Positive results of feminism ?

[Cambridge]

There is truth in this man’s statement.

I’ve been attending a male leadership programme for Catholics called “That Man is You”, and a few weeks back we talked about the negative impact of modern ideas of family and society on the family and on society as a whole. Modern secular education leads to decreasing birth (and in turn population) rates - as does increasing economic status.

Here is an outline of one of their talks. They also have parts of videos on the Paradisus Dei site as well. I recommend my fellow men - especially ones with young families - go check it out. It’s very enlightening.

Modern education in America and Europe are ultimately intended to boost the economy and make the Western World prosperous by convincing people that individual advancement and economic prosperity, are key to success. This causes women and men both to seek education and careers before children. The problem? Women and men are at their peak fertilities in their early to mid 20s. It sharply decreases thereafter. “Career” women may not seek children until they are in their 30s, when fertility is sharply on the decline. Therefore, there is little wonder that there are fewer children today than there were in yesteryear.

Let me say, however, that I have no problem with a woman pursuing a secular career outside of motherhood. But I do think that the time for one’s career should AFTER one has children. Children are our future, and without them no society can survive. The most valuable resource on this Earth is people. A country with rich farmland or massive deposits of metal is useless if there’s no one there to till the soil or dig mines.

We are losing people at a rapid rate, simply because we are not meeting the population replacement rate - 2.1 children per 2 people. In America our childbirth rate is around 1.6 children per 2 people, and in Europe it is on average 1.4. Unless we turn the tide of things and educate our children righteously, humanity will die out for the stupidest reason of them all: because he didn’t make any offspring.

Once again, career women are not bad women. But being a good, Christian mother is a higher calling and a better thing for society than even the most influential of politicians or the wealthiest of billionaires. You cannot take riches or political influence to Heaven with you. When you are dead they are irrelevant, unless you used them for God’s greater glory.

Even then, the mother does the service of producing more politicians, workers, preachers, and humans of all walks, and she teaches them how to be human. The parent teaches their children what it means to be human. More than any politician or businessman ever could, the parents set their children’s course in life by their example.

And that is why I will not look for a woman and have children of my own until I understand how to raise children. (I’m 19 anyway. I’ve got time.)

Good link! Here’s a good one for you

 

[Cambridge]

How to put this… yes the population is growing, but not among the more educated and the more prosperous. The people who will succeed the white Western man are by no means barbaric, but they generally are less educated and poorer and more religious.

The Hispanic Catholic demographic ranked 40% or so in a recent survey of which types of religious people know their religions.(I wish I could remember which survey.) Many Catholics are not even aware that the Bread and the Wine become real Body and Blood, much less other more important things. These are not model Catholics. Model Catholics are informed and educated - aware of what they are doing wrong, and what they are doing right.

Society needs a makeover. We cannot continue to preach that money and power and status will make us happy. It’s a lie. We must teach people that families are the key to societal success. Above all (except God), the family is the integral unit on which society rests. Without strong, moral, educated, Godly families, society will collapse, regardless of how much money we make.

We must educate people in religion. Christianity is not meant to be a political tool or a tool to make war anymore than it is meant to control God. But unless people learn this, we will end up repeating the Middle Ages all over again. Christians today are very fortunate to be as educated as they are. 1000 years ago, many Christians (more Christianised pagans) thought that Christ was just another god in a pantheon, or that the Blessed Host could be used like some magic charm to fertilise their crops, among other things. We cannot allow that the happen again! (Source: Life in the Middle Ages, by Jay Williams. 1966, Random House.)

There’s is truth in that; Europe and its Colonies appear to have a duty, to the rest of The World and they should not shirk it. They are the bearers of Christianity and, what our ancestors used to unashamedly refer to as, “Civilization.” But, you know, taking responsibility for that, in any positive way, is supposed to be the ultimate evil nowadays. So, you’re in a catch-22, but you shouldn’t be.

In regards to population growth and our responsibility for it, Christian Europeans and their Continental and Colonial Descendants are not the only ones with a declining birth rate. That trait is universal and our government worked very hard to make that happen, because it was very concerned about what they called, “differential fertility rates.” Of course, Catholics were targeted on the domestic front (because they were outbreeding Protestants, because Catholics weren’t practicing Birth Control) and the “other” people were targeted on the international front (because they weren’t practicing birth control). There’s actually a declassified National Security Document, penned by Kissinger, that spells some of that out, from the 1970s. In regards to Catholics, you can read about that in, “Slaughter of The Cities,” by E. Michael Jones.

Specifically, Puerto Rico, for example has a below replacement birth rate. Mexico’s has plummeted to just around 2.5 and is forecasted by The U.N. to fall below replacement, iirc, by 2020. There are several Muslim countries with below replacement birth rates. Africa is projected to have a below replacement birth rate by, iirc, around 2050. By then, everyone else will have been below replacement for some time. The World’s birth rate is only around 2.5 now and it used to be, iirc, around 6.0 or 6.5 circa 1950 or 1960. So, differential fertility rates among Catholics, Blacks, Central and South Americans, Muslims, Oriental and Africans, versus North European Protestants (who were the ruling class of America prior to the mid 1970s) was of great concern to the most powerful country in The World and it used its power successfully, to dramatically reduce the fertility rates of EVERYBODY, including, unintentionally, its own children. I think The Psalms have something to say about the wicked falling into their own traps.

“Demographic Winter” is good to. I think anyone can watch that for free on the internet now.

 

[Cambridge]

Good link! Here’s a good one for you

oops, I didn’t get the link on there, here it is

overpopulationisamyth.com/

 

[Cambridge]

In regards to Male-Bashing, I think the root cause of that is the need for a scapegoat. Whenever we sin, we have two choices: repentance or denial. So, if we reject repentance, we can’t take our fear, shame and guilt to Christ, because we won’t “open the door” to Him. However, we still have the need. So, we look for a substitute. In this case, the substitutes seem to be, men for Christ, women for The Jews and the state for The Romans. Women cry for men’s blood, men seem to often go willingly and the state pounds in the nails.

If Women’s Liberation from Patriarchy is an attempt, to cope with Sexual Liberation, without Repentance, then it should lead to death and, it does. Which seems to be a testament to the Omnipotence of God and the inviolability of His Order. Which is comforting and encouraging.

 

[larkin31]

There’s is truth in that; Europe and its Colonies appear to have a duty, to the rest of The World and they should not shirk it. They are the bearers of Christianity and, what our ancestors used to unashamedly refer to as, “Civilization.” But, you know, taking responsibility for that, in any positive way, is supposed to be the ultimate evil nowadays. So, you’re in a catch-22, but you shouldn’t be.

In regards to population growth and our responsibility for it, Christian Europeans and their Continental and Colonial Descendants are not the only ones with a declining birth rate. That trait is universal and our government worked very hard to make that happen, because it was very concerned about what they called, “differential fertility rates.” Of course, Catholics were targeted on the domestic front (because they were outbreeding Protestants, because Catholics weren’t practicing Birth Control) and the “other” people were targeted on the international front (because they weren’t practicing birth control). There’s actually a declassified National Security Document, penned by Kissinger, that spells some of that out, from the 1970s. In regards to Catholics, you can read about that in, “Slaughter of The Cities,” by E. Michael Jones.

Specifically, Puerto Rico, for example has a below replacement birth rate. Mexico’s has plummeted to just around 2.5 and is forecasted by The U.N. to fall below replacement, iirc, by 2020. There are several Muslim countries with below replacement birth rates. Africa is projected to have a below replacement birth rate by, iirc, around 2050. By then, everyone else will have been below replacement for some time. The World’s birth rate is only around 2.5 now and it used to be, iirc, around 6.0 or 6.5 circa 1950 or 1960. So, differential fertility rates among Catholics, Blacks, Central and South Americans, Muslims, Oriental and Africans, versus North European Protestants (who were the ruling class of America prior to the mid 1970s) was of great concern to the most powerful country in The World and it used its power successfully, to dramatically reduce the fertility rates of EVERYBODY, including, unintentionally, its own children. I think The Psalms have something to say about the wicked falling into their own traps.

“Demographic Winter” is good to. I think anyone can watch that for free on the internet now.

I am glad that all these rates have fallen.

 

[TarkanAttila]

“Succeed” in what sense? “Replace”? “Take over”? Just what are you referring to?

And so what? Is this a racial preference remark? Do you have an objection to the top jobs and top education going more frequently to women or to members of other racial make-ups?

You miss the point completely. I have no problem with Hispanics or Moslems. I am just speaking generally. What I say applies to all races. Generally speaking, the less educated and/or monetarily driven you are, the more likely you are to have children early and in larger numbers - and the more likely you are to be religious. Black, white, yellow, red, brown, sand, it doesn’t matter. Less educated people will take over the world because of the distinct advantage of population.

Statistics show that more of the more educated are white, more of the more prosperous are also white, and fewer children in the newest generations are also white. This does not mean there aren’t richer, more educated, less fertile blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Moslems, and Native Americans, too. But they are statistically rarer.

 

[Julianna]

But you completely missed my point. This is not about becoming Stepford wives.

I am all for the vote, for learning, etc, etc.

But, whether you like it or not, the strongest advocates for homosexual union, abortion, etc, etc, are hard core feminist.

To acknowledge that women equally have a brain is good. That they have the right to vote is good.

But to insist that “empowerment” comes from working in “masculine” jobs is ludicrous.

**What that does is re-affirm the male chauvinistic mentality that what is essentially male is good and what is essentially female is not that important.

**If you look at the male chauvinistic cartoons back then, it is not that it says women are second class but that women are second class because the only thing they are capable of is housework and caring for babies. This therefore means that the intrinsically female attributes are what is being labelled unimportant.

That is why I said, if the campaign had been to force the men to recognize that all that women do - child bearing, nurturing, home care - IS OF EQUAL VALUE TO WHAT MEN TRADITIONALLY DO, then that is true feminism.

Read what die hard feminists say - they see this gift of being able to bear children as a curse.

They have reduced the essence of a woman to function.

So yes, at the forefront of feminism lie the lesbian agenda.

As I said before, if you truly value what is feminine, then you would pay the same rate to your child care giver (which is the mother’s duty) as you would earn in working at a traditionally male job.

So those who look after the welfare of the children of the women soldiers, should probably be paid the same as the women soldiers.

For one thing, why would a woman abandon family and home to fight? Isn’t that another re-enforcement that what is traditionally a male occupation is more important than a female “occupation”?

It is totally about being a Stepford Wife. This is what Cambridge would really love.

As to your question…“why would a woman abandon family and home to fight?” I have several answers

1. Survival…being in the miltary, she doesn’t have to worry about the children’s or her medical care, or housing. Her husband, who may or may not be in the military is equally capable of caring for the children as she is.
2. It is her right as an American to “serve” her country in whatever career field she chooses… (you must not respect women troops very much).
3. I know a woman who joined the miltary after her husband abandoned her and her 3 yr old daughter. She became a recruiter. She had no education beyond high school and was a SAHM. Her bum ex husband left her destitute. Joining the military kept her and her daughter alive.
4. Women are stronger than some of you give them credit for…especially when it comes to caring for their children.

I do agree about payment for child care providers…I would like to see more education in this field and tighter regulations. Note…that this will increase the cost parents will pay for this service.

Those that look after the women soldiers when they are deployed are more than likely “family members”, grandma/grandpa, aunt/uncle and in a lot of cases the spouse who is not in the military or is not scheduled for deployment. Uncle Sam never tells you “when”…he just tells you to be “ready”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In regards to Male-Bashing, I think the root cause of that is the need for a scapegoat. Whenever we sin, we have two choices: repentance or denial. So, if we reject repentance, we can’t take our fear, shame and guilt to Christ, because we won’t “open the door” to Him. However, we still have the need. So, we look for a substitute. In this case, the substitutes seem to be, men for Christ, women for The Jews and the state for The Romans. Women cry for men’s blood, men seem to often go willingly and the state pounds in the nails.

If Women’s Liberation from Patriarchy is an attempt, to cope with Sexual Liberation, without Repentance, then it should lead to death and, it does. Which seems to be a testament to the Omnipotence of God and the inviolability of His Order. Which is comforting and encouraging.

Unrestricted patriarchy is in many places leading to Gendercide :economist.com/node/15606229

The people of patriarchal cultures like the Chinese and Indians will probably not dominate the 21st century because their following generations will be much smaller. Due to the fact that these misogynists have killed too many of their unborn girls. They are now dealing with a severe shortage of women and a large surplus of men.

 

[larkin31]

You miss the point completely. I have no problem with Hispanics or Moslems. I am just speaking generally. What I say applies to all races. Generally speaking, the less educated and/or monetarily driven you are, the more likely you are to have children early and in larger numbers - and the more likely you are to be religious. Black, white, yellow, red, brown, sand, it doesn’t matter. Less educated people will take over the world because of the distinct advantage of population.

Statistics show that more of the more educated are white, more of the more prosperous are also white, and fewer children in the newest generations are also white. This does not mean there aren’t richer, more educated, less fertile blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Moslems, and Native Americans, too. But they are statistically rarer.

So, what is wrong with America and Europe turning more brown? All you did was repeat yourself. I am asking, so what? You are truly worried that “less educated people will take over the world”? That’s funny, and paranoiac. White hegemony is coming to an end. It’s about time.

 

[TarkanAttila]

So, what is wrong with America and Europe turning more brown? All you did was repeat yourself. I am asking, so what? You are truly worried that “less educated people will take over the world”? That’s funny, and paranoiac. White hegemony is coming to an end. It’s about time.

Well, let’s see. What happened when the Roman Empire fell - thanks to the less educated, more violent, pagan barbarians who sacked, attacked, and pillaged her? Everything went to Hell. Technology, education, agriculture, practically everything went back to… well, almost the Stone Age. The pagans didn’t want to know anything. They destroyed valuable books and pieces of information which are lost to us today - or else they simply didn’t preserve it.

You know who did? The literate, or at least diligent, religious in the Christian strongholds of Europe: Gaul, Hibernia, Rome, Africa - which was later conquered by Moslems who also had an interest in preserving knowledge, and discovering it.

I am not saying modern society as the Western world has defined it is perfect. By no means. Nor am I implying the less educated will also physically attack us. They don’t need to. A few generations from now and they’ll take over by sheer birth rate.

But I would rather not relive the glorious days of the Dark Ages - nor would I will that on my children, my children’s children, and so forth. I would rather this society dies to itself and is reborn in Christ.

I also think Distributism would be a better form of economy than socialism or capitalism. As a theory based on the policies of Rerum Novarum, it is truly Catholic (although Christians are not the only ones who advocate for it) and quite a unique and fine idea. Look it up.

Anyway, back on the subject, I think the European model has come a long way, is more sophisticated than many other models in some valuable ways, and should not be completely abolished - merely altered. While I guess the world could be rebuilt from the decay caused by a degenerating society (less education and knowledge, and likely less respect for it), why go through a second Dark Age? Is that really necessary?

Maybe it is. As the old saying goes, “History repeats itself”. And maybe a new Dark Age will wipe out the arrogant atheist whose voice wafts across the Western world like the foul odour of plague across Europe during the Black Death. Atheists say they are not united. Not officially. But they share many common traits. Bias. Arrogance. Hatred. Supremacy complex. These are common in the backwater gathering places of atheism and proud scepticism, IRL and on the net.

 

[Cambridge]

The religious do have significantly more babies, than the non-religious do.