slug.com slug.com

2 2

"They know a society of strong men would never have allowed what's happening right now. That's why they attacked masculinity first."
— Kevin Sorbo

Wordmage 8 June 14
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Funny how things work. In the thirties, when unemployment was high, women were urged to stay at home and allow what few jobs were available to be open to men so they could support their families. Young men and children were urged to stay in school. All promoted by the Unions and the government.
Feminism didn't become oppositional to masculinity until the sixties. The roles were complementary, for the most part, until that time and then feminism wanted equality which it got and then started on the road to emasculating masculinity.
The civil rights movement occurred about the same time with Blacks wanting equality, which they got with the Civil Rights act and the striking down of Jim Crow laws. Lyndon Johnson smugly said that Blacks would be voting Democrat for the next two hundred years. Unions promoted inclusivity for women in the workforce in order to swell their ranks and Governments promoted it as well for the purpose of having half the population that were not paying any income tax start adding to their coffers.
I think it was Jay Rockefeller who said the whole feminist movement was a product of government manipulation for that very reason. You still might be able to find the video of him taking the credit for it.
Ahhh...equality, that pale, gray objective of the socialist. They of course forget there should be a qualifier to that, the founding fathers didn't forget, everyone was equal "under the law". We are born into the world equally with nothing and proceed from there, with only natural born rights, our personal pursuit of happiness.
Voting rights were restricted to free men though and women were not yet able to define themselves as men and Blacks were something like 3/5's men. Criminals lose their right to vote but can gain it back and today women and Blacks can all vote. The right to vote is, in my view, far too liberal. It's at the point where pretty much anyone in the country can vote, citizen or not. Lately, I have heard elephants, the intelligent creatures that they are, are next in line to secure human rights and get the vote.

I was with you all the way up to a point where you said blacks were 3/5 of a man. That's never been a "thing." You seem to be perpetuating a misunderstanding of the 3/5 compromise, which was not about blacks, specifically. It was about slaves and whether their numbers counted for representation in the House of Representatives. If they had, that would have falsely inflated the South's influence by increasing the number of votes they had in Congress.

Look at it this way:
Massachusetts has a population of 100 citizens. Let's say that they get one House seat for every ten. So they get ten votes in the House of Representatives.
Georgia, being agrarian, only has a population of fifty, but they also have fifty slaves that were counted in the census — because the government counts everything. So, since they have a total population of 100, they also get ten seats in the House of Representatives. But those ten seats are controlled by only fifty voters, and the slaves (black, white, or otherwise) get no vote.

The compromise was this: the North agreed to let the southern states count their slaves toward their total population for representation purposes, but only three out of each five of the non-freedmen. That compromise prevented the slaveowning South from running roughshod over the northern states, legislatively speaking.

But at no point was the compromise meant to imply that a slave was 3/5 of a man, no matter how hard modern-day mythologists try to push that interpretation. If the Founding Fathers had not made that compromise, then it probably would've taken a lot longer than it did to root slavery out of this country, not to mention we probably wouldn't have had a constitution.

Other than that one detail, I think we're in full agreement. Pretty much every aspect of feminism (and now transgenderism) is being employed as a smokescreen to promote socialism.

@Wordmage Ahh...well thank you for that elucidation. I admit I heard that on the internet. 🙂

2

That is an interesting point.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:235162
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.