From the Creator of Died Suddenly: What A Woman Is -- Movie Trailer

To “rebuild the patriarchy” you have to remove the role of government in women’s lives. Stop the government from supporting single mothers financially and trying to achieve child rearing through agencies and public school systems.

Doing what is nessessary will cause a period a very strenuous times for women. It’s not something that can be achieved easily. Not to mention it would take great commitment from society of the whole so I’m not optimistic. We will ever see a substantial progress in mine or my kids lifetime.

When it happens, and I think it will eventually I think it comes on the heels of absolute necessity.

Rush was right -

“A feminazi,” Limbaugh said, “is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed.

LINK

I hear something is undefeated…….

They do a good job of uncovering the problem - the destructive forces at work on Western Society. But their solution - the oppression of women - is immoral.

The first couple of waves of feminism were just, but having achieved everything they wanted, feminists were unable to stop. The solution is to return society, not to where it was before feminism started, but to where it was when women had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted, but were under no pressure to walk away from traditional roles.

quote:

---

They do a good job of uncovering the problem - the destructive forces at work on Western Society. But their solution - the oppression of women - is immoral.

The first couple of waves of feminism were just, but having achieved everything they wanted, feminists were unable to stop. The solution is to return society, not to where it was before feminism started, but to where it was when women had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted, but were under no pressure to walk away from traditional roles.

---

1. Nowhere in that video does anybody say anything about "oppressing women."

2. You clearly don't know the history of the feminist movement. 1st and 2nd wave feminism contained the genesis of LGBTQ, the rejection and destruction of the nuclear family, and the rejection of Abrahamic religions (especially Christianity), not 3rd and 4th wave. The latter waves didn't introduce anything new along those lines, they just built upon what had already been established.

It was Simone de Beauvoir, whose book "The Second Sex" is widely given credit as being the mark of the beginning of 2nd wave feminism, who famously said that women could not be given a choice about whether to continue to embrace traditional roles or not because too many of them would choose it.. That's right on the line between 1st and 2nd wave feminism. Bonus fact: Many if not most of the prominent 1st/2nd wave feminists claimed to have channeled their ideas from spirits. I believe them. I believe they channeled demons.

3. Like it or not, the world is patriarchal. The patriarchy has not been "lost." It doesn't need to be "brought back." It's never gone away, and it never will go away.

Because men have a monopoly on force.

Women en mass never have and never will be able to physically overpower men. This is true even with modern weapons...people say that guns are equalizers, but thy are not. A woman wielding a gun is not 2 or 3 times more likely to have that gun taken away from her and used against her than a man is, she's TEN TIMES more likely to have that happen than a man.

Women can't handle recoil like men can. Women do not have the grip strength to even load weapons like men can. For that matter, women can't even regulate their body temperatures as well as men can. A female army against a male army would end up about the same as the NBA vs the WNBA.

There has never been a single event in history in which women have decided to revolt against men and won by force, and taken men's rights away as a result. But there are current examples of the reverse situation.

48 hours after the US withdrew from Afghanistan, women's rights there began to be rolled back.

Every institution to which women can appeal is ultimately backed by force, and women cannot overpower men.

So the patriarchy hasn't gone a damn place. It's actually been highly benevolent to women, to the detriment of the family.

And I disagree with one statement they made in that film clip about women being unified—the rest of it being absolutely spot on based on what I know—and that is that women who were allowed to vote in referendums about women's suffrage overwhelmingly voted against it. They were NOT unified on that. The historical sources I have consulted on the matter indicate that women's suffrage came about mostly because wealthy industrialists wanted cheap labor for their factories, so they pushed the right to vote through as a way to facilitate women taking on make roles and working outside the home.

quote:

---

If we want a more patriarchal culture, like maybe your grandparents had, then the answer is to want less.

---

You put your finger on one highly important factor. Agreed. You are spot on, and well done.

But there's more.

In order for society to function as God intended it to function, our lives must revolve less around materialism, yes, but the church has to regain a position of cultural authority as well.

The church is the authority women had to appeal to when their husbands were not holding up their end of the arrangement with the proper virtue and responsibility.

As the film showed, we have been commanded to live in a hierarchical society.

The woman reports to the man, and the man reports to God. And the church is God's representative on Earth.

quote:

---

But their solution - the oppression of women - is immoral.

---

What? Where did you get that from? Their solution is to return to following the Manufacturer’s instructions. I think they could’ve made the point, that if men loved their wives as Christ loved the church- there would be no oppression, but the film is about women. While I would agree that forcing women into traditional roles is immoral, I don’t think that is their message.

quote:

---

The first couple of waves of feminism were just, but having achieved everything they wanted, feminists were unable to stop.

---

Gee, sounds a lot like the argument for communism. Huh. Weird.

quote:

---

The solution is to return society, not to where it was before feminism started, but to where it was when women had the opportunity to do whatever they wanted, but were under no pressure to walk away from traditional roles.

---

He said, looking up from the bottom of a slippery slope.

quote:

---

Yes they do. They talk about obeying their husband. That is oppression. Equals do not have to obey the other one.

---

I had a time constraint when I first replied to this, but wanted to address this some more.

You are making a huge assumption here, and I'll bet you can't substantiate it.

"Being equal" is dependent upon context. Let's say my next door neighbor works in my company as an employee.

In the context of sitting around by the pool on Saturday cracking a few beers, he and I are equals.

In the context of standing before a judge or jury, he and I are equals.

Not that you agree—but spiritually, considering our worth before God, he and I are equals.

At work, however, we are not equals.

So assumption number one is that men and women are equals in the context of the hierarchy of marriage.

Now, what do you base that on?

Not nature. Observing the animal kingdom and especially mammals, it is rare that the male of the species is not dominant over the female and the female is not submissive to the male, and in the rare incidences that it is true (that I am aware of), it's because the female is actually more powerful than the male. But I'm not aware of any examples of the weaker, less powerful sex being dominant and the stronger sex being submissive in the animal kingdom.

Not Abrahamic religions. All three Abrahamic religions make it very clear who is to be in charge of the household. I don't know nearly as much about Hindus as I do the other three, but it is my understanding that they agree with the Abrahamic religions on that question.

Not current outcomes in psychology. As the film mentions, self-reported happiness of women in western countries has declined in exact proportion to the degree that the teachings of feminism have been adopted. It's almost like women are being convinced to do something against their best interest by teaching them that they should act like men.

So to what authority do you appeal when you assume that men and women are to have equal say regarding the family and its affairs?

I don't see a successful appeal to nature, religion, or psychology. It's not at all self-evident that it should be the case, though I predict you will deny this.

And speaking of being convinced to do something against best interest, how has it worked out so far for the family to have two partners with an exactly equal say?

How is that supposed to be resolved in your ideal?

What has happened is that people simply resolve it by getting divorced. And honestly, what other resolution is there if both partners have equal say?

That's a great solution?

The way this is supposed to work is this (according to the Manufacturer, as someone else posted):

The husband is stronger, less emotionally motivated, and naturally more competitive. He's responsible for protection and provision. To his detriment or even including his death, if necessary. He's willing to work 3 jobs if necessary, he's willing to fight a grizzly bear even though it means certain death to give his family time to escape if necessary, if a window breaks in the middle of the night, he's willing to be the one to go downstairs and check for a break in...he's willing to do ANYTHING THAT IS NECESSARY to provide for and protect the family.

The wife is physically weaker, more emotionally motivated, and naturally more nurturing. She's responsible for raising and taking care of the children, doing the (historically) less physical domestic chores, and emotionally supporting the husband. Because she knows that the husband would literally lay down his life for her and the children and work himself to exhaustion to provide for them, she willingly submits to his judgement regarding family decisions.

So if he comes home one day and says, "I've decided it would be best for us for me to take a job in Houston, five hours away. The decision has been made, I don't want to hear anything about it. Just start packing. We leave two weeks from Thursday," then she is supposed to trust his judgement and just start packing.

Now, notice something. Men and women are both physically, chemically (hormonally), and emotionally suited for exactly those roles. Which explains why, when they attempt to fill a role that is suited for the other, they become depressed, anxious, and develop mental problems, which is exactly what has happened in Western countries over the past 40-50 years.

Someone has to be in charge and have the final say. Which of the two profiles lends itself to that role? Obvious.

The husband keeps the wife in check, but who keeps the husband in check? That is supposed to be the church. And churches are supposed to be led by men, and for the same reasons the family is supposed to be led by men.

So if Bob puts his family in jeopardy due to poor judgement, or lack of virtue, the church elders are supposed to go talk to Bob about this. And he is commanded to submit to their spiritual authority.

There's a plan that works great according to the reality of men and women with a clear chain of command. But we have to deny reality to play these games of "equality" and "oppression" and act like men can be women and women can be men.

quote:

---

My child has to obey my wife. Is that oppression?

---

Children are not free; they are wards of their parents exactly because they are inferior and would not survive without help. This is what you, and that obnoxious documentary, are proposing for women - an inferior status.

It’s my belief that most men, who want the state and religion to force women into subservience, are insecure and need that crutch.