See other Editorial Articles
Title: America's Media-Driven Descent Into Depravity
Source:
SaveTheMales.ca
URL Source: http://savethemales.ca/
Published: Oct 21, 2006
Author: Henry Makow, Ph.D.
Post Date: 2006-10-22 18:38:25 by Red Jones
Keywords: None
Views: 601
Comments: 39
America's Media-Driven Descent Into Depravity By Henry Makow Ph.D. October 21, 2006 By Henry Makow Ph.D. "...We aspire to corrupt in order to govern… We have taken from the people all the gods of heaven and earth, which had their homage. We have torn from them their religious faith, their faith in monarchy, their honesty and their family virtues…" (Giuseppe Mazzini, 1805-1872, Revolutionary, Founder of Italian Freemasonry and the Mafia) Many prime time TV programmes today would have been considered obscene just 20 years ago. They present outrageous and shocking behavior as if it were normal and this creates cognitive dissonance. Thus they condition us to accept depravity as the new societal norm. Thursday at 8p.m. I sat down with my wife to watch one of her favorite shows, NBC's "My Name is Earl" starring Jason Lee. My wife likes this show because it deals with morality or "karma." The premise is that Earl has a list of people he has wronged and believes he will be rewarded if he makes it right with each one. Thursday's episode may have been a departure but what a jaw-dropping one! It was a sneak attack in what Senator Jesse Helms called the "systematic psychological warfare" the Eastern Establishment is waging against the American people. Wrongdoing: Earl had sexual intercourse with the mother of his good friend Ralph. Flashback: He and Ralph have a band. One night after a gig they were partying at Ralph's house with some female groupies. Ralph's mother served rice crispy squares. Everyone else wore nothing but their underwear. Eventually the group paired off to have sex. (The new party norm?) However Earl's partner had passed out. Not to worry. Ralph's mother, a woman in her fifties, came on to Earl and he was too drunk to resist. Monkey see; monkey do. Call me old fashioned but this portrayal degrades our image of motherhood and family, something the Illuminati-owned mass media want to happen. (The Illuminati is the top rung of Freemasonry. ) When motherhood is degraded, we are all degraded. Readers inform me that often recurring themes on prime time TV are incest, intergenerational and gay-lesbian sex and even bestiality. Ralph resolves to kill Earl and gives his friend 12 hours to settle his affairs. Earl appeals to Ralph's mother. Sure she'll speak to her son; Ralph will do anything for her but, in return, Earl will have to provide regular stud service. Please do not mistake this for a porn flick. This is prime-time TV watched by children and their parents. Resigned to his fate, Earl visits his parents to say goodbye. To his surprise, he finds Ralph alone with his mother. Ralph is wearing nothing but a bathrobe. (He spilled some tomato juice on his pants.) Ralph has determined that he can avoid killing Earl by having sex with Earl's mother. When Earl's mother bends over to get something, Ralph makes suggestive sex doggy-style gestures. Earl apparently is so morally compromised he cannot intervene.(Similarly, I wonder if anyone expressed their disgust to NBC.) Off camera, Ralph gropes Earl's mother's breasts. Flustered she comes rushing out and leaves the house. Ralph describes how he came up behind her and grabbed them in an "under over" action. Ralph now determines that Earl can live if he marries his mother. The wedding takes place and Earl is expected to consummate the marriage. Not being drunk he doesn’t want to. The tables have turned. Now Ralph is threatening to kill Earl if he doesn't have sex with his mother. At this point I switched channels. You can see an excerpt from this episode at the show's NBC website. Listen carefully and you'll hear Ralph say to Earl, "Don’t touch me with the hand with which you fondled my mother." When a man wants to really offend and insult another, this is what he says he'll do. Earl has broken a visceral human taboo yet the show treats it as if Earl had broken a favorite fishing rod. As Luciferians, the Illuminati wish to break all natural and spiritual taboos in the name of "freedom" and "rebellion," no matter how destructive and dysfunctional this is. "Do what thou wilt," is their motto. Last week, President Bush apparently was granted power to suspend Habeas Corpus and throw anyone he disliked into jail. There is evidence he was complicit in 9-11. Now you know why Americans are paralysed to act. Like Earl, we are so morally compromised we cannot defend Mother Liberty. America is in the grip of a satanic sex cult that "corrupts in order to govern." Unconsciously we have been inducted into this cult.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
below are comments people have posted on Henry Makow's web site. Comments for "America's Media-Driven Descent Into Depravity " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judy said (October 22, 2006): Henry: I just read your recent essay on TV porn. I seldom watch TV and when I do, it is just an old movie on TCM or similar. I am really shocked. But, Henry, the problem as you know is not the porn; the problem is that people are not reacting in a normal, healthy way. I know this sounds nuts but I have for a long time felt that our species was undergoing a regression, perhaps a genetic change. A lot of teachers saw this change. We used to talk about it. Some blamed it on TV (at that time relatively innocuous except for the neurological aspect with developing children); some on the pill (i.e. what long term effect does tampering with hormones have; whatever has caused this "soul" change apparently is now far gone. Is there really anything one can do but run for the hills? Thanks for your efforts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hushster said (October 21, 2006): Even the smartest people are captivated by the crap on TV. It allows everyone to step outside of themselves for a brief period of time and forget about the real world. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to distance yourself from daily troubles temporarily... unless it starts to become a habit and reality starts to become the actors on your favourite TV show instead of your family and friends. I don't have many friends or family left because I don't watch TV. Sadly, many people I know relate to their TV's and the fake characters therein better than they can relate to me. I assume it's because I don;t have an "off" button and they can't tune in next week to see me because I'm always there... in reality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Skye said (October 21, 2006): [Mainstreaming Bestiality] I have seen on television the theme of bestiality being almost mainstreamed. On an episode of 'Nip/Tuck' Melissa Gilbert played a woman whose dog had bitten off her nipple and wanted the doctors to reattach it so her husband wouldn't find out. She made it seem at first that the husband would put the dog down because it was dangerous; her story to the doctors was that the animal was protecting her from another dog and in the melee her nipple was 'compromised.' Throughout telling her story she was almost enamored by the dog. Long story short, the husband found an open container of peanut butter next to the bed, an object he then explained was used by her to cover herself with it so the dog would lick it off. If they stopped there with the story then we could say the woman had some kind of mental problem but then they proceeded to have the husband kill the dog and dump its body in front of her as if he had slain her lover. Equating human-animal relations in the context of human emotions should tell you the goal right there. What the hell?!? I know that this show is about as reprehensible as any other filth on TV. 'Nip/Tuck' tries to tell certain stories as if to make some sort of moral statement but the show always falls short. The real goal of the show is to entice viewers with rich doctors in flashy cars, snorting coke off of women’s asses (the premier episode) and sexual depravity while breaking the viewers character. I remember the first time I saw films of women having sexual intercourse with dogs. It was some of the most disturbing footage. I had to tell the person that I didn't want them sending me that crap because it does affect you on a subconscious level; really f*cks with your head. I believe this is the real goal of the new theme in television. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan said (October 21, 2006): Alan Watt mentioned a month or so back that the FCC censors, whom we think are supposed to be protecting cultural normalcy from deviant influences, actually have the agenda of introducing deviancy. He keeps up with the conventions of such organizations, which nobody does outside a field, generally. Quite revealing. He came up with a statement from the censor's annual gathering, in which it was announced that 'we've successfully mainstreamed homosexuality. Now we're ready to emphasize themes of incest and beastiality'. I have noticed the incest meme coming up on shows during last year's season . My ex wife noticed themes during the 80's on tv that she would say were 'out of proportion'. I mean, we the public aren't thinking about some trend, and then you watch a season of television and something is repeated on all the sit coms and dramas. Lately, it's incest---- the medical dramas like CSI, and House have been featuring that very disproportionately Every other week...the father's been having sex the daughter....on one episode the twist was the doctor discovered that the daughter was actually a hermaphrodite, and had kept this secret even from the father..... (yeah, I hate it when that happens....). The next week it's back to lesbian love conquers all theme. And on and on. I haven't seen beastiality yet. But as for 'normal', themes of daughters in families having sex affairs with the father's boss or friends is now considered 'normal'. A cartoon series on FOX this season had the daughter screwing the guy's boss...and he put up with it because the boss kept promising him a promotiion. That was presented to make it seem 'normal'. The 'norm' being, 'well sure, the dad would be stupid not to get a promotion out of it, that's smart. Morality is stupid and backward thinking.' On 'Boston Legal', the firm founder, (William Shatner) is the 'patriarchal' figure who of course has alzheimer's, is self serving and decadent---lately he's dating a midget. A few episodes it appeared that his character might be about to get into a homosexual affair with James Spader....but they didn't follow through with that twist yet,since I doubt the audience is quite ready to accept that the two characters realisitically would do that. I wasn't buying it. But why did the writers have them dancing together alone in the bosses penthouse? Seems they are leading in that direction for another season..... Gay / Lesbian themes on television are out of proportion. That's 2% of the population (in reality, not 10%) Yet there's a gay theme on almost every program. Incest? 40% of television themes bringing that up? Very out of proportion. These themes and propaganda isn't directed at us....we're too wise. It's for the kids to grow up with it in the house, and they'll think it's normal. They're growing up hearing it presented every few days of the week. Parents with children should really just not have a television in the house at all. I know that's not going to happen, but that really is the only solution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Sanjay" said (October 21, 2006): Over the past year I have read your articles with great interest nut always with a hint of cynicism in case you were going too far with your theories about Illuminati etc.. However, I know for a fact that there is an evil underbelly to Freemasonry and its cults because I have been at the receiving end of its secret plots for the past 19 years and continuing, which has destroyed my chances of ever living a mundane life that others take for granted. In 1987, I was finishing off my PhD and, at the age of 25, I got married to a wonderful woman. I had a Postdoctoral position at a Leukaemia Viruses Unit after a 20 minute interview and could have spent the rest of my life in married bliss and in a small niche of reserarch where I could apply for grants etc.. However, fate had something different in store. I noticed that I was being followed in close proximity to my lab in the mornings and to my home at night, even if I finished at 12 o' clock at night which was a common occurrence. I tried to ignore this but I also noticed that more and more people at work were now being totally unfriendly to me whereas before I was a very popular figure at the suite of labs where I worked. People were swearing at me as they passed by, they would use expletives such as the word 'tit', 'bastard' and worse. Moreover, my car had horse dung placed on it on a daily basis. This, despite workig at the Estate for three years with no problems. I also noticed that the drivers of the cars that followe me used hand signsls - circle, square, triangle again and again. I had no idea who these people were or why they were shouting insults at me in the street. I was in a state of total shock. I consulted a friend who knew that I was a religous man and not a member of any organisaton and he told me that these people were freemasons and their associated cults - Soc Ros, Royal Arch etc... 3 out of 5 adults in my country (Scotland) were Freemasons or in affiliated societies. This is where my troubles started. After 19 years of facing persecution for what I firmly believe was instigated by a Mason jealous of my education and also aware of the fact that I belonged to an ethnic minority powerless to respond, I am convinced that Freemasons and their cults are: a) completely evil and probably highly racist at the top layers b) led by peple at the top who are Satanic although appear to be thoroughly 'Christian' for public consumption during the day c) bent on carrying out the plots of their bosses - the Illuminati as a secret army led and controlled and ready to murder for their 'cause' They are a true danger to humanity and will destroy ALL faiths and all ties between husband and wife, sowing discord between them. However, if you have a true faith and remain true to it, in reality they are powerless. Only God has true power. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William said (October 21, 2006): Watch the show called "dexter" on Showtime . Dexter is a serial killer and is the hero of show. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie in UK said (October 21, 2006): Too right Henry, I gave up on that moronic T.V. filth years ago. We in England have a soap drama that supposedly mirrors Northern life in Manchester called ' Coronation Street ', which is still popular today from the early sixties. Normal people with traditional values were the heroes until transvestites, homosexuals and fornication of every kind were slowly introduced into the grubby soup it is today. And the crazy thing is, the viewers still regard it as a moral flagship. Speaking about which, through the fifties until the eighties we had a champion of morality in the guise of a starchy looking spinster called Mary Whitehouse, who fought against every trend that would corrupt our society. She was regarded as a joke to a society quickly heading to the waterfall of debasement, as she objected to every bit of nudity, foul language and racism. Today she's remembered as a prophet we all wished we'd heeded as our violent, sex crazed country is paying heavily for blind neglect of moral duty to our offspring. She was probably aware of the Illuminati agenda judging by her fanatical efforts, but very much alone, and ridiculed by the majority. Now we're bombarded with mindless reality shows, filthy soaps and canned-laughter comedies that cannot make me laugh. But I raise my head erect as this modern day Rome decays rapidly, and I remember a couple of scriptures from the bible, 2 Timothy 3:13 ' Wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse misleading and being misled.' and Isaiah 5:20,21 ' Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and shrewd in their own sight.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt from Rochester said (October 21, 2006): The destruction of the family unit is at the forefront of the Elite's social engineering program to enslave humanity under their fascist/totalitarian New World Order. The family unit poses a serious threat to the Elite agenda, as families represent a sort of cohesive, tribal unit that is in direct opposition to the collectivist, globalist agenda. Families bond together and stick up for each other. Families give people something to fight for when a society is under attack. When the family unit is dissolved, the people in a society become demoralized and have nowhere to turn but to the state. It's all part of the socialist/communist/Illuminist plan outlined in Marx's Manifesto, to make the population completely subservient to the all-powerful state. It's quite ironic hearing certain braindead liberals complain about how America has transformed into a "conservative theocracy," when the society they're referring to is being run according to the writings of Luciferians like Weishaupt and Marx. I no longer watch television sitcoms, but am well aware of the trash that is being pumped into homes all across America and the rest of the westernized world. The media almost always portrays men as either sexually depraved or dumb and obsessed with sports. Because of the media's portrayal of men, men have become exactly as they're portrayed. They have become walking parodies. This is also why many women have been brainwashed into thinking it's normal to dress and act like sluts. Because television plays such a powerful role in shaping culture and society, modern society has become the metaphorical reflection of a mindless sitcom with all the depravity and immorality included.
Never heard of the program. Someone might list the credits, that would be more interesting.
I don't really know if Makow's theories about illuminatti, freemasonry, etc are correct. but I do believe there is a conspiracy against jesus. and it is an organized conspiracy. and it likely involves different 'religious' traditions including ancient religious traditions from before the time of the jews - example how they worship molech at bohemian grove every year. that is an ancient god that is prior to the jews. and the bible says not to worship that god. Yet prominent leaders attend worship service for that god. if you are either christian or jewish, then you are bound to recognize that such a thing is against god. because old testament book that is in torah says so. and I think that the talmudic religious tradition is involved in this conspiracy as well. and I think there's others such as likely satan worshipers. who knows. illuminati - may be. freemasonry - perhaps at high levels I don't know. Catholic church - perhaps at high levels, I don't know. other protestant denominations - perhaps at high levels I don't know. the very few corporations that control the tv and the movies and the music recordings that are marketed have been pushing evil on us for decades. that is obvious. It is a purposelful conscious effort on their part. they are actively making every effort to corrupt our people. and being inherently susceptable to evil and needing shelter of our creator our people are very vulnerable. we are being given every choice possible to choose the life that our creator made or the death that rebellion from the creator will mean. many are choosing. and judgement awaits.
There is most certainly an effort to break down the morality of this country with the promotion of shows/entertainment that appeal to the baser instincts and twists and distorts norms of behavior. People watch this stuff and then after a while it becomes normal and acceptable to the viewer. I notice too there is a new show called Dexter which has been heavily adverstized. I've never seen it but it appears to glamorize a serial killer of women. Earlier I was thinking about the recent attempts to degrade women with countless articles blaming them for all of societies ills, while porn is everywhere, and wondered what the true motive is for all this. They are going out of their way to attempt to break down the natural protective instinct men have for women, that much is obvious. Perhaps it's so no one will complain when our nation's child- bearing age women are sent off to combat in large numbers, or perhaps it's being done so that when multitudes of women are sent off to camps there will be less complaints, after all the men left behind will still have their porn.
yes it is sad Diana. You know what would really protect decent cultural values on the tv? if we had a free market in tv shows. the conveyance of tv media should be treated as a utility and the people who make the actual programming should be separate from the utility provider. today the utility provider has a monopoly over the programming. there's only 6 corporations that own the whole media. and those 6 corporations march in lock-step down the road of moral destruction. whereas the customers don't really like this. if there were many independent small companies each having equal access to broadcast on the media, and if customers could choose and then determine the compensation to the programming provider by the popularity, then we could use the free market to insulate our people from teh garbage that big business is determined to push into our people. it is all a matter of the regulatory environment. believe it or not - because of the regulatory environment here in the US cable tv services are priced very high compared to what it is in other countries. and the level of commercials is higher too. not only that internet is over- priced here in the US - due to the different regulatory environment. and cell phone service here in the US is over-priced also compared to other countries, again because of the regulatory environment. in the US the regulators always favor allowing a few corps to monopolize and set the rules that avoid real competition. In other countries the regulatory environment is different and competition is fostered with regulations favoring price competition and multiple providers.
That's too cynical for me, but the objectification of human beings: women, children, and men is not a healthy sign in any society.
This Dan fellow in the comments of #1 has it nailed. tv is hopeless. I like to watch it at other people's houses, although I know it is bad. but I never watch it at my house. some people are really addicted to tv. I used to be. I've heard people ridicule others who do not watch tv all the time and say that 'normal' people watch tv while abnormal people do other things. the world is sick Diana.
I'll tell you what else is not healthy. We have plenty of problems between men & women. and both genders are developing some bad attitudes towards the other, and both have some reason to do so, but that is not a justification. but here's a bad thing that nobody wants to face. The men are given a diet of female hormones in the meat. and this may have negative effect on their sexual abilities. and then there is the porn that will weaken them also. We had that thread some time ago asking why pregnancies among teen girls dropped by about 30% or so since 1995. Well, I tell you, that is because porn became ubiquitous on the porn for teen boys about 1995. that is why. but this line of thought is not allowed in the media or in the education system even. men can comnplain about women (and they have reason). and women can complain about men and obviously they have reason also.
I don't even have a TV anymore. I gave it away since I haven't watched it for about six years. Never seen any of those "reality" shows or "My Name is Earl" or anything else. About six years ago it had gotten to the point I was only watching TV on Sunday, when "Futurama" and "X-Files" and "The Simpsons" was on. After "X- Files" went off I pretty much quit watching and found I didn't miss it. An additional plus is that I actually felt better getting away from the TV. These days, I guess people are just filling their heads with garbage. While visiting my niece and her new baby she did put that "Jackass" video on. I couldn't believe anyone found that funny.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
There wasn't much of this happening before I moved here in late 90s. This does seem to be a recent trend happening in the past few years, people have told me teenage girls are encouraged to dress slutty as that is fashionable, while boys are exposed to porn and other bad things. I'm so glad I'm here but I just wish all this would go away and our country could return to normal.
I used to watch X-Files and the Simpsons too. At least they still show reruns of the Simpsons. When you watch a really old show like Andy of Mayberry (I like the ones with Barney Fife) it really hits you how the programming has changed so.
Diana, you seem to think that "they" are victimizing women by showing women degraded in violent movies and in porn and that women are powerless, helpless to stop "them." Who do you think stars in TV serials - just men and robots with female likeness? Who do you think make their livelihood from starring in porn movies - just men and computer generated female co-stars? Who do you think watches TV along side their significent male others - dogs and cats? Who do you think are listed as co-producers for programs like Law and Order: SVU and Criminal Minds. My name is Earl ( the program under discussion for its vulgarity) is co- produced by Barbie Feldman Adler,for heaven's sake! Women are equally at fault as men for producing, starring, and consuming this post modern crap. As for "child bearing" women being sent into combat - well,golly gee, I guess you have not received the memo that says that mainstream women are not having children much these days - oh there's the occasional one that slips through the birth control or abortion efforts, I'll grant you that. Women are not about nurturing or families anymore. Women are about self-fullfillment, sex for fun not procreation, careers come first - and if it were not for immigration both legal and illegal, America would not be "replacing" itself per birth rates except for the black and Hispanic sectors of our society. So you darn rights, affirmative action girlie girls who want to have all the advantages of "equality" ( with a good deal of help for the next 25 years from Supreme Court enforced quotas)but no disadvantages ( eeek - like risk and possible death???)should get their promotion seeking military butts into combat areneas like boys, whom they argue they are equal to and deserve equal pay and opportunity. Since women are no longer family unit builders but instead are self fullfillers, then I see no need for society in general or men in particular to feel a need to protect them. Women have gotten what they want - they are considered equal and therefore they are equally disposable on the front lines of our fraudulent wars. They did not vote out the war mongers when they had a chance either. Soccer moms were a big help to the chickenhawks, lest you forget - so their sisters can reap what these foolish soccer moms (along with their equally foolish hubbies) have sown.
Americans should really pause to reflect that it is America-based institutions that are pumping this filth not only into us, but also around the world and popularizing pure garbage. they are polluting the people of the whole world. and they are America-based and America-empowered. We Americans will face judgement for this. The christians who say 'god bless america' should be saying 'god have mercy on america'. they are so proud and they are so deceived.
Barney was a philosophical genius. He understood you got to nip bad things in the bud!
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Right, right, right, RIGHT, right. I have heard all that before, "it's the fault of ALL women because A FEW of them star in porn films, take naked pictures of themselves, so all women are guilty." It sounds to me that you are passed being brainwashed, so there is no point in trying to reason. You are aware, aren't you, that there have always been prostitutes from the beginning of time, but in normal societies not all women are blamed for their existence. You are making broad generalizations regarding women, each woman is an individual and all have different characters, personalities and opinions, and the same is true of men. However there is a collective effort at work to reduce the morals and concerns of those in our society, and sadly I see it is working all too well.
i've not watched tv for years. i'm stunned after reading the storylines of some of these tv shows. this is what the average american finds entertaining?
You need to do something about your attitude. This is one of the strangest rants I have ever read.
you know how it is. we're indoctrinated to believe that demand creates supply. that they provide us with the cultural artifacts that 'we' want. In reality they give us what they want us to have. and after they give it to us the taste for it is developed more than it was. Supply creates demand in reality. likewise with the politicians and our government. 'We' do not want the US to be as it is. 'We' did not produce them. They took control instead. They do not represent us.
I was saying above that women have reason to complain, and men have reason to complain. that's true. but complaints are not productive. complaints from a man's point of view are for wimps. a man shouldn't complain. he should be strong and set an example. and if he is both strong and fortunate (and not a wimp), then he might find one who has the vision and the discipline to follow him.
Diana, I suggest you re-read your original post to which I replied. You are the one who is brainwashed into thinking women are helpless little bitty creatures who have been degraded by the media and by degrading women the family unit is being assaulted and women will soon be marched off to war, to boot. Women have been full partners in their own degradation. Women make many of the consumer decisions in a family - if women wanted to put anti-women media types out of business, women could do so very quickly and easily by not buying advertisers' products and by turning off the family television sets every night when they are at home and also by making big squawks to politicians and the FCC. Women motherhood and apple pie are still a sacred subject to most politicians and their appointees so women's backlash would have lots of psychological leverage. If you think I am ranting to you, it's because I'm weary of reading your women as victims, please don't send us into combat posts. Your post in the Devvy thread had a familiar ring to what you claim in this thread. And please don't assume I am an embittered male chauvanist...
Well you sound like one, but it's your right to feel the way you do. I am just curious to know why you feel so strongly as you do. When I left the continental US some years ago, this new trend of female-bashing was not yet present. I noticed it somewhat recently, and to read things such as "feminists are feminizing the US" is just crazy to me as there is nothing feminine about feminists whatsoever, they have more in common with men than with women, and a good number of them are lesbians. They do not represent the typical woman at all. It's not so much "women are victims" that is disturbing to me as are these new phrases and ideas that I am encountering recently blaming women for so many of the ills in society. The Devvy article said as much, using many derogatory terms. I found her article to be a lose-lose situation for women in general as she was putting down the feminists who want women to be independant from men, and at the same time was putting down women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. This is just all very new to me and perplexing. I do remember shortly before moving here listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio going on about "soccor moms" and making a big fuss over a case where some woman charged a man with sexual harrassment, and I thought to myself that Rush Limbaugh is picking on women today. How this attitude seems to have caught on since then! Our whole society is being exposed to bad elements, and I see it as a virus of evil (no I'm not a fundie Christian), as it spreads, people begin to hate and fear where before they had a healthy outlook and were more content. I am certainly no man-hater, I've always gotten along very well with men, have no grudges against them, but to see all these odd articles slamming women, blaming them for affirmative action even, this is just all very new and strange (and sad) to me.
but to see all these odd articles slamming women, blaming them for affirmative action even, this is just all very new and strange (and sad) to me. Diana, I'll leave it to your imagination as to the reason why I can speak so fearlessly and why I have the confidence to touch on untouchable aspects of womanhood the way I do. I too have lived and travelled abroad ( though not to Israel)and I can say without a doubt there are no other women who can be as obnoxious and pushy and unfeminine as a goodly number of the American women with whom I have interacted in school and in business. As for women being blamed for affirmative action ...well duh, there was a feminine hand in the Supreme Court decision - and I did not see too many women's organizations petitioning the Supreme Court to end affirmative action. The justice who had the deciding vote and who wrote the majority opinion was a woman - Sandra Day O'Connor. While not all the blame can be placed on women (I think that your paranoia is just that)let's face it, women certainly benefited from the end result. Did you know that currently 56% of college students are women and men are at highest risk for dropping out at high school? There was no need for QUOTAS for women to continue the next 25 years and in fact the opposite was true - the playing field is so anti-males it's worrisome for society's long term well being. And with regards to media productions involving gratuitous sex and violence against women, check out the Academy and Emmy Awards to find out what actresses are wearing that night and what roles they are playing by and large. Look in department stores and try to find pants that are not belly button showing or T-shirts that do not show every nipple line. What does that tell you - it says women and their daughters are supporting a fashion industry that clothes them to look like sluts. That's the "in" look these days. The media is merely giving American society (that is comprised of 50% women fyi) what society wants and demands and enjoys. Consider what female politicians take pride in fighting for these days in America - even in today's article about powerful Jewish female politicians - women are taking pride in abortion rights - that is what defines the women's cause these days! And it's not lesbians who are prideful of "a woman's right to choose" - it's mainstream married women like Hilary Clinton and grandmothers like Nancy Pelosi. Now adays mothers' main choice with raising their daughters is what age to give them birth control pills. Girls and their Moms just want to have fun, yes? Wake up and smell the coffee - women are not victims in America - they are masters of their own fate and position in society! And face up to the fact that women are the family unit cornerstone of today's society, and that's by their own choice, I might add. Diana, men are not very complicated creatures ( no offense to 4um men)in their goals for life. Women are the complicated gender and it's modern day women's screwed up life's goals that has changed and not to benefit the family unit or society.
Regarding the single mother issue, in most cases the mothers don't want to be single. Too often teenage girls will go out and get drunk and have sex with a boy, or they go out with a guy and end up pregnant, and upon hearing that news in most cases the guy flees. I had a friend in Houston who was married and they had 2 girls, and her husband decided he didn't want to work anymore. Instead of at least staying home with the kids when she went to work, he spent his days in strip clubs. My friend was exhausted and he finally left, then he went to Dallas so he could move in with his parents. He didn't want to get a job because he didn't want to pay child support, and my friend didn't have money to get a lawyer, though a lawyer couldn't have done anything in that case anyway since her ex had no job. You can blame her for making a poor choice in whom she married, but he could have lived up to his role as husband and father. There are too many cases where a female ends up pregnant, and then finds herself alone raising kids. It's tough and exhausting and they really don't like it. You say that the media mirrors society, I see it as the other way around. People are taught to expect instant gratification, for instance many marriages which could be saved are breaking up. Those girls who are dressing in slut styles are doing so because their fashion magazines and favorite singers send the message that boys will like them better if they dress that way, and teenagers of either sex don't have much sense. They certainly don't have the capacity to make sound judgments, it's more important for them to bow to peer-pressure. In many cases the mothers/parents probably hate it but it's too easy for kids to sneak over to friends' houses and borrow clothes, or look at bad things on the internet. I don't think any of this is happening by chance or accident, it's a perfect setup to roll in a new communist-style America. I get the sense you live in the Northeast? I say that because I find it almost comical the idea that Hillary Clinton would be considered mainstream, but in places like NY or MA that would not be too far- fetched an idea, as those areas tend to be more militant. Hillary is a battle- axe, not a good role model to women any more than the other militant feminists are. It's those types who are intent on destroying the family unit, whether they are men or women. It has much more to do with idealogy rather than sex. Simply stated, I do believe our society is in a state of decay, which has been skillfully planned out for some time now.
I would like to point out that when I wrote this I was being somewhat facetious, I did not mean it literally, I was just trying to make a point but maybe it did not translate well.
diana: Regarding the single mother issue, in most cases the mothers don't want to be single You say that the media mirrors society, I see it as the other way around. People are taught to expect instant gratification, I don't think any of this is happening by chance or accident, it's a perfect setup to roll in a new communist-style America. I say that because I find it almost comical the idea that Hillary Clinton would be considered mainstream... Simply stated, I do believe our society is in a state of decay, which has been skillfully planned out for some time now. Diana...sorry I made a typo error...I meant to say that women are NOT the family unit cornerstone of today's society and it's by their own choice...I'm terribly sorry because I was typing so quickly with great passion. Anyways, I'm sorry to hear about your friend who married a deadbeat and was away from the family home trying to earn a wage to support her family. Not all women are Wall Street lawyers farming out their children to nannies nor are all women Brittany Spears promiscuous airheads. I'll meet you half way - yes, media does a lot of shaping of public attitudes to sex, violence, and social decadence. BUT I'd also say that women should be the bedrock of family values but unfortunately, they, like their gadfly male counterparts, have allowed themselves to be seduced by the temptation of self fullfillment. Women have gone against their nurturing instincts to grab money, promotions, and serial sexual relationships for fun, all that is anti-family, just self-serving values. I will grant you that there is something sick about American media - we export our values world wide, but it's mainly us who succum - look at Asian and Indian families who immigrate here - they keep their nuclear and extended family units alive and well. It's only us born and raised Americans who have the high divorce rates, the high abortion rates, the high alcohol and drug abuse rates. It's very sad. My point about combat still stands - a useless war is a useless war - and if none of us are willing to cry out that the emperor and his congressional lap dogs wear no clothes, then young women as well as young men should be equally disposable until we reach a point where all of us stand up and say this empire building, these foreign wars are wrong and are very anti-American and deadly to American girls and boys.
The reason I'm against women in combat is because they are not cut out for fighting, they lack the upper body strength and the fearlessness necessary for combat. Granted there are some rather tough women who could make it physically and emtionally but for the most part it's not in the nature of women to fight, they are designed to raise children and to nurture. Too if women are sent to war, who will have the babies? As everyone knows men are capable of making many women pregnant, but women only produce one egg a month to be fertilized. So it's unwise IMO biologically to send the childbearing aged women into war. If I were in charge and wanted to lose a war, the first thing I would do would be to send women into combat! I don't like this war either, I wish everyone could come home.
i enjoyed reading both of your points of view. nice dialog, girls. ;)
Exactly. If you want to wipe out a people, don't kill the men. Kill all the women. There won't be any reproduction.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Too if women are sent to war, who will have the babies? As everyone knows men are capable of making many women pregnant, but women only produce one egg a month to be fertilized. So it's unwise IMO biologically to send the childbearing aged women into war. I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle, Diana. Women clamored for government imposed arbitrary equality ( not necessarily to reward merit) and right of promotions and career advancement in the military and police and fire departments in fact all walks of life and women generally were only too happy to accept the benefits of quotas and affirmative action during peace time but now during a time of war some women like yourself and Elaine Donnelly are having second thoughts about the equality of women in the military...well at the front lines of battle at least...internal promotions in the military as long as it does not involve risk is fine, right? How is that fair? What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Unless you would argue that all quotas, affirmative action programs that are in place due to the false intellectual construct called "equality of the sexes" should be rolled back; also that women cannot serve on draft boards, and that female politicians cannot vote on war...would you go for that? In other words I am saying women cannot claim all the perks of equality without also assuming the negatives. It's nonsense that women cannot be trained to fight. Have you glanced at some of tough robust looking teen women cruising around in malls as compared to the skinny lanky male teen counterparts? Women at my health club are big into using weights and upper body training machines. Women could easily be remade into fit grunts if the nation required it. As for rage and the will to fight, various books and research have addressed the surge of female school gangs since the 1980's. In Survivor episodes, women handled themselves well in dangerous conditions when $ was at stake at least. Fyi women make excellent snipers or so I'm told. And in today's type of war - where its guerilla warfare not uniformed soldiers meeting an opposing force of uniformed soldiers - there is no designated combat front line. People serving in supply lines, in intel gathering or as interpreters are all at risk these days - do you propose taking only having females serve at desks and answer phones in the military but get paid the same as males in combat? I'm suggesting to you that modern women are going against the once commonly held "women as biologically tuned nurturer" image. Modern day women by and large do everything in their power not to give birth so they can advance in the work place with careers and money to buy material things. If women were still the nesting family builders of old, why is America needing immigration and the birth rates of 2 specific ethnic sectors ( Hispanic and black) to prop up this nation's birth rate? If it were up to mainstream American women we would not be replacing ourselves as a nation. Sending modern day women into war would not have any lasting negative affect on our nation's birthrate - many child bearing young women these days are on birth control pills from age 16 on to their mid 30's - these women are not making use of their child bearing biological gifts anyways. America could just continue propping up our nation's birth rate through immigration from Third World countries. Diana, clearly men and women are equally valuable (or disposable)to society as the case may be. If our nation's leaders want to carelessly waste young males in foreign wars, then young females should be equally disposable. Women have the right to vote and if they cast their votes for war mongers then their female gender should be at similar risk to die on the battlefield of a useless war as the male gender. In fact the argument could be made that if you had to chose as a nation to ensure posterity, it's the male gender that is key rather than females. In ancient societies that are thousands of years older than our upstart Western new world they actually put a premium on males rather than females and somehow countries like China have survived with no worries about leaving their less desirable child bearing females on mountain tops to die. Go figure...
This discussion thread has 154 views and only 29 posts - in the main from Diana and myself - so it would appear that more than you, christine, are enjoying reading through the back and forth debate, but most are too timid to venture into the fray of this battle of words, yes?
If it was a matter of defending our homeland against foreign invaders, I certainly wouldn't tell an American woman with her own rifle that she couldnt dig in and watch my six and I, hers. But, elective imperialist wars such as the one in which THE ALLIED PETROLEUM EXPEDITIONARY FORCES are engaged is not some place I'd want to send women. Women defending home and hearth are great fighters, but, I think that BushCo's folly is best left to men who are short a chromosome and don't understand morality, and who believe that a strong father figure can empower them to do terrible, unspeakable things, and they'll even wear medals with pride IF they survive and rotate home. In the role of foreign invader, rape and murder of children are part of the job description, and women would be a real downer to have around for those duties.
maybe nothing to add since you both are articulating your points so well. ;)
Now that's funny...when you made reference to his 'strange rant'; I didn't think it sounded strange at all. Sounds like a lot of the women I knew in (you guessed it) New England.
well said !
Thank you. Yes, woman are better are shooting invading rapists than they are are committing unspeakable acts against indigenous peoples.
There are no second thoughts here, I've always believed women are not cut out to be in combat. Also I am not a quotas or affirmative action activist in any way, you seem to be projecting some unlikely mentality onto me. I'm always maintained traditional roles work best, and have for thousands of years.
Also I am not a quotas or affirmative action activist in any way, you seem to be projecting some unlikely mentality onto me. I'm always maintained traditional roles work best, and have for thousands of years No changes in my perspectives either. I am looking at the realities of modern life not at the idealistic version. Yes, it would be nice if women were content to fullfill traditional nurturing roles like the days of old and be happily having and raising 2 or more babies so our nation has a future and that "we" are replacing ourselves. But the hard cold reality is that mainstream American women are not doing what you and I would like them to be doing. They are not having babies in any great numbers not are they staying home to raise the odd kid they might have between abortions and birth control measures. Therefore modern day American women require no extra protections - they offer society no more than men in terms of ensuring our future. Young women today are out to satisfy and fullfill themselves first and foremost. I wish that were different. Whether you personally believe in affirmative action or not is a moot point - for the most part, I used the rhetorical "you." Obviously when I asked "you" the questions about what women were willing to give up to be viewed as a protected fragile class, I already knew the answer - nothing, that was the answer, Diana, because the genie is out of the bottle. So the long and short of this conundrum is that the current generation of women have happily accepted the benefits of affirmative action and quotas all the while convincing society that they were "equal" to men and that they were "ready" for any task and challenge. Even when scientists reveal minor differences between men and women like size of brain, that research has a loud smack down. Recently the President of Harvard was fired because he dared to make a common sense observation about the differences between the sexes. So all around us 24/7 we hear women are equal to men, and so we must accept that women are also equally disposable in foreign wars. Women in the military specifically expect promotions and advancement because they really believe they are "equal" to men and "deserving." Sorry but serving in the military without exposure to risk is false. Women who join the military should be expected to accept risk like their male counterparts as part of the job. Otherwise why are we paying these women equal to men and promoting them in some cases ahead of men? Furthermore, if there's conscription men and women should be called up in equal numbers. The boy next door is no less valuable and precious to his parents and to our society's future than the girl across the street.
I totally agree with you that there are major differences between men and women, also their IQs are more clustered in the average than are men's; there are few women geniuses and fewer retarded women. I also believe there are some academic subjects which women's brains don't take to as well as men's, particularly physics! And the genie is indeed out of the bottle, it's a sad situation that women did not realize what all these changes would entail for them, even though most women stood by while these laws were being implemented, I've always been against affirmative action for anyone. I'm serious about the combat, men make better soldiers, and if I were the head of a country and really wanted to win a war I would only have male soldiers. I'd make a terrible soldier for instance, I throw like a girl and I can't kill anything larger than an insect. I know there are some women out there who are tough as nails and can be as strong as any man, but they are rare.
I'm serious about the combat, men make better soldiers, and if I were the head of a country and really wanted to win a war I would only have male soldiers. I'd make a terrible soldier for instance, I throw like a girl and I can't kill anything larger than an insect. I know there are some women out there who are tough as nails and can be as strong as any man, but they are rare. Ummm...I've not said that there are major differences between men and women. In fact what I've said is that as a society we have been convinced often by women themselves that there are no differences between the genders, that men and women are equal to the challenge of any task and should be given the same opportunities "to fullfill" themselves, albeit women getting a significant "lift" through Supreme Court sanctioned affirmative action. So now we have female policemen ( even police chiefs) and female firemen and female forest rangers, female general contractors, female construction workers, female wrestlers, female hockey players, female soccer players etc etc. There are no physical or emotional barriers for women in any field - and it came about due to their own demands and lobbying. As for the military, careers for women expanded tremendously 15 years ago - now approx. 80% of military jobs are open to women to compete for. In fact after only 2 short years of Bill Clinton coming to office under the direction of Secty of State Wm. Perry, 250,000 military jobs previously held by men were made available to women. At present, more than 99% of Air Force jobs and 94% of Navy jobs are open to women and 67% of Army positions and 62% of marines positions can be bid on by women. So we taxpayers have been encouraging and awarding military jobs for the past 10-15 years to women that previously were held by men, with no second thoughts, so it's a wee bit late to claim that women are not physically or emotionally constituted to be warriors. Women happily took these many many jobs during peace time and out competed men for them, so how can we turn the clock back? Also, how do we as a society get our investment back? That's why I say women are no different than men when it comes to ambition or greed or selfishness and when the going gets rough why should we suddenly get sexist and say only boys deserve to die in foreign wars? Actually maybe voters and Congress would be less likely to allow our nation to be dragged into useless foreign wars if they saw that males and females were equally at risk for being sent to the meat grinder to fight for Israel's security, or for Haliburton's bottom line, or for a dollar or two a gallon for cheaper gas. I'm serious that females and males should both be liable for conscription. Perhaps you have not met too many sensitive intellectual young men in your travels. I have a tall reed thin gentle souled nephew - he plays the piano, is very shy and extremely well read, his mother had him tested and he scored at the 99th percentile in terms of IQ, he'll likely be a fine research scientist or computer science professor in the future. He would never hurt a fly - he refused to take an anatomy class in high school because it involved dissecting a cat. Why on earth should he have his soul and heart twisted and his dreams ruined while the overweight female airhead on the same street where he lives who is Ms. Slut Personified and who is binge drinking and smoking pot every weekend ( there goes those child bearing eggs) and will likely not contribute much to society all in all - why should she get a free pass from the violence and ugliness of a war zone and yet my nephew should be enslaved for conscription just because of his gender and some quaint notions that are hardly realistic in today's world about girls being nurturers and gentle...for example did you realize that in the past 30 years American females have aborted approximately 40 Million babies - is that behavior what you could consider exemplifying "mothering instincts?" Puhleaze, Diana, the new generation of women today are not made in the image of our grandmothers and great grandmothers. That pattern is long gone. We live in an androgenous world and actually it's a world that young women demand be so. As for winning wars...Diana, I'm sorry to tell you but it's been a heck of a long time since we won any wars. And the future for "wins" looks rather grim as we read about the descent to chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars to which we send our youth today are meat grinders, just for a show of bravado, so to speak, and for these kinds of futile wars meant for losing, I say with no reservation whatsoever, women as well as men can serve in that cannon fodder capacity perfectly fine.
#2. To: Red Jones (#0)
"My Name is Earl"
#3. To: All (#0)
#4. To: Red Jones, robin, All (#0)
Monkey see; monkey do. Call me old fashioned but this portrayal degrades our image of motherhood and family, something the Illuminati-owned mass media want to happen. (The Illuminati is the top rung of Freemasonry. ) When motherhood is degraded, we are all degraded.
#5. To: Diana (#4)
#6. To: Diana (#4)
#7. To: Diana (#1)
Parents with children should really just not have a television in the house at all. I know that's not going to happen, but that really is the only solution.
#8. To: robin, Diana (#6)
objectification of human beings: women, children, and men is not a healthy sign in any society.
#9. To: Diana (#4)
#10. To: Red Jones, robin (#8)
We have plenty of problems between men & women. and both genders are developing some bad attitudes towards the other, and both have some reason to do so, but that is not a justification.
#11. To: YertleTurtle (#9)
#12. To: Diana (#4)
There is most certainly an effort to break down the morality of this country with the promotion of shows/entertainment that appeal to the baser instincts and twists and distorts norms of behavior. People watch this stuff and then after a while it becomes normal and acceptable to the viewer...Earlier I was thinking about the recent attempts to degrade women with countless articles blaming them for all of societies ills, while porn is everywhere, and wondered what the true motive is for all this. They are going out of their way to attempt to break down the natural protective instinct men have for women, that much is obvious. Perhaps it's so no one will complain when our nation's child- bearing age women are sent off to combat in large numbers, or perhaps it's being done so that when multitudes of women are sent off to camps there will be less complaints, after all the men left behind will still have their porn.
#13. To: All (#0)
#14. To: Diana (#11)
When you watch a really old show like Andy of Mayberry (I like the ones with Barney Fife) it really hits you how the programming has changed so.
#15. To: scrapper2 (#12)
Women are equally at fault as men for producing, starring, and consuming this post modern crap.
#16. To: Red Jones (#1)
#17. To: scrapper2 (#12)
As for "child bearing" women being sent into combat - well,golly gee, I guess you have not received the memo that says that mainstream women are not having children much these days - oh there's the occasional one that slips through the birth control or abortion efforts, I'll grant you that. Women are not about nurturing or families anymore. Women are about self-fullfillment, sex for fun not procreation, careers come first - and if it were not for immigration both legal and illegal, America would not be "replacing" itself per birth rates except for the black and Hispanic sectors of our society.
#18. To: christine (#16)
this is what the average american finds entertaining?
#19. To: Diana (#17)
#20. To: Diana (#15)
It sounds to me that you are passed being brainwashed, so there is no point in trying to reason. You are making broad generalizations regarding women, each woman is an individual and all have different characters, personalities and opinions, and the same is true of men. However there is a collective effort at work to reduce the morals and concerns of those in our society, and sadly I see it is working all too well.
#21. To: scrapper2 (#20)
And please don't assume I am an embittered male chauvanist...
#22. To: Diana (#21)
Well you sound like one, but it's your right to feel the way you do. I am just curious to know why you feel so strongly as you do.
#23. To: scrapper2 (#22)
And face up to the fact that women are the family unit cornerstone of today's society, and that's by their own choice, I might add.
#24. To: red jones, scrapper2, robin, All (#4)
Perhaps it's so no one will complain when our nation's child- bearing age women are sent off to combat in large numbers, or perhaps it's being done so that when multitudes of women are sent off to camps there will be less complaints, after all the men left behind will still have their porn.
#25. To: Diana (#23)
scrapper2: And face up to the fact that women are the family unit cornerstone of today's society, and that's by their own choice, I might add.
#26. To: scrapper2 (#25)
#27. To: Diana, scrapper2 (#26)
#28. To: Diana (#26)
If I were in charge and wanted to lose a war, the first thing I would do would be to send women into combat!
#29. To: Diana (#26)
The reason I'm against women in combat is because they are not cut out for fighting, they lack the upper body strength and the fearlessness necessary for combat. Granted there are some rather tough women who could make it physically and emtionally but for the most part it's not in the nature of women to fight, they are designed to raise children and to nurture.
#30. To: christine (#27)
i enjoyed reading both of your points of view.
#31. To: scrapper2, christine, Zipporah, rowdee, robin, Diana (#29)
#32. To: scrapper2 (#30)
#33. To: Diana (#23)
I get the sense you live in the Northeast?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#34. To: HOUNDDAWG (#31)
Women defending home and hearth are great fighters, but, I think that BushCo's folly is best left to men who are short a chromosome and don't understand morality, and who believe that a strong father figure can empower them to do terrible, unspeakable things, and they'll even wear medals with pride IF they survive and rotate home.
#35. To: christine (#34)
#36. To: scrapper2 (#29)
in fact all walks of life and women generally were only too happy to accept the benefits of quotas and affirmative action during peace time but now during a time of war some women like yourself and Elaine Donnelly are having second thoughts about the equality of women in the military...
#37. To: Diana (#36)
There are no second thoughts here, I've always believed women are not cut out to be in combat.
#38. To: scrapper2 (#37)
So the long and short of this conundrum is that the current generation of women have happily accepted the benefits of affirmative action and quotas all the while convincing society that they were "equal" to men and that they were "ready" for any task and challenge. Even when scientists reveal minor differences between men and women like size of brain, that research has a loud smack down. Recently the President of Harvard was fired because he dared to make a common sense observation about the differences between the sexes. So all around us 24/7 we hear women are equal to men, and so we must accept that women are also equally disposable in foreign wars.
#39. To: Diana (#38)
I totally agree with you that there are major differences between men and women.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest