We hear “do it for the children” all the time, but it seems to mean using the symbol of the children to justify what we want.
In my generation, it was the same way. Do it for the children meant make drugs illegal, stop Satanism, limit what music could be sold.
It was in fact an agenda of social control to make society more conservative, trying to un-do the 1960s legacy.
I don’t have a problem with its goals; in the intervening years, I’ve come to see how socially conservative goals are the only ones that make a happier, more stable society.
Conservative views are based on ends, liberal views are based on means. A conservative views the eternal, permanent and truthful as most important; a liberal views the novel, temporal and immediate as most important.
These two splits correspond to knowledge of the outside world versus knowledge of ourselves. The outside world is based on consequences, but the inner world on feelings, judgments and emotions.
Naturally, these aren’t pure categories. We must know ourselves to some degree before we think much of anything. And we can have a rich inner world without being consumed by it.
But in general, conservative views are more concerned with the end results of things, and liberal views, more with how they feel to those who must act them out.
In the grand liberalization of our society, feminism plays a major role: its goal is to make women equal to men. Since this cannot be done in results, it is done at the level of means and through compensation and subsidy like affirmative action, quotas, and penalties for men.
It has also resulted in a sexual liberation jihad which is inseparable from feminism; in fact, if you support sexual liberation, you are inherently supporting the feminist agenda.
As part of this, women have become disconnected from a role as mothers, and instead have become people of the means — people who act for their own pleasure, reward and public image only — and as a result are butchering the psyches of their children.
Looking back, I’m not quite sure when I noticed my daughter was watching the film The Parent Trap on a loop, but it definitely coincided with the arrival of my new boyfriend — the first man I’d dated properly since my divorce.
Olivia became incredibly clingy with me, even though she’d been independent and confident before. She would cry when I went on a date with Matt.
I once left dinner at his house with mascara running down my face, torn apart by guilt, feeling selfish for having a life of my own, even though the children were being babysat by their grandmother, who was spoiling them with bedtime stories, cuddles and hot chocolate. – Femail
What an epic conflict! Drama worthy of the modern woman! Did you hear her? It’s her pleasure, versus the kids. And she has chosen her pleasure.
Just as she chose divorce, her choice of pleasure is predetermined by feminism. Feminism puts the individual woman first before society, tradition or the family. Naturally, conflicts arise. When they do, the only sensible feminism act is to smash and destroy so that the individual female can be “liberated.”
If the marriage gets in your way, divorce. If the kids want a nuclear family back, smash their hopes and force your new boyfriend on them. It’s what dysfunctional families have done for centuries, only now it’s political dogma to consider it “normal.”
When you divorce, you’re sending a message to your kids. That message is: the events of your formation were wrong. We have fixed those, and now you are not a goal, but a byproduct.
Hey kids! Welcome to being pink slime, or cheese product. You’re not the main course, you’re the weird goo that’s left over. And yet this is what feminism says to all children.
Amy Sohn writes that moms in her affluent Brooklyn neighborhood are going through something called “the 40-year-old reversion.” The tedium of raising children, she says, is driving moms in her circle out at night to party to the extreme as if they were 25 again.
Sohn likens the scene to the HBO show “Girls,” which depicts life in New York for the post-college crowd: “…We’re masturbating excessively, cheating on good people, doing coke in newly price-inflated townhouses, and sexting compulsively—though rarely with our partners. Our children now school-aged, our marriages entering their second decade, we are avoiding the big questions—Should I quit my job? Have another child? Divorce?—by behaving like a bunch of crazy twentysomething hipsters. Call us the Regressives.” – CNN
What else would Mommy do, but act as self-centeredly as possible? Her kids can be so proud and can point and say, “Yep, that’s my Mom, the drunken coke-addled cougar, showing us how to live well.”
Feminism encourages it. You, the female, must always act for you. This requires the sacrifice of everything else, including your children’s need to grow up in a stable home and respect you.
In a quest to stay relevant, women have rejected the family-centric pattern of decent people. Instead, it’s all about them. Perpetual teenagers, they do whatever they have to in order to stay in the limelight.
This is the triumph of the meat-market. Instead of having roles in which we are important, we must all compete at all times to stay “relevant,” usually by whoring out our bodies:
For young adults today who were weaned on iPods and the Internet, the practice of “sexting,” or sending sexually explicit photos or messages through phones, may be just another normal, healthy component of modern dating.
University of Michigan researchers looked at the sexting behavior of 3,447 men and women ages 18-24 and found that while sexting is very common, sexting isn’t associated with sexually risky behaviors or with psychological problems.
The findings contradict the public perception of sexting, which is often portrayed in the media and elsewhere as unsavory, deviant or even criminal behavior. – CBS
Psychiatrists (who are always making broad conclusions and ten years later withdrawing them) haven’t yet found anything wrong with this, but it’s staring them in the face: it reduces people to meat.
If you aim for an eternal goal, like family and self-respect, you end up wanting to be chaste and to pick one partner that you then spend your life with. You’re not immortal, neither is she; you don’t deny that, so you plan for the whole life. And you plan for the best possible outcome, which is a family and a happily ever after. If we’re ranking life-paths A, B, C and D, having a single marriage and a single sex partner is an A+.
Your kids grow up with stability and are not neurotic. You have fewer “freedoms,” but in the place of those, you have a position of respect and purpose.
With “freedoms,” you are just another piece of meat in a world of people who act for themselves alone. Thus you must become relevant by whoring yourself, or you are forgotten.
Feminism by insisting on women placing themselves first before family has reduced women to pieces of meat, and as they contort to adapt to this, the results go from bad to worse.
MRAs, by holding up the banner of casual sex, are rejecting roles in favor of “freedoms” (means) in the exact same way feminists have. The result will be the same: alienated, shell-shocked, trustless people wandering through life, whoring for a permanent affection that will never be found.