I guess that depends on which direction you are headed.:christmastree1:
J
Julianna
Guest
For example, voting. It doesn’t seem so great to me. Feminism didn’t start in the 1960’s, it started well before that at least 100 yrs before. For women, the right to vote is indeed a precious right…I do agree however, that politics in of itself leaves me cold.
In regards to holding “elected” office, As women we have the opportunity, irregardless of our present political circumstance.
Working outside the home. First, women have always worked. But, assuming she means anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for women, then again I would say, it’s just about money and perhaps, some status. It was not my intent to state that women who were SAHM didn’t work. I was clear by stating, "outside, i.e. in addition to “the home”. The laws I refer to are the the laws that state you cannot sexually harrass a women in the workplace, nor can you deny her a promotion to an equally qualified man, whether he is married or not. Back in the day the justification for not promoting a woman was, “well she is married, her husband takes care of her”, or “I have to choose the man, because he is married and has a family to support.” or “I can’t choosed the single woman over the single man, because she will get married, get pregnant and I will be in a bind during maternity leave.” It is against the law to ask a woman if she is planning on having children, if she is married, or if she has children, their ages. I for one am glad that law exists.
Own Property, drive a car and legally possess money. Again, I think husbands have always been able to leave their estates to their wives, **Not talking about “estates”, I am talking about the “here and now”. She shouldn’t have to ask “permission” to buy groceries, nor should she be “put on an allowance” by her husband as if she were his child." These things are discussed “together”. **if they chose to, a woman could drive a car, “Who’s car would she drive? Is her name on the title?” if she had one and a woman could buy a house,**if she had a house, why would she buy oneNow is her name on the deed to the house? ** if she had the money (which she could always possess),She could only possess the money at her husband’s call. I am refering to back in the day. but that isn’t what I think she’s talking about here. I think what she means is using Media and Public Education and whatever means necessary, to coerce/convince men into treating women that way.
Men didn’t have a blank check to murder their wives or kidnap them. Need I say, that the percentage of women murdered by their husbands has not significantly changed as a result of all these sacrifices that have been made to our Civil Liberties, in the name of “protecting” women. Remember, when men lose their Civil Rights in one area, it gets generalized to other areas for EVERYONE
…Education; the term “education” has become a meaningless term. Nowadays, a kid graduates from high school, but can’t read or write. A prisoner is declared reformed and winds up on the six o’clock news crime report. Cable Television, again, need I say more? Yeah, I probably do. O.k., M.T.V., for example, seems dedicated to stimulating Vice and ridiculing Virtue. Well, that’s certainly one kind of education! You spend eight years getting a P.H.D. and wind up waiting tables! Your parent’s both work, you spend all day in school, watching t.v., hanging out with your friends or reading Time magazine and you are declared “raised” at age 16 or 18. We seem to live in a culture where people are irrationally afraid of the weather, the water, the food, the fuel, their houses, their clothes, their tools, their families, their bodies and The Church. Yet, we are told, ad nauseam, that we are living in the most enlightened era of mankind! Education, I’m not sure that we are getting the kind of teaching that we need. Again though, I don’t think this is what she means. I think she means women should be encouraged to get whatever Training/Credentials are required to get the highest paying and highest status jobs. So, again, it appears to be all about money and status.
Totally missed the boat on this one. How many women doctors, lawyers, press, senators, etc…were women back in the early 1900’s? Women were not encouraged to get an education. It went too far in the 50’s where a woman’s interest in going to college was to find a man and get married, vs. women in the 60’s and beyond went to college to the betterment of themselves. Education has been of great benefit to women. Unless of course you are a woman in the Middle East…where she can’t drive, can’t vote, has no money and is not educated. Sounds like paradise to you
Of course, it is also about Independence, taken to the extreme. The justification for which appears to be, women don’t want to depend on men in a culture that has abandoned Faith and Reason (not mind you, because of a failing on “men’s” part, but because “women” realize to reform men would require a return to Reason and Morality, which they, like men, are unwilling to do). So, the “positives” of Feminism appear to be the moral equivalent of a prostitute wearing a condom to protect their customer from getting a venereal disease. In other words, if one moral law hadn’t already been broken, there wouldn’t appear to be a need to break another, to prevent, what appears to be, an even greater tragedy. Where does it end? Well, I guess that depends on which direction you are headed.:christmastree1:
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Agreed.
L
larkin31
Guest
What’s wrong with asking for equal pay for equal work? What’s wrong about opening jobs to women that have been closed to them only out of the cultural practice of prejudice? What’s wrong with freedom of access to advancement for women, whether you like our present culture or not? You both complain (indirectly here) about economic injustice done to some, but then suggest that women seeking redress is somehow wrong. I don’t get it.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
LogicI guess you could call that the “consensus opinion,” but I think it is superficial at best and just plain wrong, at worst. Basically, those things are toxic to families and hence, nations.
Naturally, they would be toxic to religious bodies as well. So, it is hard to believe, unless one is a “lover of death,” that those are positive things. However, you probably think I’m just nuts or something
Still, I feel like explaining myself. So… I think, in order to claim that Feminism has resulted in anything positive, you would first have to prove that Patriarchy had resulted in anything negative, because Feminism has undermined, attacked and tried to replace Patriarchy (with, somewhat ironically, Matriarchy). A lot of people would think that proving Patriarchy was wrong/needed major reforming, would be easy to do, but I don’t
However, I do think that men and women became corrupted by their leaders, who had become Degenerates. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude, that neither party (man or woman) felt they could trust the other party anymore. So, Degeneracy seems to have led to an understanding among the corrupted, that they needed “protection” from each other! I guess you could call Feminism a sort of cultural prophylactic. The logic I’m using here reminds me of a controversial comment, some would say recklessly, made by a sitting Pope.
Where is the logic in this post?
C
Captain_America
Guest
Speaking of women owning property, take a good look at old Hetty Green, the Witch of Wall Street, circa 1890!
What percentage of the overall market did she own?
Amazing.
I find feminism confusing; it all depends on what woman you talk to.
What percentage of the overall market did she own?
Amazing.
I find feminism confusing; it all depends on what woman you talk to.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
It depend on whether you consider women people in any meaningful way.I guess you could call that the “consensus opinion,” but I think it is superficial at best and just plain wrong, at worst. Basically, those things are toxic to families and hence, nations.
Naturally, they would be toxic to religious bodies as well. So, it is hard to believe, unless one is a “lover of death,” that those are positive things. However, you probably think I’m just nuts or something
Still, I feel like explaining myself. So… I think, in order to claim that Feminism has resulted in anything positive, you would first have to prove that Patriarchy had resulted in anything negative, because Feminism has undermined, attacked and tried to replace Patriarchy (with, somewhat ironically, Matriarchy).
If you do not, then there is nothing wrong with a system that treats women as property, disposal commodities, and sinful near-animals whose mere presence is an invitation to sin for men (as women so often are in extreme examples of patriarchy).
If however, you consider women as intelligent beings with the same inherent worth, value, and right not be abused or killed as men (like I do), then YES patriarchy has resulted in some negative things.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
What you have written in this post is so fundamentally wrong it will take me a while to devise a detailed reply.If I take these one by one, they don’t seem quite so beyond criticism, as so many would assume. For example, voting. It doesn’t seem so great to me. Last Presidential election I got to choose between one guy who promised to end war (which I knew he wouldn’t anyway) and another guy who promised to end abortion (and I knew he wouldn’t either)! So, my vote seems worthless.
In regards to holding “elected” office, that seems like nothing more than a paycheck and the “privilege” to drive in excess of the speed limit and, maybe, get a big desk to sit at. O.k., so it is just a good job; you don’t get to do anything that the regime doesn’t want you to do. So again, it is just about a paycheck and some status.
Working outside the home. First, women have always worked. But, assuming she means anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for women, then again I would say, it’s just about money and perhaps, some status.
Own Property, drive a car and legally possess money. Again, I think husbands have always been able to leave their estates to their wives, if they chose to, a woman could drive a car, if she had one and a woman could buy a house, if she had the money (which she could always possess), but that isn’t what I think she’s talking about here. I think what she means is using Media and Public Education and whatever means necessary, to coerce/convince men into treating women that way.
Men didn’t have a blank check to murder their wives or kidnap them. Need I say, that the percentage of women murdered by their husbands has not significantly changed as a result of all these sacrifices that have been made to our Civil Liberties, in the name of “protecting” women. Remember, when men lose their Civil Rights in one area, it gets generalized to other areas for EVERYONE
…Education; the term “education” has become a meaningless term. Nowadays, a kid graduates from high school, but can’t read or write. A prisoner is declared reformed and winds up on the six o’clock news crime report. Cable Television, again, need I say more? Yeah, I probably do. O.k., M.T.V., for example, seems dedicated to stimulating Vice and ridiculing Virtue. Well, that’s certainly one kind of education! You spend eight years getting a P.H.D. and wind up waiting tables! Your parent’s both work, you spend all day in school, watching t.v., hanging out with your friends or reading Time magazine and you are declared “raised” at age 16 or 18. We seem to live in a culture where people are irrationally afraid of the weather, the water, the food, the fuel, their houses, their clothes, their tools, their families, their bodies and The Church. Yet, we are told, ad nauseam, that we are living in the most enlightened era of mankind! Education, I’m not sure that we are getting the kind of teaching that we need. Again though, I don’t think this is what she means. I think she means women should be encouraged to get whatever Training/Credentials are required to get the highest paying and highest status jobs. So, again, it appears to be all about money and status.
Of course, it is also about Independence, taken to the extreme. The justification for which appears to be, women don’t want to depend on men in a culture that has abandoned Faith and Reason (not mind you, because of a failing on “men’s” part, but because “women” realize to reform men would require a return to Reason and Morality, which they, like men, are unwilling to do). So, the “positives” of Feminism appear to be the moral equivalent of a prostitute wearing a condom to protect their customer from getting a venereal disease. In other words, if one moral law hadn’t already been broken, there wouldn’t appear to be a need to break another, to prevent, what appears to be, an even greater tragedy. Where does it end? Well, I guess that depends on which direction you are headed.:christmastree1:
Cambridge I suggest that in the future you gain at least a passing familiarity with a subject (like feminism, history, etc.) before commenting on it.
E
Elijah_Baley
Guest
Also agreed.
C
Cambridge
Guest
Julianna,
I read your responses and we seem to have very little in common. So, I’ll ask this instead. I wonder what you expect all this (“feminism”) to lead to or where do you think it has led, in regards to the permanency of marriage and the fruitfulness of those marriages?
I read your responses and we seem to have very little in common. So, I’ll ask this instead. I wonder what you expect all this (“feminism”) to lead to or where do you think it has led, in regards to the permanency of marriage and the fruitfulness of those marriages?
P
Pug
Guest
Man is fallen. There is no return to reason and morality in the works here, not until the second coming. It would be unreasonable to have a form of government or social institutions that failed to allow for the fallen condition of our race. Your argument, perhaps, is that it would be more reasonable to have a system wherein women do not vote, but some men do. Perhaps you mean that such a system of representative democracy is safer in our fallen world. It is unclear to me why you would say this, unless you see women as unable to vote freely, being naturally too beholden to other people to be said to be free? Like one might take the vote away from slaves, on the assumption that they will only vote as their master requires, giving him disproportionate/unfair representation?If I take these one by one, they don’t seem quite so beyond criticism, as so many would assume. For example, voting. It doesn’t seem so great to me. Last Presidential election I got to choose between one guy who promised to end war (which I knew he wouldn’t anyway) and another guy who promised to end abortion (and I knew he wouldn’t either)! So, my vote seems worthless.
In regards to holding “elected” office, that seems like nothing more than a paycheck and the “privilege” to drive in excess of the speed limit and, maybe, get a big desk to sit at. O.k., so it is just a good job; you don’t get to do anything that the regime doesn’t want you to do. So again, it is just about a paycheck and some status.
Working outside the home. First, women have always worked. But, assuming she means anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action for women, then again I would say, it’s just about money and perhaps, some status.
Own Property, drive a car and legally possess money. Again, I think husbands have always been able to leave their estates to their wives, if they chose to, a woman could drive a car, if she had one and a woman could buy a house, if she had the money (which she could always possess), but that isn’t what I think she’s talking about here. I think what she means is using Media and Public Education and whatever means necessary, to coerce/convince men into treating women that way.
Men didn’t have a blank check to murder their wives or kidnap them. Need I say, that the percentage of women murdered by their husbands has not significantly changed as a result of all these sacrifices that have been made to our Civil Liberties, in the name of “protecting” women. Remember, when men lose their Civil Rights in one area, it gets generalized to other areas for EVERYONE
…Education; the term “education” has become a meaningless term. Nowadays, a kid graduates from high school, but can’t read or write. A prisoner is declared reformed and winds up on the six o’clock news crime report. Cable Television, again, need I say more? Yeah, I probably do. O.k., M.T.V., for example, seems dedicated to stimulating Vice and ridiculing Virtue. Well, that’s certainly one kind of education! You spend eight years getting a P.H.D. and wind up waiting tables! Your parent’s both work, you spend all day in school, watching t.v., hanging out with your friends or reading Time magazine and you are declared “raised” at age 16 or 18. We seem to live in a culture where people are irrationally afraid of the weather, the water, the food, the fuel, their houses, their clothes, their tools, their families, their bodies and The Church. Yet, we are told, ad nauseam, that we are living in the most enlightened era of mankind! Education, I’m not sure that we are getting the kind of teaching that we need. Again though, I don’t think this is what she means. I think she means women should be encouraged to get whatever Training/Credentials are required to get the highest paying and highest status jobs. So, again, it appears to be all about money and status.
Of course, it is also about Independence, taken to the extreme. The justification for which appears to be, women don’t want to depend on men in a culture that has abandoned Faith and Reason (not mind you, because of a failing on “men’s” part, but because “women” realize to reform men would require a return to Reason and Morality, which they, like men, are unwilling to do). So, the “positives” of Feminism appear to be the moral equivalent of a prostitute wearing a condom to protect their customer from getting a venereal disease. In other words, if one moral law hadn’t already been broken, there wouldn’t appear to be a need to break another, to prevent, what appears to be, an even greater tragedy. Where does it end? Well, I guess that depends on which direction you are headed.:christmastree1:
I can’t say what factor it is (feminism (whatever that is), or whatever factor) that allows more education, but I can’t agree with you that education is a negative outcome. Yes, stupid things that masquerade as education are a negative outcome, but actual education is a positive. It is not all there is, of course. But being formed, educated, knowledgeable, and prudent are all a plus. Currently, I think we sadly fail to educate our youth. At least we mostly teach them to read and write, I grudgingly suppose.
Elected office, by the way, is an opportunity to serve the public good, which is good for the people and good for the one serving. Some people are quite talented that way. Let them serve, then. Do not let despair overwhelm you!
C
Cambridge
Guest
Certainly, mankind is still capable of good, even though we seem more prone to vice, than to virtue. You should watch, “Brother Orchid,” (1940) with Edward G. Robinson.
In regards to, vote = freedom; no vote = slavery, I think you are overgeneralizing. Do you really believe that prior to 1776, all Colonialists were slaves of The King of England?
I’m all for educating girls to be good wives and mothers!
As for “The Positives of Feminism,” I still say, you can wrap it all up under the heading of, **“Bandaids For The Revolution.” ** Scrap the revolution and you wouldn’t need the bandaids. So, don’t say I didn’t say anything positive, because I just did!
- Status