Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leave it to beaver was released in (1957) .... Father Knows Best (1954) ... Hazel (1961) ... My Three Sons (1960) ... Dennis The Menace (1965) ... Andy Griffith Show (1960) ...
These were the popular theme of that timeframe, and all had a very wholesome message of family ... of honesty .. and of morality. Quite a contrast to today's pathetic shows that celebrate degeneracy and moral relativism.
Though the 1970's had it's last remnants of wholesomeness with shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, and Happy Days ... the shift began here with Charlie's Angles, Dallas, Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of Hazard, and a bunch of Police shows like Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, Chips.
The 1980's brought a little more of a shift with Bay Watch, and the epitome of celebrating moral degeneracy ... Married with Children that showed how degenerate parents raise degenerate kids, and the cartoon version "The Simpsons.
An then the 1990's with Beavis and Butthead continuing The Simpsons format, and the beginning of the decline of MTV from a purely R&R music oriented medium in video format, and has been in a downward spiral to it's current state of insidiousness glorifying women dressing like hookers, foul mouthed rappers, and uninhibited sexual hysteria.
Even Walt Disney films have been found to contain subliminal sexual symbology, completely unnoticed by the masses, targeted at very young children.
In all, the key timeframe for all of this began to take form in the 1970's as wholesome programming was slowly replaced with immoral garbage. It's no coincidence that this coincided with the "Women's Liberation Movement" led by Gloria Steinem (self admitted to be on the CIA payroll, with other funding coming from elitist "Foundations")
This was a concerted effort through the controlled mainstream media in promoting several establishment created destabilization movements (a similar stirring of racial tensions to coincide with gender tensions through the Black Panther movement was occurring simultaneously) and all of this was "created" to derail and replace the legitimate homegrown anti-government/anti-war/pro peace movements of the 1960's & 1970's that threatened establishment dominance.
The end goal of the destruction of middle class America was at the heart of this multilevel social re-engineering that even today is not recognized by the all the useful idiots who were manipulated into assisting in their own destruction. And with women being the central foundation of morality and family values historically, a fundamental shift in that was required to derail the power base of society ... the middle class American family.
Yes, because in all of the world's history, relationships, marriage, power, dominance...none of that has ever changed with the times. They have stayed exactly the same until the advent of the evil U.S. media and their gay and black cronies.
Leave it to beaver was released in (1957) .... Father Knows Best (1954) ... Hazel (1961) ... My Three Sons (1960) ... Dennis The Menace (1965) ... Andy Griffith Show (1960) ...
These were the popular theme of that timeframe, and all had a very wholesome message of family ... of honesty .. and of morality.
And males supremacy and female wiles (for the most part).
Leave it to beaver was released in (1957) .... Father Knows Best (1954) ... Hazel (1961) ... My Three Sons (1960) ... Dennis The Menace (1965) ... Andy Griffith Show (1960) ...
These were the popular theme of that timeframe, and all had a very wholesome message of family ... of honesty .. and of morality. Quite a contrast to today's pathetic shows that celebrate degeneracy and moral relativism.
Though the 1970's had it's last remnants of wholesomeness with shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, and Happy Days ... the shift began here with Charlie's Angles, Dallas, Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of Hazard, and a bunch of Police shows like Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, Chips.
The 1980's brought a little more of a shift with Bay Watch, and the epitome of celebrating moral degeneracy ... Married with Children that showed how degenerate parents raise degenerate kids, and the cartoon version "The Simpsons.
An then the 1990's with Beavis and Butthead continuing The Simpsons format, and the beginning of the decline of MTV from a purely R&R music oriented medium in video format, and has been in a downward spiral to it's current state of insidiousness glorifying women dressing like hookers, foul mouthed rappers, and uninhibited sexual hysteria.
Even Walt Disney films have been found to contain subliminal sexual symbology, completely unnoticed by the masses, targeted at very young children.
In all, the key timeframe for all of this began to take form in the 1970's as wholesome programming was slowly replaced with immoral garbage. It's no coincidence that this coincided with the "Women's Liberation Movement" led by Gloria Steinem (self admitted to be on the CIA payroll, with other funding coming from elitist "Foundations")
This was a concerted effort through the controlled mainstream media in promoting several establishment created destabilization movements (a similar stirring of racial tensions to coincide with gender tensions through the Black Panther movement was occurring simultaneously) and all of this was "created" to derail and replace the legitimate homegrown anti-government/anti-war/pro peace movements of the 1960's & 1970's that threatened establishment dominance.
The end goal of the destruction of middle class America was at the heart of this multilevel social re-engineering that even today is not recognized by the all the useful idiots who were manipulated into assisting in their own destruction. And with women being the central foundation of morality and family values historically, a fundamental shift in that was required to derail the power base of society ... the middle class American family.
And now you know the rest of the story.
You got all this out of watching TV
Yes, the shows of the 1950's had lessons of morality - but they were not realistic of how most people lived. I think they had such a high standard, they set practically everyone up to fail. So in essence, your blaming Hollywood for the women's movement. Not things like equal rights, equal pay, job discrimination, spousal rights, etc...
Leave it to beaver was released in (1957) .... Father Knows Best (1954) ... Hazel (1961) ... My Three Sons (1960) ... Dennis The Menace (1965) ... Andy Griffith Show (1960) ...
These were the popular theme of that timeframe, and all had a very wholesome message of family ... of honesty .. and of morality. Quite a contrast to today's pathetic shows that celebrate degeneracy and moral relativism.
Though the 1970's had it's last remnants of wholesomeness with shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, and Happy Days ... the shift began here with Charlie's Angles, Dallas, Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of Hazard, and a bunch of Police shows like Kojak, Streets of San Francisco, Chips.
The 1980's brought a little more of a shift with Bay Watch, and the epitome of celebrating moral degeneracy ... Married with Children that showed how degenerate parents raise degenerate kids, and the cartoon version "The Simpsons.
An then the 1990's with Beavis and Butthead continuing The Simpsons format, and the beginning of the decline of MTV from a purely R&R music oriented medium in video format, and has been in a downward spiral to it's current state of insidiousness glorifying women dressing like hookers, foul mouthed rappers, and uninhibited sexual hysteria.
Even Walt Disney films have been found to contain subliminal sexual symbology, completely unnoticed by the masses, targeted at very young children.
In all, the key timeframe for all of this began to take form in the 1970's as wholesome programming was slowly replaced with immoral garbage. It's no coincidence that this coincided with the "Women's Liberation Movement" led by Gloria Steinem (self admitted to be on the CIA payroll, with other funding coming from elitist "Foundations")
This was a concerted effort through the controlled mainstream media in promoting several establishment created destabilization movements (a similar stirring of racial tensions to coincide with gender tensions through the Black Panther movement was occurring simultaneously) and all of this was "created" to derail and replace the legitimate homegrown anti-government/anti-war/pro peace movements of the 1960's & 1970's that threatened establishment dominance.
The end goal of the destruction of middle class America was at the heart of this multilevel social re-engineering that even today is not recognized by the all the useful idiots who were manipulated into assisting in their own destruction. And with women being the central foundation of morality and family values historically, a fundamental shift in that was required to derail the power base of society ... the middle class American family.
And now you know the rest of the story.
You know what this plastic and fake shiny, happy illusion of the 1950s that was presented to you on television? It was political correctness. In the 1950s, it was politically incorrect to even show a married couple in the same bed, or to mention the words 'pregnancy' or 'pregnant'. In was politically incorrect to portray a good and decent woman as a divorcee. Political correctness demanded that we all pretend that homosexuality didn't exist. The Hayes Code was in full effect, mandating enforced censorship of movies through boycotts and blacklists. Part of the Hayes Code, of course, forbid any depiction on interracial relationships. It was politically incorrect to pretend that whites and blacks marrying each other was normal. Of course, that was illegal in many states then (like Texas). Hollywood made lots of westerns, but it wasn't politically correct to portray that west as it really was, full of black and hispanic and Native American cowboys. It was politically incorrect to teach science in high school biology where it happened to contradict the treasured ancient myths of many Americans.
It seems whenever someone mentions stay at home its always the mom who has to stay home. What about a stay at home Dad? Do children come out equally happy with sahd?
Also this concept of one income families is actually new. In the 19th century and early 20th century most farmers and their families,including the wives,worked in the fields. They didn't stay at home all day waiting for the husband. Even the example of the caveman wasn't good because even when he was hunting,the wife was gathering fruits and berries in the forest,and on top of gathering berries,and watching children she still had to cook.
OMG! What a load of crap! Lesbians leading women to their liberation??!! As if intelligent women, on their own, were not able to see the disparities in the many opportunities available to men and the very few available to women.
Yes a very strong element ignorantly and selfishly promoting the movement ... but not the force behind the movement ... the force behind the movement were the same ones who had 90% of the American males locked into financial slavery, and wanted to extend that "opportunity" to women. And they succeeded because of such tremendous intelligence ... quite similar to what is displayed here in your comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
OMG, again!! Do you really believe what you write? Take a look at undeveloped countries and you will see how women throughout history have been treated. Even in developed countries, until till the latter half of the 20th century women were non-persons, they existed only as extensions of their husbands.
The Beatles said it: "Woman is the (n-word) of the world."
Hahaha ... what amazing nonsense ... the history of the world according to the Beatles ?
Perhaps you are from another planet? Well, let me be the one to inform you that here on planet EARTH, women have held great positions of power throughout history ... and you need not be a history professor to recognize the name of Cleo-Fvking-Patra, now do you?
Of course, everything was fine and rosy in the Garden of Eden until Eve ate that friggin' apple!
Tell me if you recognize these names:
Eleanor of Aquitaine: 1122 to 1204 No? ... She was one of the wealthiest and most powerful people in 11th Century Europe, Queen Consort to King Louis VII of France, and later, to King Henry II of England.
Hatshepsut: 1508 BC to 1458 BC. Stumped? She was the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Ancient Egypt and ruled longer than any other woman in Egyptian history.
Maria Theresa of Austria 1717-1780 - succeeded her father, Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, as empress of the Hapsburg controlled lands of Central Europe in 1740.
Empress Theodora: 500 AD to 548 AD - Theodora was one of the most influential and powerful women in the Early Middle Ages. She was the wife of Emperor Justinian I and joint ruler of the Byzantine Empire.
Empress Wu Zetian: 625 AD to 705 AD - considered to be one of the most powerful women in Chinese history. She lived during the Tang Dynasty and was born to a wealthy and noble family. She was also very well educated, and is credited with being the one that made Buddhism the official chinese religion.
Isabella I of Castile: 1451 to 1504 - Queen of Spain, best remembered for sponsoring Christopher Columbus’s voyage to the Western Hemisphere, initiating the Spanish Inquisition, and unifying the remaining independent Spanish kingdoms into one nation. Isabella I co-ruled with her husband, Ferdinand of Aragón, from 1474 up until her death in 1504.
Elizabeth I of England: 1533 to 1603 - just one among many Queens of England, she was truly the first crowned queen to successfully rule with absolute power. She never married and has often been referred to as the “Virgin Queen.†Elizabeth is best remembered for bringing the Renaissance to England. She is also remembered for defeating the Spanish Armada and establishing Protestantism in England, replacing Roman Catholicism. Elizabeth was the daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and she ruled from 1558 until her death in 1603. She was last monarch of the Tudor Dynasty and her reign is known as the “Elizabethan Era.â€
Catherine II of Russia: 1729 to 1796 - known as Catherine the Great (not to be confused with Alexander the Great) ruled over Russia which was and still is the world’s largest country geographically. Catherine is remembered for bringing Enlightenment ideas to Russia as well expanding the empire. Her rule lasted or 34 years, ending with her death in 1796.
Queen Victoria: 1819 to 1901 - one of the most powerful monarchs in history, queen of the United Kingdom and head of the colonial British Empire which covered 14.2 million square miles, spanning six continents, and controlling countries such as Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, and Sudan as well as many others. Geographically, the British Empire was the largest in history, and known as the “Victorian Era.†Of course there are also references to Victorian architecture, Victorian decor, etc.
Shall I go on ... there are THOUSANDS of examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945
And if you think hard, you will recognize that your tired definitions of 'lady' and 'gentlemen' are as antique and worn out as the rest of your thoughts.
You've been had. You believe in pure myths ... manipulated like a child, and just as clueless.
Women have ruled this world, the world over, and at various times extending throughout history .... I used the very old examples above just to show you that the CURRENT Queen Elizabeth, owner of Canada, Australia, England, and other holdings isn't a modern anomaly, nor is Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, along with the the fact that my "Antique" ideas are simply historical facts, while your modern progressive ideas are ALL WET.
You may question those antique ideas about Lady and Gentlemen, but I suggest you not ask me about idiocy and stupidity ... you might like that answer even less.
You got all this out of watching TV
Yes, the shows of the 1950's had lessons of morality - but they were not realistic of how most people lived. I think they had such a high standard, they set practically everyone up to fail. So in essence, your blaming Hollywood for the women's movement. Not things like equal rights, equal pay, job discrimination, spousal rights, etc...
No ... the "women's movement" was simply one aspect of a multifaceted and coordinated effort to re-engineer society.
Nothing of major significance happens by chance, and certainly not the rise to such influence of a rather disturbed person like Gloria Steinem ... you should look into her history .... and to her rather disturbed upbringing by a psychotic mother, whom her father left because of her mental illness.
This woman went from nobody to the Leader of the Women's Movement virtually overnight. Look into her funding for Ms. Magazine. Follow the money baby.
Hint: the government doesn't love you, and couldn't care less about how you are treated.
I promise you ... based on my many conversations, "brain dead" is no stranger to this forum.
Yeah, he probably should have started the engine, and turned on the air conditioner ... but then someone would have exclaimed how he was wastefully damaging the environment
I think the underlying issue with this particular topic (like many others) is way too much focus on the individual, and way too little focus on the greater good. What's best for everyone isn't always best for every individual (at least the immediate impression).
We have become a very selfish society, constantly concerned about "what's in it for me" instead of "what can I do to help". Too quick to point a finger, and too slow to offer a hand.
These "movements", whether it be gender, sexual orientation, or race based may seem legitimate on the surface ... and usually are founded upon real issues that give it credibility, but in reality, they are designed to create tensions and divisions, and when combined all together leads to only one result ... everyone at each other's throats, trying to one up the other.
Given that women make up a slight majority in the world with more women than men, how is it that women are classified as a "minority" ? I mean, doesn't that tell you something about how easily we can be manipulated .. and how willing we are to lie to ourselves? Hey, so long as someone sees some selfish benefit, even a lie will be readily accepted and promoted.
Here's the deal as I see it ... women's liberation and the equal status in the workforce was promoted under the guise of being beneficial for women, and on the surface, that made sense, and seemed quite fair. And it is fair .... to some women. Unfortunately, that led to the later need for two incomes to meet the costs of running a household, as everyone should realize by now, the "system" is designed to extract as much out of you financially as you can manage to pay, plus a little extra that you can put on credit. It's financial slavery. The result was now the typical family must have both adults working to make ends meet, and the children suffer from the lack of parental guidance and attention they need.
Even worse, if the partnership implodes under these stresses, now the single mother finds it twice the hardship with one income ... and the children suffer even more, financially and emotionally.
Women have been convinced that they are something less than they should be if they don't pursue a career and marriage and children, but in that scenario something is going to suffer ... can't short change the job or the career will fail ... if she's a decent woman, she won't put here children in last place, so the victim is most always the marriage. Once the marriage disintegrates ... divorce ... broken family ... and EVERYONE suffers.
Am I making this up? Hardly.
The divorce rate is slightly above 50% nationally, and in Southern California 60-75%!
Of those that divorce, 75% remarry, and half do so within 3 years. 65% of second marriages end in divorce too.
Between 1970-1996, the number of divorced people in the population QUADRUPLED .... that's just a span of 26 years (one generation). I don't know what the current figures are, but I'd bet they haven't improved.
Between 1970-1996, the marriage rate dropped by 30%, while the divorce rate increased 40% (70% less married folks in 26 years).
It seems that we have a serious crisis here, and the only winners are the lawyers, who are doing quite nicely.
Am I contributing ALL of this to the feminist movement? No, correlation doesn't prove causation, but I'm sure it's a major factor, along with financial issues being a serious factor in all relationship issues (which goes back to the fundamental economic shift from one wage earner to two).
Was the feminist movement just one big bright example of progress for women? Depends on what you call progress, doesn't it?
If you consider a 40% increase in single mothers struggling alone in an economy geared toward two wage earners ... then maybe.
If you consider a similar increase in the number of children suffering through divorces and living apart from their fathers ... maybe.
Those that consider these results a sign of progress and achievement for women are seriously blinded and immersed in self delusion.
But it's not all bad news ..... it's been great for the liberal lipstick lesbians who can combine their high corporate salaries, live in an posh upscale suburb, and adopt two baby boys from the single mother who cannot provide for them. And in 20 or so years, they will have managed successful careers, while raising two future interior designers who's only male influence in their confused little lives were two women who thought it all quite natural and normal.
Here's to ridding ourselves of that old female image of the 1950's:
And here is to the new 21st century liberated woman:
Progress indeed ...
Yes, completely brainwashed by the religious of history into believing women are evil , men are good...
How many other groups of humans do you wish to have human rights denied?
How many other groups are you afraid of???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
