Red sparrow

[white light]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

there is nothing generalised about what marxist feminism is about

anyone paying attention can see the agenda behind it

I'm responding to the quote "In the west, this perception is now almost universal".

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by white light

I'm responding to the quote "In the west, this perception is now almost universal".

can you remind me where that quote came from so i can look at it and see the context?

[white light]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

can you remind me where that quote came from so i can look at it and see the context?

Don't you even read the stuff you post?

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

Should women really be rushing back to work after giving birth?
Would women and their babies be happier if motherhood hadn’t been devalued – and medicalised – to the detriment of us all, says Antonella Gambotto-Burke
Antonella Gambotto-Burke
Sat 11 Jul 2015 06.30 BST
Last modified on Tue 18 Jul 2017 23.10 BST

Like almost every other woman I know, I used to see motherhood as the consolation prize for women who couldn’t cut it in the workplace. Being a mother was acceptable if it wasn’t one’s raison d’être – as a side mention it was passable, as a passion it indicated only a lack of capacity and imagination.

In the west, this perception is now almost universal. Nurturing a child is considered to be squandering the time and talent of the educated. Female high-achievers now hunger for “challenges” in place of connections; the chancellor of the exchequer said recently that mothers who stay at home to look after their children are making a lifestyle choice, as if it were on a par with nudism or polyamory.

This is reinforced by the behaviour of women in public life. A week after giving birth to her third son, the actor Cate Blanchett was addressing a summit. Rachida Dati, a former minister in the French cabinet, returned to parliament, in heels, five days after a Caesarean section.

Effective mothering requires not only a sustained investment of energy by the mother, but an equal investment of energy into the mother by her partner, family and community. The change we need demands a revision of priorities. We need to rally round mothers, enabling them to bond with their babies so that the next generation does not suffer the same wounds.

Critically, we need to understand that far from being drudges, mothers are, in fact, creating the very course of our species’ future.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...r-giving-birth

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by white light

Don't you even read the stuff you post?

of course i do

if you want to try and ignore what that lady is saying to you then fine but she is saying that in her experience as a career woman the expectation is on women putting primacy on their career

is that the prevailing view in the west?

Would a poll even give a true answer because would a woman that HAS put her career first admit that she has put that before motherhood?

[white light]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

of course i do

if you want to try and ignore what that lady is saying to you then fine but she is saying that in her experience as a career woman the expectation is on women putting primacy on their career

is that the prevailing view in the west?

Would a poll even give a true answer because would a woman that HAS put her career first admit that she has put that before motherhood?

It may be the prevailing view, but there are nuances as to why that may be. Most women in divorce settlements cannot rely on alimony for the rest of their lives. Divorce is far more common than in the past. To be a "'til death do us part" wife and mother is not a guaranteed part of the deal anymore. An independent career would be a logical response.

Anyways, I was making a joke, incase you hadn't noticed.

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by white light

It may be the prevailing view, but there are nuances as to why that may be. Most women in divorce settlements cannot rely on alimony for the rest of their lives. Divorce is far more common than in the past. To be a "'til death do us part" wife and mother is not a guaranteed part of the deal anymore. An independent career would be a logical response.

Anyways, I was making a joke, incase you hadn't noticed.

Sure and kids go to school anyway after their early formative years

[JustMe418]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

But political correctness tells us that women are innately better then men so it can't be true

besides if it were accepted that women can be bad then the law would have to protect men too and that is not acceptable under PC rules

Instead muslims and jews must be given their own law courts so that they can manage their own affairs and avoid the whiplash of new feministist laws

Only white men must feel the lash

It has been proven historically that some women are complete monsters and this cannot be denied.

Domestic crime against men occurs but is little reported due to the shame of the man and that they are often not taken seriously. The idea of the meek and mild, always nice and gentle female is a lie.

[JustMe418]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

maybe men and women do harm in different ways

I once heard it said that a mans weapon is the sword but a womans weapon is poison

so if a mans greater physical strength is his sword then womens use of social media to shame men is poison

there is room for misuse with both

A womans weapon is often between her legs. How often does it occur that men fight over a woman for 'access'.

I know females who are more than capable of sorting men out.

[mannybash]

It's very true some women are complete monsters far worse than any man I suspect. Even so what I would call a real woman is a carer one who is awkward in the face of violence. Less so these days because of I believe other external influences

[JustMe418]

Originally Posted by mannybash

It's very true some women are complete monsters far worse than any man I suspect. Even so what I would call a real woman is a carer one who is awkward in the face of violence. Less so these days because of I believe other external influences

There are many gentle caring men. What feminism focus' on is not the true male but the immature male while ignoring the nuturing, fatherly, caring mature male. When any group wants to attack something they always select the worst example of people in that group and focus on them, then try to convince others that the target group represents the whole.

Goodness and caring are not the right of one sex only.

[mannybash]

And I count myself among them. Even so probably because of excessive "freedom" brought about by money and an increasingly shallow sense of values in the west has seen traditional caring nature of women being subverted by greed

[iamawaveofthesea]

Watched some film picks by my girlfriend recently

One was a period drama called 'my cousin rachel' based on the book by daphne de maurier who loves her mind games. The film creates ambiguity around a female character and her intentions. Is she as she presents herself or is she something altogether more sinister?

It hinges around the possible use of poison. I'll not say anymore as don't want to provide spoilers but then we watched another film...a pretty odd one but done by a well known director which i think might have been daniel day lewis's last film before he retired, where he plays the head of a fashion house who makes dresses for the rich and famous. It was called 'phantom thread'. It also has a theme of poisoning by a female character and i think both are an interesting exploration of the female psyche

Rachel weiss stars in the first of those films and she recently said in the press that she doesn't think there should be a female james bond as women deserve their own characters. I agree with her. Why does a male character need to be co-opted by women as if erasing men from history? eg doctor who. Why can't whole new characters be created for women? Why can't women write a female spy character for women instead of stealing a male written male character?

Or why not do a film about a real life female spy character such as Vera Atkins of the SOE? But then the progressives aren't interested in equality, they are interested in waging war against men

[vancity eagle]

the real issue with this movie is that it will be used to demonize Russia.

in the preview you see a guy in the CIA saying "they have this program" where I guess they use some kind of mind controlled female assasins and honeypots.

As if the CIA doesn't also "have that program"

Only the Russians right.

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

the real issue with this movie is that it will be used to demonize Russia.

in the preview you see a guy in the CIA saying "they have this program" where I guess they use some kind of mind controlled female assasins and honeypots.

As if the CIA doesn't also "have that program"

Only the Russians right.

interesting timing isn't it that hollywood demonises russia while the jewish neocons try to accuse trump of collusion with russia

they want war with russia and hilary would have handed it to them on a plate

[vancity eagle]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

interesting timing isn't it that hollywood demonises russia while the jewish neocons try to accuse trump of collusion with russia

they want war with russia and hilary would have handed it to them on a plate

I don't believe Hillary would have done such a thing. She would likely have done what Trump is currently doing, sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Maybe a little more hawkish in her rhetoric, but in the end she wouldn't do shit.

No President has ever declared an open war with Russia. Sure some psychopaths behind the scenes may want that eventually, but I see no reason to believe Hillary would have started an open war with Russia, that's a lot of hyperbole.

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

I don't believe Hillary would have done such a thing. She would likely have done what Trump is currently doing, sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Maybe a little more hawkish in her rhetoric, but in the end she wouldn't do shit.

No President has ever declared an open war with Russia. Sure some psychopaths behind the scenes may want that eventually, but I see no reason to believe Hillary would have started an open war with Russia, that's a lot of hyperbole.

you must have a short memory because hilary was stoking tensions with russia

whereas now she simply seeks to accuse them of meddling with american politics

[vancity eagle]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

you must have a short memory because hilary was stoking tensions with russia

whereas now she simply seeks to accuse them of meddling with american politics

so "stoking tensions" means she will declare open war with Russia ?

Guess what Trump is also "stoking tensions" with Russia, by sending Ukraine anti-tank weapons. He also "stoked tensions" with Iran and North Korea, has war happened yet ?

When last has the US actually fought against a capable enemy ?

I know you hate Hillary Clinton but really you think she would have given us an open war with Russia ? I think you are letting your hatred cloud your judgement.

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

so "stoking tensions" means she will declare open war with Russia ?

Guess what Trump is also "stoking tensions" with Iran and North Korea, has war happened yet ?

When last has the US actually fought against a capable enemy ?

I know you hate Hillary Clinton but really you think she would have given us an open war with Russia ? I think you are letting your hatred cloud your judgement.

i dread to think what hilary clinton is capable of

[vancity eagle]

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea

i dread to think what hilary clinton is capable of

I think you've bought too much CNP propaganda. She is no different than any other shitty world leader.

None of Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Clinton, Obama, Reagan gave us an outright war with Russia. I don't think Hillary is any different.

What you should be worried about is Trump, who is backed by the most aggressive Zionists and the craziest fundamentalist Christians who actually want to bring about Armageddon.

[iamawaveofthesea]

Originally Posted by vancity eagle

I think you've bought too much CNP propaganda. She is no different than any other shitty world leader.

None of Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Clinton, Obama, Reagan gave us an outright war with Russia. I don't think Hillary is any different.

What you should be worried about is Trump, who is backed by the most aggressive Zionists and the craziest fundamentalist Christians who actually want to bring about Armageddon.

i think you have your head too far up rothschild arse