Why does government support feminism?

I always find it funny... the people pointing out that technology negated the need for a full time domestic, brought many female friendly jobs on line and expansion fanned by taking the controls off the money supply in the 1970s is what led the push to get women working are the tin foil hat brigade and those who believe that it was an emotional hollywoodesk triumph of good over evil that created all the new jobs are seen are the logical ones.

lol

Sure as usual, there was an ideology that was used to push the change along, Hegelian conflict given to the masses to motivate them to change but the changes were economic and to benefit big business/the neo libs.... that's one of the reasons that they funded Steinem/Ms Magazine.

Seriously feminists, the slick propaganda the misuse of stats, the misinformation, the fearmongering....?

Come on it reeks of secret service.

Fathers have throughout time fought to protect their families...their wife and kids. Think of Brave Heart and the Patriot to get a good picture of this. Now think of the founding fathers of the United States when in their wisdom they included the right to bear arms, not for each man to protect himself from foreign invaders, but to protect his family from our own government, the same government we have today that has tried to pass strict gun controls but have been "shot down" by the National Rifle Association or the NRA. Now comes along these domestic violence laws which although it has always been a crime to assault someone is now classified a "civil" matter and thus much less due process of law is needed to take away Constitutional rights such as we see in the right to bear arms and that we should not lose any liberties without due process of law

.

Folks, hundreds of thousands of men have lost these rights without any due process. I can only think of one reason for this. The Bible tells of one world dictator that will soon be coming. To set the stage for this, this person will need to assure full compliance with little or no resistance as possible. Remove a loving father and husband from their home, and most will have lost their will to fight. Coupled with the fact that most of the guns have now been removed, he has little to fight with if he does chose to fight. Result, our liberties...our freedom will have been removed by the very laws that seemed so sweet in our mouth...but now that it is in our belly.....it will have destroyed the same society that we were told it was protecting!

The feminist are being used to help do this and when the purpose has been accomplished, they will be just as disposable as we are. Read more here:

http://shatterdmen.com/Bitter.htm

I'll have to read more of it later, but I will say that housewives have been called a drain on economies, and technically it's true. When one stays at home, the amount of money that that family saves on virtually everything is unbelievable, from food, fuel, childcare, the list is almost endless. And we have so much time for each other, not rushing around spending "quality time" with each other. When something has to have a word like quality, value, or even victory attached to it to make it sound better, that is it really. And with all that money not going into the economy, well it doesn't get taxed either. We're glad that our family is a drain on the economy.

When any entity usurps the power of the people, that entity is able to control the people. By telling a large section of people that they are "special" and being trampled on, and oppressed by another group of people, there is more empowerment to the state...polarizing the sexes, puts the "state" in a position to own and commercialize the "special" group by iradicating the polarized group (in this instance men)

This creates commerce, revenues that used to be unimaginable...but that the special group only sees what they get NOW, today, not what they are heading for tomorrow, or what their children will pay for later, creating secular society...creating secularism, there is no oversight...everyone thinks they are with a mass, with a particular group that offers them protection OR destruction.

Humans used to have more than two choices to chose from...now it is narrowed down by this secular human society to two options when it comes to almost anything.

But it is also a natural behavior of a species to take the easy way out...without feminism there would have been something else pulling, and polarizing the sexes until we get to the same point we are now...it is easier to be a sheep than a shepard (only two options) but before, there were more than two choices for human beings...a person could be individualistic and still maintain a future for their offspring...but the easy way out is to use your gender to get all the perks you can...while oppressing the other gender, because you can TODAY...no one cares about tomarrow

addendum:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoNxG...

http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm

For women to extert a downward pressure on wages they would have to work in the same jobs as men: They dont. Women work in service jobs which men have never worked. In fact they are new sectors of the economy. Whether they actually add to capital accumulation is very qeustionable since they infact dampen productivity by injecting state money into childcare etc. Which undermines a free source of labour provided by women before which cuts down productivity: GDP.

Also since the arrival of this great source of social disharmony(feminism) states have worked consistently to cut back on the public sector and privatise the state sector. This is known as the washington consensus. It is of course from the great inventors of feminism the USA. The state actually doesnt benifit from a growing and growing level of expenditure because this undermines the performance of the economy . All states have cut back.

In fact they are very reluctant to roll out child support. Even those who are pushed to by social modellers in the EU

Also the greatest drive in state expense is not feminists but dependant old people. These useful idiots are keeping the 'evil' state alive by taking pensions and medical care.

Also this article claims that if we left everything to itself we would all be happly. Thats bullshit. The recession was caused in America, a not so harmonous society with the smallest and most truncated western state. While those french divils havent cutback so much and are experiences a less severe recession. The free market is also responsible for naturally producing these large mooching wage cutting corporations so it would seem we are able to create disharmony without state help.

Another thing is when the state has been cut back in the past it was disprortionately white working class men who fought tenaciously against the cutback. No wonder look how they have devastated the harmony of these communities. The most cutback states have large

Also this article paints a lovely picture of the happy working man. It doesnt say it but it implies women arent happy working. Social studies show they are. Furthermore the antiwork stance seems inconsistant with this and that work is somehow naturally dirty. Is GDP evil, seems like ludditism.

We all agree people should have a better work life balance however. You might find this hard to stomach but the state is going to have to intervene to create that harmony as well. How else are those moochers to be stopped indeed the only way we found so far is that of the state. Which societies is it again with the longest working hours again. Oh yes its those with smaller states and more power to the free market?

It would seem that the state and market arent always in agreement on how to pull the feminist-pensioner dupe-strings wouldnt it.

--------------------

I understand the laws of supply and demand you condescending git. You dont understand the division of labour is the problem.Yes I really really am. The supply would have to be going to the same place as the demand to push down wages. On overstock of toothbrushes doesnt push down the price of computers. THATS simple. Women work different jobs than me so their 'labour' does not saturate the male labout market. Must women work in different jobs than men So it doesnt matter how 'collasal' the addition is. In fact if a new source of cheap labour increases productivity without pushing down the wages of men it means that they will be more well off because increased means of consumption. This is exactly how dive

It is not the same as immigration. Its funny have you have fallen dumb of this fact since antifemininist often trumpet the sectoral division of laboutras a reason for wage difference. Immigrants however are usually young and male and tend to work in working class male areas in industrial work(do many women work there)

Feminism provides a socially palatable face for Statism.

Under the guise of liberating women from oppression by men the state can justify virtually any intrusion into the private lives of the citizens.

Also, removing the father from the family eliminates children's best protector and so allows the state freer reign to indoctrinate them. If the government ever does implement state-run daycare it can then eliminate the mother as well and be free to raise all the docile little worker-drones it wants.

Follow the funding, there is much money to be made in promoting laws like VAWA and convincing women they will be better off on welfare and collecting child support (which the states get more federal monies from SS Title IV)

Well I read half of that. It's way too long to read in a single sitting. But I do find it interesting. It goes to what Aaron Russo was saying before he died, how he claimed Nick Rockefeller had told him feminism had been established to break up the family and gain control of the people. I don't think the government is quite so independent as he makes it out to be in the article, though. The government doesn't control the media, for instance. Big business and the government are working together to take away the people's rights. It's not something either of them could do alone, at least not right now. Once they gain control, I assume they'll weed out other businesses so they won't have any competition.

thats a really good question, I had never thought about it that way before, i just kinda thought it was a bunch of dumb women charging foreward for the sake of it.

The Constitution requires all citizens get equal treatment under the law.

No, big business fought feminism tooth and nail for decades.

The economic forces that have led to people needing more jobs to run their families has nothing to do with feminism. Dismantling unions, and regressive taxation, among other things, did that.