
cdf-rom
 |
I sometimes wonder the same thing. Some very bitter women have spread their hatred and biterness around and caused other women to be dissatisfied. If their dissatisfaction had been on reasonable bases, that would have been something that could be discussed and corrected.
But the bitter, angry women wanted something else, something they did not admit to. They assumed that this had been done to them deliberately, and they wanted to make men as miserable as they were. They were out for revenge.
Now, most families are two-income families. Who are the ones that suffer under this situation? The one income families; in other words, not the ones who have yielded to economic pressure to have two incomes, but the ones where the women prefer to remain at home if possible, the ones who are content and don't want to work outside the home.
These are the women the radical feminists hate and resent, because it gives the lie to their bitterness and vengefullness, over imagined 'oppression'. They can't call themselves 'victims' when there are some women who are perfectly happy in the home and family unit.
So, as noted above, the families who suffer most, economically, are the ones where the women would rather stay at home with their children and would rather not go to work.
Has the two-income family led to greater levels of affluence, of disposable income? It has led to greater levels of taxation and inflation. The Federal Government will do nothing to correct this situation. As long as there are two wage-earners in most families, there are two tax payers. And, when there are profits to be made, prices go up. It is an inescapable law of a free market.
Virtually none of the economic benefits promised to women by radical feminists have come to pass. The social benefits have been vastly overrated. The decrease in boorish men has come about through a natural phenomenon-- that they become deceased with the passage of time-- and not as a result of any pressure from feminism.
Today, women drink like men, smoke like men and cuss like men. I fail to see how this is of any benefit to women or men. Today's females are so intent on being 'women' that they have forgotten to be LADIES. Once the civilizing influence of ladies on men is removed, how can men be expected to get anything but worse?
One sad result is that men, being told that there are no differences between themselves and women, begin to treat them as if there are no differences. They fail to look up to women, to respect and cherish women, to value and treasure women. They no longer have this reminder to behave as gentlemen, in the presence of those who are finer than themselves. Today's females have abandoned this status, and have been so intent on proving themselves equal that they have lost the preeminence they once had, to be served, to be looked up to, to be respected and cherished, to be valued and treasured. This is the loss of the civilizing influence of women on men.
The saddest thing is that so many women have bought into the assumption of victimhood, that the treatment was systematic and deliberate, that it was intended to prevent them developing to their full potential. This kind of attitude does not free anybody. Quite the contrary, it keeps one a victim. |