“Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.”

Does this actually shock anyone?
Do serious research in the SOCIAL history of Progressivism, the Liberal Left, Fabian Socialist, Eugenics, and Social Biology.
A good bit of research into the history of the Rockefeller Funds and Foundation is also relevant..

All too often we inherit ideas without an inquiry into their historical development and origins.

Fascinating indeed, is the history of ideas.

There is no place for emotions in democratic political discourse. The decision-making progress is dependent on the ability of those who make arguments to convince others, on the basis of pure rational arguments, to be able to bring them around to their point of view, or abandon theirs and come around to someone else’s point of view. Emotional attachment to issues and points of view can only harm that process.

I’ve given this some more thought. Is it really not possible to present a rational arguement while having emotional ties to that issue? What better person to drive a point home and to get people to a point of view than a person who taps into their emotions/emotional ties to that arguement and use that as a sort of “fuel”? Like I said, emotions are a hinderance when they get in the way of reasoning and rationality, but I still think that they can be used as a source of strength, to someone’s benefit. But hey, this could be my western sensibilities talking…..

You are right about the Rockefeller Foundation. That group is both funding population-control advocacy groups and feminism. It becomes obvious the latter was cultivated as a arm of the former when seen in this light. Its apparently the Rockefeller Foundation’s, or whomever is running it, belief there are way too many human beings in the world, and they seek to get us to voluntarily lessen our numbers each generation.

Would it have not been more logical to just -ask- people to limit themselves to two children per family on the basis of reason rather than to underwrite a ideology (feminism) that has caused so much unhappiness and unmet expectation instead? I think it would have been. Funny how its only working in the West, and not where population control was truly out-of-hand anyway. The best-laid plans of mice and men, etc.

From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.

Are you saying that it’s ok for men to do these things though? Personally I have no problem with cursing (I really don’t have a problem with women doing it either – I don’t really see how that’s a masculine trait), but I don’t think that spitting and being sexually “aggressive” (depending on what you define as “aggressive”) should be condoned in men either.

The promotion of masculinity for women has been an ongoing, gradual process that has been pushed on a wide variety of fronts. From gender neutral clothing, to the portrayal of masculine behavior by celebrity women in the mainstream media…behavior for which no “LADY” in the past when social shaming was the norm, would never engage in cursing, spitting, and openly and proudly sexually aggressive.

“My question is, do you want it to be like that or do you want it to go back to being a “Man’s World/Nation”? I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re ultimately saying overall.”

One of the things I believe is that “A Man’s World” of the past was really no such thing. The idea that in the past all of society was structured to benefit men and that women where oppressed and downtrodden and treated as second-class citizens is nothing more than a big lie fostered by the cultural marxist/social engineers to foment the gender war and promote feminism.

When it was a “man’s world” it was really a well ordered world of social expectations and behavorial mores that most people were raised to ascribe to. The feminist movement made it’s gains in shifting the culture by pushing propaganda that focused on all of the benefits men attained in fulfilling there gender role expectations, and ignoring all of the responsibilities…and conversely focusing on the responsibilities and negative aspects of the female gender role and ignoring the benefits accorded women in their expected gender roles.

It was never a “man’s world.” It was simply a world with clearly defined gender roles that were encouraged and enforced by social pressure and a culture that had a clear moral grounding.

It was just as much a woman’s world back then as it was man’s. Whereas now, “It’s a Woman’s Nation!”

How many women do, by nature and before any of the aforementioned indoctrination (ie suppression of urges) occurs, feel attracted to alpha males? Close to 100%.

Hey, I guess I’m going to have to take your word for it lol.

How many men, though, are alpha males? Around 10%? 20%? Either way, a small number compared to those who are not.
So if you have limited resources to concentrate on indoctrination, the choice between having to constantly punish 50% of the population (women) or 10% of the population (alpha males) becomes an obvious one.

So is this really about giving betas more of a chance, not about women themselves? Another thing. Are the “urges” here attraction to the alphas or just sexual urges? If it was the sexual urges, do you really think that 50% of the female population would’ve had to be punished for their sexual urges while 90% of the male population was innocent? If the “urges” were the attraction to the alphas, were women “punished” for simply being attracted to them and/or having sex with them? It’s like I kind of get and I kind of don’t. I guess the problem is when I think of female sexuality, I just don’t think of sex or promiscuity as being the only examples.

Wrong in what way? Seems to be an emotional argument made from western sensibilities.

Wrong in that you think that it’s ok to disregard the opinions of half of the country’s population. Perhaps my argument was made from western sensibilities, but not emotion. I’m just standing back and looking at it from a wide view.

There is no place for emotions in democratic political discourse. The decision-making progress is dependent on the ability of those who make arguments to convince others, on the basis of pure rational arguments, to be able to bring them around to their point of view, or abandon theirs and come around to someone else’s point of view. Emotional attachment to issues and points of view can only harm that process.

I agree in general when it comes to politics. But not the generalizing of women. Women are capable of putting aside emotions during political discourse just as men are capable of having and expressing emotions. What about Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly?