 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » If Bees Were Feminists...... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Duncan Patton a Campbell... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:41:47 -0700, Moderator wrote:
[quote]...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
[/quote]
You must imagine a flower's attraction to a bee to be by eye alone...
Dhu
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Saracene... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 31 Oct, 19:46, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
[quote]hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Moderator
meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
Bees are feminists, moron. The Queen is in charge and the workers are
sexless.
Bees exist to service plants.
[/quote]
There is no purpose in evolution.
[quote]
The "Queen" is an engorged mass of quivering protoplasm, immobile,
defenseless and totally dependent on genetic slaves. The "Queen"
is an egg-laying machine.
Feminists are a perversion. Feminists exist to warn men that
their women have lost a sense of purpose; that without intervention by
strong males, tyranny is just around the corner.
[/quote]
As social animals I would expect humans eventually to go the way of
the bees and the ants. Feminism is our future as it once was for those
poor creatures. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hal wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Moderator
meldon57 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
Bees are feminists, moron. The Queen is in charge and the workers are
sexless.
[/quote]
Bees exist to service plants.
The "Queen" is an engorged mass of quivering protoplasm, immobile,
defenseless and totally dependent on genetic slaves. The "Queen"
is an egg-laying machine.
Feminists are a perversion. Feminists exist to warn men that
their women have lost a sense of purpose; that without intervention by
strong males, tyranny is just around the corner. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
sarge wrote:
[quote]On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
[/quote]
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lisa Lisa... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 7:41 am, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
[/quote]
I see that you're pissed off, as always. Why don't you go up to a
beehive and give it a good thwack?
Lisa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Moderator... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lisa Lisa wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 7:41 am, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I see that you're pissed off, as always. Why don't you go up to a
beehive and give it a good thwack?
Lisa
[/quote]
No Lisa. I'm doing ok. I was very hurt last night but I'm ok now. I
used to be quite angry but that's out of frustration from not knowing
why people would be so cruel. Sadly the answer comes down to money and
money is modern survival so I'm not angry. Just a bit sad sometimes
but I get over it. There's always a bright side like having solid and
irrefutable proof of parental alienation. I almost wish I didn't have
to use it but I've tried everything I can to make the other party
cooperate. I know its not their fault. i just wish people could be
more considerate. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Society... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<hal> wrote in message news:4ae98a44.1202109 at (no spam) news.newsguy.com...
[quote]
"Moderator" <meldon57 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
Bees are feminists, moron. The Queen is in charge
and the workers are sexless.
[/quote]
They can't be feminists. Why? Because you don't hear any
complaining from bees that females are paid less than males
for the same work.
(followups set)
--
Women have spent the last 30 years
proving that men have been right
for the last 30 centuries.
"Dustbin" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Saracene wrote:
[quote]On 31 Oct, 19:46, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
hal wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:41:47 -0700 (PDT), Moderator
meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
Bees are feminists, moron. The Queen is in charge and the workers are
sexless.
Bees exist to service plants.
There is no purpose in evolution.
The "Queen" is an engorged mass of quivering protoplasm, immobile,
defenseless and totally dependent on genetic slaves. The "Queen"
is an egg-laying machine.
Feminists are a perversion. Feminists exist to warn men that
their women have lost a sense of purpose; that without intervention by
strong males, tyranny is just around the corner.
As social animals I would expect humans eventually to go the way of
the bees and the ants. Feminism is our future as it once was for those
poor creatures.
[/quote]
See what I mean? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Moderator... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Strabo wrote:
[quote]sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
[/quote]
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Saracene... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2 Nov, 12:29, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
[quote]Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
>> I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
[/quote]
The new threat that faces humanity is the power to modify its own
genome, something the social insects discovered many millions of years
ago. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Moderator wrote:
[quote]
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
[/quote]
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
[quote]
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
[/quote]
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| klunk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Strabo" <strabo at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:jfAHm.4325$X77.2436 at (no spam) newsfe24.iad...
[quote]Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
[/quote]
ROTFLMAO... I literally don't know where to start beyond telling you recheck
your presumptions because your starting points are logical fallacies to
begin with... but their sources of misperception run far deeper than the
conclusions you appear to have put some time into making yourself
comfortable with... it really is rather laughable that you can so neatly tie
up so many "irrationalizations" for your misogyny into such a tidy little
package which will obviously sound good to a nimrod like moderator, but it's
all just self-serving gibberish... bwahahahaha... 8-D
from the standpoint of history, differences between people, irrespective of
gender, race, culture, vocation or any other difference, has always been
kindling for conflict... the assumptions in your value judgments reveal more
about your particular bias (and state of mind) than serve as any form of
credible logic which supports your entirely ludicrous and one-sided
pseudo-conclusions...
the idiocy of insecurity-driven egotism is what leads to power imbalances
and an equal representation of both males and females whom are equally
regarded in politics is what creates a stable society... (do note, I'm not
limiting my reference specifically to western political government
structures, but to any society where both genders are equally respected...
even in so-called "primitive" cultures where the roles of each gender are
clearly defined and equally respected and "power" is equally shared...
societies where there is an imbalance of political power between genders are
societies which are rife with conflict, poverty and destitution)....
what's truly dangerous are the value-judgments which permeate your inept
reasoning because you appear rather self-assured in your ineptitude and
that's all that other misogynistic idiots whom operate on a more instinctual
level need to reaffirm their bigotries which thereby perpetuate the
conflicts in society that are exacerbated by the sorts of "soft hatreds" you
indulge in... clearly, you've had your own difficulties within your personal
experiences and I would suggest you re-evaluate them with an eye for how you
contributed toward the creation of such conditions of discomfort...
particularly in those moments when you demonstrated a priority for serving
yourself, as you've done here instead of considering a broader perspective
which accommodated the needs of others rather than their diminution... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| klunk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Saracene" <john.jsm at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e88bc58d-1458-481e-9c23-2462e8fc76e1 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On 2 Nov, 12:29, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is
objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
The new threat that faces humanity is the power to modify its own
genome, something the social insects discovered many millions of years
ago.
[/quote]
"designer babies"... you bet... sci fi is rife with horror visions of
this... gattaca was a good flick on this topic... although the only downside
it covered was some of the social implications of "successful" genetic
modification and not the inevitable "physical failures" which would mount
while achieving that sort of tinkering with the species...
super babies for the rich and a subservient, "normal" underclass for
everyone else while the "defectives" get tossed into the incinerator...
....and let's not forget cloning... immortality for the rich and powerful
while everyone else gets to be disposed of when they've outlived their
usefulness...
or "organ farms" like on the island where humans are grown for the purposes
of creating spare body parts for when needed...
ya... I'd say we're getting long past the time when we shed some of these
petty, neanderthalic attitudes toward issues we should have outgrown by now
and start considering how to address issues with far greater reach in their
implications...
for all the griping over such things as stem cell research, we've barely
begun to scratch the surface of issues people are going to be squabbling
over in the not so distant future.... the religious fundies are going to
have one helluva lot to come to terms with if they're still going to insist
on being fixated on relatively superficial issues such as the right to
choose to abort a pregnancy... if their heads are spinning now over
embryonic stem cells, then they'll just twist them right off in another
generation or two.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| whitebread... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Strabo" <strabo at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote in message news:Ms0Hm.482$%U3.230 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...
[quote]
Bees exist to service plants.
The "Queen" is an engorged mass of quivering protoplasm, immobile,
defenseless and totally dependent on genetic slaves. The "Queen"
is an egg-laying machine.
Feminists are a perversion. Feminists exist to warn men that
their women have lost a sense of purpose; that without intervention by
strong males, tyranny is just around the corner.
[/quote]
Did the scapel slip during your circumcision? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Canuck57... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Strabo wrote:
[quote]If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
[/quote]
Modern day society. Simply put marriage is on it's way out. Lets face
it, why get married? About the only reason I can think of is you have
lost your marbles. Divorce and the letdown when the 50% chance it will
fail materializes. For marriage to work, you need a mutual motivator
and attraction.
Today men don't need women to feather the nest so when they get home
things are just right.
Women don't need to keep their working man healthy to put food on the table.
The main necessity reasons to get married have vanished in modern
society. Modern society is more like ants in city-hills. In fact
someday we will manufacture children just like bees and ants do larvae.
Amazes me, seeing young men sound like women and women who walk like
line backers. The division is smearing and in a few hundred years the
divion will become permanent.
Think, 500 years from now you will order your children via a government
web site. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:19 am
|
|