Posts by Jessica Kelly4

Jack Cook7 said:The thing is, buddy, it's all about
your perception.

Because of all that old-school propaganda—whether it's communist, Christian, or Islamic—you're convinced you're being robbed.

But once you strip away the ideals, the flags, the bows, the crosses, the dollar signs, and those dusty history textbooks, everything becomes crystal clear.

They mislead you specifically so they can pick your pocket.
😍

The worst part is, the more I dive into anthropology, the more I see how much of it is pure illusion. Civilization is basically just a fragile plant...

It only reinforces my conservatism. There's an old engineering rule: if it isn't broken, don't touch it. And if you do have to tinker, you do it inch by inch, checking feedback a million times. Especially when you're messing with fundamental structures. Like marriage... 🙂

bluecyclist64 said:Well, at least I can't call you a complete Neanderthal or an idiot.

Look, friend, here is what actually interests me.

About fifty years ago, a man could earn enough to support a family of four, while the wife stayed home as a 🤣 homemaker.

Think about how much of a scam that really is—women have the right to work now too, so now both the husband and the wife have to grind away for the EXACT SAME PAYCHECK!

Hello???

Economics and money are things I just can't seem to wrap my head around.
I've been closely following a fascinating topic regarding how the banking elites rob us and how they've actually been using the same fiat currency principles for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It all happens through cycles of debt and chaos.

I'm also struggling with the question you asked, just on a more fundamental level. We have memory, and for heaven's sake, the Bible alone distills thousands of years of experience, already describing the fiat system. We have the power of the masses, we have smart people on our side... and yet somehow we always end up getting robbed blind. Century after century, culture to culture, political system to political system, it doesn't matter—it's always the same thing over and over again... how is that even possible?!? And then they package it all up nicely with some "ideals," tie a red ribbon on it, and by the time we realize there's nothing in the gift, it's already over. 🤷

Amanda Hughes37 said:Good grief...🤣...just lay out that theory of yours regarding how unsuccessful men or women are without kids and a spouse on the "I don't want children" thread on ŽK.😲🙂

Nah, that's a danger zone for me—total Bermuda Triangle territory.

You already tricked me into a debate in the social sciences section once, and I ended up getting more bans in a couple of weeks than I have in all my years on this forum. Down in the political subreddits, people don't take kindly to different opinions. 😁

rowdytiger13 said:

Just ignore all that noise from frustrated feminists.

Actually, those claims hold water. Even if they're fading in some places, they're still pretty prevalent here in the States.
If a woman reaches a certain age without being married or having kids, society still treats her like a failure—or if she’s focused on her career, she’s labeled an outlier.
Of course, it's socially conditioned from day one, starting right in our elementary school textbooks.

People were saying stuff like that even during Hitler's era... not exactly a winning argument.

Fair enough. But honestly, kids raised under those values aren't any better or worse than those raised with traditional ones.

Exactly. That’s just reality. And it applies to men too, not just women.
You're delusional if you think this is some uniquely American issue.

rowdytiger13 said:

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

Just ignore those bitter feminist talking points.

rowdytiger13 said:

It’s not about intelligence, obviously. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier—their focus tends to be on entirely different areas.

It's because society forces them to feel incomplete, like they aren't even functioning normally unless they're mothers. They aren't naturally wired that way, but society pushes them toward it; while they're home raising kids, men are out building their careers.
Well, you know, in some parts of the US, it's becoming perfectly normal for women to build careers while the alpha males handle things at home... and honestly, the country keeps spinning just fine.

The world kept spinning during Hitler's regime, too. Not exactly a winning argument.

rowdytiger13 said:

Boldano is pretty fascinating. I actually thought about writing this myself but decided against it just so I wouldn't get crucified and forced to spend all day Googling links to prove my points. Anyway, considering Boldano's take, are today's feminists actually qualified to speak on the status of women in marriage?

They are. Just because there are lesbians within the feminist movement doesn't disqualify them. Even as a man, I talk about the feminist movement and support it.
By the way, most feminists—both historically and currently—are straight women.

Traditional marriage isn't what it used to be, but at its core, it's still there—it’s just modernized without losing its essence. Women aren't just homemakers anymore; they work just like men do, they're financially independent, or they have the option to be if they want to. Those who choose to stay home can certainly do so. Today's traditional marriage isn't that old-school version that locked a woman in the house and handed her a spatula.

I agree, though some would argue that was the beginning of the end for marriage—that its redefinition started the moment women stopped being exclusively housewives.

Women fought for their rights through the feminist movement, becoming more satisfied and achieving their goals, yet there remain feminists who continue a struggle that often has nothing to do with what a heterosexual woman actually wants. Modern feminism is essentially just a lesbian movement; it has nothing to do with the modern family woman.

Whoa.
That's just your opinion, but I can guarantee not every woman feels that way...
Women are still underrepresented in politics and management, they still face bias during hiring compared to men, they're frequently paid less, and they deal with workplace harassment and various forms of sexual coercion.
Can you even name any lesbian feminist activists? No, Sanja Juras isn't one; she's an LGBT activist who identifies as a feminist, but she isn't a feminist activist.

Just like most men.
Politics and upper management require a specific cocktail of traits, and being overly ambitious, aggressive, or ruthless is high on that list. Those are traditionally male characteristics, and the competition there is cutthroat. Most of it is garbage. Women who actually make it deserve their spots, but they aren't typical representatives of their gender. Pushing for forced equality and affirmative action isn't the answer. I once sat through a lecture where they talked about trying to force equal enrollment in engineering programs at major US universities—trying to hit a 50/50 split while ignoring everything else. To be blunt, they screwed up.

Once again, the gender ideology pushed by feminists and the LGBTQ+ movement won't hold up in the long run, and we need to fight against it.

rowdytiger13 said:The feminist movement actually accomplished quite a bit for women's rights, considering they weren't allowed to become those "diligent and humble engineers" in the first place; back then, people assumed women lacked the intellectual capacity for it.
Women were barred from attending universities because the prevailing logic was that you don't need an education just to raise kids. Women changed all of that themselves by proving they were just as smart and capable as men—making them the true original feminists.
And that’s not even mentioning the right to vote.

Yet today, women make up a tiny fraction of the engineering workforce.
It isn't an issue of intellect. It's just those fundamental differences I mentioned earlier. Their interests lie elsewhere.

Gender differences are real. Instead of sweeping them under the rug or forcing equality through quotas, we should acknowledge them and use them to benefit society. Feminism and gender ideology just muddy the waters. They might even succeed in clouding everything entirely if they ever reach their holy grail—artificial wombs.

Kate Harris50 said:That sounds like a typical take from Vatican City, an institution that, if history is any indication, rarely understands the reality of the world it comments on.

In an edition dedicated to International Women's Day in The New York Times, the publication noted how the invention of the washing machine effectively "liberated generations of women from the drudgery of domestic labor."

Link: http://www.fx-files.com/zanimljivost...go-pilula.html

Thanks for the link.
They clearly know their stuff—centuries of experience, after all... 🙂

rowdytiger13 said:Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.

You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

bluecyclist64 said:Fine, I'll admit it: there is absolutely a dedicated group of people out there focused on liberating garden gnomes from their suburban yards.

What’s our next move, genius? Should we call in the National Guard, the FBI, the local precinct, or maybe some private militias?

Give me a break. This is a total nothingburger—some random fringe bunch supposedly wants to "destroy marriage." How, exactly? Through sheer willpower? Or perhaps by using spray bottles?

I’d love to see who’s going to come after my marriage, because unless it’s me, my wife, or my mother-in-law, I highly doubt anyone has the coordination to pull it off.

A creepy mailman? 😉

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

I don't care about outliers that fall within a margin of error. That's just a social pathology that needs its space, but it shouldn't be setting the standards for society.

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

Agreed, though we need to see if this is progress or regression. Right now, all we see is change. Change always happens, but sometimes it just drags an entire culture toward destruction or assimilation.

rowdytiger13 said:

Women are the ones who carry, give birth, and nurture children more gently, while men are tougher, more raw, and aggressive, playing an entirely different role.

Just a stereotype. Doesn't have to be true at all.

The idea that we should throw everything away just because a tiny minority doesn't feel comfortable in their roles is madness to me; I won't accept it.

Nothing ever gets discarded just because a few people ask for it, but once an increasing number of women start rejecting that role... change becomes inevitable, and honestly, it’s already starting to happen.

Again, I'm not saying there's nothing against it—people can talk and organize to fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive disproportion between the political clout being wielded and the actual number of people wanting to redefine marriage. It's pretty obvious something is off, and that all those organizations you mentioned, along with marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

Those groups and movements are completely on the fringes here in America. They only get noticed when they're asking for something or once a year during a parade.
Feminists have a bit more pull, but since they represent such a huge portion of the population, they actually have too little room to maneuver.
And sure, we can argue that these organizations don't represent all women, which is true, but they run the domestic violence shelters that women turn to for help in 90% of cases.

In Cleveland, nurses run the shelters. 🙂

rowdytiger13 said:True, but that misses the point; it's more about how kids are raised from day one with values that reinforce those traditional roles, effectively keeping women in a secondary position.
The stereotypical depiction of women in our school textbooks—like in biology class—is a perfect example of that kind of conditioning.

I’m convinced these differences run much deeper than just simple cultural conditioning.

I've read plenty of studies, most of which contradict each other, so I just try to look at the world through common sense instead of drowning in that chaos.

It isn't just about sex-specific traits or family genetics; I truly believe children are born as engineers, artists, or philosophers—they come with a core set of inclinations that we need to recognize and actually help guide.

The whole gender roles debate makes sense if you view equality as everyone in a partnership—including a marriage—sharing responsibilities, rights, and perks equally. Anything beyond that is just blowing smoke.

rowdytiger13 said:I don't follow the feminist scene too closely, but I think the goal is for marriage to be a contract between two individuals without those stereotypical roles being imposed... especially on women.
Traditional marriage places women in a subordinate position to men, and that’s exactly what they want to eliminate.
Recently, feminist groups have been protesting the stereotypical portrayal of women in elementary school textbooks, where women are shown exclusively as mothers or wives stuck in the kitchen while the father works and brings home the paycheck. That’s the degradation they're talking about.
They’ve also pushed back against the idea that only women should have maternity leave (which was the standard practice until recently), viewing that as another form of degradation. Why shouldn't a man stay home to raise the kids, cook, and clean while the woman builds a career and provides the income?
And why does a woman have to be a mother to achieve fulfillment as a person? That’s another stereotype forced by traditional marriage—that a woman's primary role is motherhood and the sole purpose of marriage is offspring.
That’s what they are trying to redefine.
Many lesbian activists are also feminists—not all, but it's common for the two movements to share views. One of the most prominent activists here in the States is also a feminist.
By the way, I found that girl's commentary on the distancing from the labor movement and union struggles quite interesting, and that movement sits on the same side of things. However, that solidarity often gets overshadowed by snobbery and salon leftists.

Because reproduction is quite literally the foundation of society. It’s essential for biological survival and the preservation of any culture. There’s nothing wrong with promoting behavior that serves the greater good of the community. Activists, feminists, or whatever else can scream all they want, but millions of years of biological evolution have created deep physiological and psychological differences between men and women. You can't just toss out tens of thousands of years of cultural tradition built on that biology. Women carry, give birth, and nurture; men are more aggressive and play a fundamentally different role.

The idea that we should scrap all of this just because a tiny minority doesn't fit these roles is nonsense. I'm not buying it.

Look, I'm not saying people shouldn't organize or fight for their interests. What bothers me is the massive gap between the political influence being wielded and the actual number of people who want to redefine marriage. It’s obvious something is off—all these organizations you mentioned, along with the concept of marriage itself, are being used as pawns in much larger political and ideological games.

rowdytiger13 said:Alright, I'll actually try to be serious for a second.
The idea of redefining marriage—or just watching the whole institution vanish—isn't some new invention by the LGBTQ+ movement; it actually stems from feminism.
A certain wing of the feminist movement views traditional marriage as nothing more than a cage for women, a system designed to reduce them to mere biological functions like motherhood or childcare.
Since the LGBTQ+ community and feminist activists occupy the same side of the political spectrum, they’ve become natural allies, constantly backing one another up.
Back when the "marriage equality" movement first kicked off, there was a massive debate over whether pursuing it was worth it. Some argued it was just giving more legitimacy to an outdated institution, while others felt like we were essentially "betraying our sisters."
Ultimately, the consensus landed on equality being the priority. Everyone should have the right to enter into a marriage if they choose, even if they aren't doing it out of any specific ideological motivation.

You're right. Those feminist roots are obvious, along with the aggressive rhetoric. The drive to dismantle marriage is much stronger than the actual pursuit of equality, as you noted. It’s even more apparent because they clearly have zero interest in marriage as a practice. For them, marriage is just a tool used to tear down tradition.

Marriage is inherently discriminatory by definition. If it weren't, the concept would lose all meaning—if marriage is everything, then it's nothing. In its current form, it has symbolism, legal structure, practical utility, and the reasonable assumption that it provides the best environment for raising children while following biological complementarity.

Questioning things isn't bad, but if you want to redefine something this fundamental, you need much better arguments than what we're seeing.

Bradley Scott2 said:It feels like this whole movement by these small activist groups is really just about spreading animosity and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them.
For instance, labeling someone the "homophobe of the year"—that’s basically just a media lynching, isn't it?
Then there's the disrespect toward religious beliefs, like using an image of Madonna in that way.
It creates this atmosphere of fear where if you don't join in the loud chanting of "gay is okay," your opinion is treated as unacceptable, or even criminal.

Why are people who don't value traditional marriage or faith trying to force their worldview onto those who do—even pushing for gay marriages within the church?

The bottom line is that none of this actually helps the LGBTQ+ community. All it does is stir up more resentment among everyday Americans who aren't even directly involved in these debates.

The most interesting part of this whole saga is how people argue that marriage is something that needs to be dismantled.
When you consider that most of the gay community doesn't even care about marriage—and that political focus on gay marriage is inversely proportional to their actual interest—it’s easy to connect the dots when you add in all those statements from movement leaders and pseudo-ideologues calling for the destruction of marriage.

And the second a large group of people stands up to defend marriage, they immediately start throwing around labels like "chauvinism" to try and shut everyone up.

bluerider63 said:Reverse psychology is a total game changer if you play it right. These days, calling out a chauvinist for being a chauvinist is somehow treated like hate speech, even when they’re busy spewing all those typical bigoted views toward some minority group.

Of course it does, mostly because the word "chauvinist" has been diluted so much it’s basically used to describe everything and nothing at once.

If it were just about the LGBT movement, we wouldn't have much to worry about.
Unfortunately, they're just puppets on a string; the real damage to our traditional way of life is being done by much bigger, more powerful players.

Richard Wilson4 said:Yeah, right. Funny how Mandic was basically arguing for a dictatorship just yesterday to protect certain signage laws.

Also, if we're seriously talking about bringing in a tax like this, can we finally stop throwing money at those "civil society organizations"?

Or is the cash flow for them still a given?

That goes without saying. Arts, sports, religion, nonprofits—they should all be on the same funding model. That’s why I argue the government needs to keep supporting every sector. If they don't, everything becomes a popularity contest where the media calls the shots and pop culture drowns out everything else. The Church would probably thrive under that system, but plenty of genuinely useful community groups and institutions would just go under.

We need to find a middle ground where some funding comes directly from the federal budget, while the rest is driven by what donors actually want to support.

Looking at how things worked in Italy with strictly mandatory taxes—if they haven't changed things since then—it wasn't exactly a success story. There was way too much volatility, and the media influence became massive. Smaller, less "flashy" sectors would end up getting screwed over, like local arts organizations.

So, I’m backing a hybrid model: the government sets the baseline, and individual contributors decide where their extra money goes.

rowdyranger44 said:Personally, I also believe the Mount Rainier project brings nothing but headaches to Venice in the long run, but the voters have made themselves clear on two separate occasions. First, through that massive boycott of the referendum, and second, by voting for options that explicitly signaled their support for the project. That’s why this coalition makes sense. Anything else would just be a blatant disregard for the will of the people.

Seems that way to me too. The referendum happened, the people spoke, and it would be wrong for politicians to go against them—even if we think turning the area around Mount Rainier into apartments isn't exactly great for the European Community. Most Venice residents clearly feel differently, and there's no reason to meddle in their local affairs.