Posts Tagged ‘left wing’
Men and women are not equal.
I believe there is a natural order amongst the sexes and I believe that if society strays too far from the path of that natural order the consequences for society can be negative, substantially negative.
I’m not talking about which sex is better, men or women, who is the faster runner or who can lift the most weight, I’m talking about a distribution of responsibilities within the family or at work for example to mature, rational adults who want to be productive members of society and not social burdens.
I believe much like a factory, when certain employees complete certain tasks while other employees complete other tasks, the tasks at hand can be completed far more efficiently and with much less cost and effort, leaving more time to produce more products, work on improvements to the way things are done, or simply take a break.
You might say, who views their family as a factory? What kind of analogy is that? OK. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps viewing the members of a family as employees in a factory is a bit withdrawn emotionally from the matter. Factories are not living things, you might say, and nothing like a home.
OK. OK. Calm down. Let’s try this. The other night I was watching some of those beautifully filmed nature shows that air on Sunday night. The narrator was talking about a variety of animals and their courtship rituals. Some were very elaborate, some rather blunt. In one scene, the narrator talked about a land development that had changed the path of a waterway slightly, causing the male of a species of amphibian to have to change route of travel. This in turn increased the deaths in the males of the amphibian as they were now run over crossing the street which resulted in fewer couples of the species, which resulted in fewer offspring and consequently caused a crash in the population of the animal in that area. In other areas, the animal was doing fine but under observation. Later the narrator discussed a completely different problem of the same nature causing the female of the species to change its habits thereby making it impossible to rear its young. Population crash. I believe these last two examples of nature offer much better analogies rather than the factory because they incorporate a viewpoint of the struggle of living mechanisms rather than the analogy of the family as a factory. Though it can be stated that in their sexual roles, men and women have completely different responsibilities and also illustrate completely different behaviors to achieve a common goal, evidence again that there is indeed a natural order. There is in fact more obvious evidence that there is a natural order in the sexual roles of men and women than there is of any biblical explanation of human sexual behavior.
But even more significantly to come out of these observations of nature is the belief that many naturalists hold. In fact, it is the foundational belief of environmentalism today. It is quite elegant in its simplicity and even more importantly, it holds true under scientific observation. Here it is essentially in its simplest form. “If you mess with the nature, there will be negative consequences.” We have all heard that statement in some context or another. The consequences of messing with nature can be observed in such things as polluted drinking water, polluted air, problems with food containing poisons drawn up from the soil, all of them the result of lack of understanding of and the manipulation of our environment.
And I believe an analogy can be made to things such as polluted drinking water and air to a natural order amongst the sexes and such things as crime committed by juveniles who don’t have both parents at home or an increase in taxes. In fact since the sexual revolution in the 1960’s when the roles of men and women in The USA were redefined both by law and the media crime has increased in some areas thousands of percentiles as more women raise their children on their own or have children out-of-wedlock. The tax burden to simply police these areas is enormous much less to provide the partial families with social services. I don’t need to enumerate all the costs. Anyone that is reading this knows the costs unless they have been living on another planet.
Some of you may be old enough to remember the female football players that entered into The NFL for a couple of years during the height of the sexual revolution. “Don’t stay in the house” the feminists chanted, go play football, work construction. That didn’t last long, of course. Why? Because they were not designed for it by “nature.” Not by men. The fact that women are not as good at football as men has nothing to do with any societal restriction by men on the activities of women. No. And don’t even try to suggest that (this was one of the techniques of the feminist movement, to suggest that women in The USA were repressed by men as a whole). The fact that women are not as good at football has nothing to do with men. Women are not as good at football as men due to their “nature” and physical build. Men have nothing to do with that. It has to do with a “natural order.” And to the contrary, men are no good at bearing children. In fact, I’ve not heard of one case of a man bearing a child. Why? There is that natural order thing again, and again it has nothing to do with men.
I remember watching a news show during the height of the feminist movement in the 1960’s. The newscaster was interviewing a doctor who (and I’m glad I don’t have this guy as a doctor) suggested that men and women are identical, except for a few very minor differences. He had a chart with diagrams of the male and female bodies and some charts about similarities. In the time of about one minute the newscaster, a woman, and the good doctor, concluded that aside from a few very minor differences in body composition, body fat content for example, that men and women were equal, exactly equal. “Well, there you have it,” the female newscaster concluded. “Men and women are exactly alike in every way.” This was the viewpoint taken by all media networks from that point on and the federal government as well in the course of dealing with cases of discrimination on the job. Men and women from about that point on were considered equal on the job, both physically and mentally. And in most cases they are. But in many, as in the female NFL player or the man giving birth, we see they are not. The good doctor was lying to the female newscaster. Or he was an imbecile. Or he was no doctor at all. Or maybe the media has a vested interest in erasing the differences between the sexes as I’ve demonstrated in my previous posting titled “Who is Really behind the Sexual Revolution? What it is…”
Some of you may be laughing at my choice of examples, but I’ve chosen them for a reason. They are the most extreme examples, women playing football and men bearing children, and indicate what society seems to be trying to do today with “equality,” and that is to disregard nature, a natural order. And that is OK. Because we are men. We are not animals. We can rationalize our way through life. But the word “rational” means acting with “reason.”
And when I look at my wallet, I see it’s not working, we are not acting with reason as a society because I keep paying for so many things, women having children out-of-wedlock for example, in the form of taxes to which I do not benefit. Because my taxes are going up and up. And much if not most of it has to do with addressing “irrational” or violent human nature, the result of tinkering with a “natural order,” to which of course I believe I have clearly demonstrated there is a natural order. And if someone is not happy with their nature, I don’t think I should have to pay for it.
It’s one thing to work for equality. It’s an entirely different thing to disregard the truth entirely, that men and women are completely different and society works best when both bring their differences together to achieve a common goal.
Men and women are not equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s the best thing about it. Once we realize that again as a society, things will get better…and much less expensive, for everyone, men and women both.
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Sign up to receive updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.
Since the 1960’s something has been happening continuously to the relationship between men and women in America called The Sexual Revolution. It involves frequent, fluid changes, often legal changes to the way men and women address and deal with each other at home, in the work place, in public. The sexual revolution is an offshoot, a facet perhaps of the feminist movement.
But is the Sexual Revolution good or bad for women, for America? And is it really a revolution at all?
Well, for the most part, though I will answer that question to some extent later, that is not why I am talking to you today. I merely want to examine the Sexual Revolution for what it is, not for what we are told it is by say, the corporate media, for example.
Many people think it is the women of America that are the principal players in the feminist movement. It stands to reason, does it not? Feminist movement and women. Feminine, female, feminist movement. It is so darned obvious. Why…it has to be the women behind the feminist movement and The Sexual Revolution, who else could it be?
I am here to tell you that I think it is something different. Yes, women want to improve their lives. And who can blame them?
But the so-called feminist movement is not what it once was, not what it is. No, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the feminist movement has been hijacked as part of a larger corporate business plan meant to sell more products and undermine the American workforce and women, and men for that matter who do not recognize it for what it is, are just the unwitting dupes. Your own champions of the feminist movement of earlier years, the Gloria Steinem’s and the like don’t even know what is happening or may even be key players in what I describe here.
Before the sexual revolution, before Gloria Steinem and the feminist movement of the sixties and seventies, the American labor force consisted of mainly men, except during times of war when women happily manned the production lines to perpetuate the war effort. Before The Sexual Revolution there was less competition for every job. But with The Sexual Revolution and the migration of the woman out of the house and into the work force there were suddenly twice the number of applicants for every job. Corporate America could do nothing but accept the Sexual Revolution with open arms, to fall in love with The Sexual Revolution, in fact it may have even been part of a larger plan. Why? Now corporate America could offer lower wages.
Hold it. What do you mean they could offer lower wages?
What I am saying is that now there were double the applicants for every job with not just men looking for that job but both men and now women, too. More competition for jobs and the wage rate goes down. People get paid less. It is a fact of economics. Now corporate America doesn’t have to pay its workers as much.
A parallel can be seen in the fact that employers like to hire illegal aliens. With more people competing for the same jobs those people will accept less pay and perhaps no benefits to obtain those jobs. That is also a fact.
The presence of illegal aliens in America, because they will work for less, also drives down the cost of labor. Employers, the more unscrupulous ones in particular, like hiring illegal aliens for that very fact, even if they know it undermines the work force and their buying power and will eventually put America out of business. Because America’s own workers won’t have jobs and won’t be able to afford to make purchases of products manufactured by the illegal aliens. It’s a short-term business plan, that one is.
But let’s examine who else benefits from having more employees, or the newly arrived women, in the work force. Automakers. Now that all of those women want to go to work, they are going to need cars. Again, there is corporate America. Before the Sexual Revolution most families had only one car. Now they have two, sometimes three. So the Sexual Revolution is good for automakers. And really, that’s good. It’s good that automakers sell more cars, good for business anyway. And what is good for business is good for everyone for the most part. More workers needing cars means more cars need to be made which probably means more workers will be needed. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. Though, read on.
And if there are more cars on the road, well those cars are going to need what? That’s right, gasoline. And who makes gasoline? Oil companies. And oil companies epitomize corporate America.
The list of those corporations that benefit from The Sexual Revolution is myriad. I merely offer two of the most obvious and omit the others for the sake of expediency here.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with corporate America. And there is nothing wrong with the Sexual Revolution and the feminist movement. I for one think many of the resultant changes to the lifestyles of women make them more attractive and easier to have a conversation with. Before the Sexual Revolution many women would not have entered into a conversation about a variety of subjects and would have simply demurred on the matter so as to adhere to what at the time was considered socially attractive, acceptable behavior. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their perspective on the matter nowadays, just that I have another perspective to consider.
You might ask again, then, why ask the question “Who is behind the Sexual Revolution?” And what do you mean by the statement in the title of this post “What it is…”? It was something people used to say to each other during the beginning of the sixties and throughout the seventies. It was a sort of greeting. But in this case, I say it as a question, because as you will see, what it is is usually what it does. And I believe The Sexual Revolution does something entirely different than what it says it does.
My answer is that even though many beneficial things have come to society from the advent of The Sexual Revolution, we must examine it for what it really is, who is really behind it and who benefits from it so that everyone benefits from it to some extent and not just particular segments of our society, so as not to move into something that we cannot back out of.
I believe we must ask the question who is behind The Sexual Revolution because I believe that it has created many demands on society that may not be in society’s best interest in the long run and may outweigh the actual benefits of The Sexual Revolution in the first place, substantially outweigh them. It has created demands on natural resources and changes to our tax situation that have resulted in many burdening new social programs meant to accommodate the “independent woman,” a woman who arrived as a result of the sexual revolution and who perhaps wants to have a child out-of-wedlock but can’t afford to pay for it herself and needs to fall back on public assistance, helping to raise the average federal tax rate of a family of four in 1952 from 2 percent in federal taxes to currently and frequently closer to twenty or thirty or more percent, a substantial, economy stifling burden.
Yet, even with the benefits brought forth by The Sexual Revolution and all of the wonderful changes to society, the negatives may in fact tremendously outweigh the benefits both in terms of dollars and also in terms of resources, in terms of pollution (more cars on the roads means more pollution. And cars are the major contributing factor to pollution in America), and that list goes on and on as well. Again, for the sake of expediency I won’t enumerate them.
But finally and most importantly to the women of The Sexual Revolution, I would not even ask the question. “who is behind The Sexual Revolution” had I not seen polls recently asking women if they would return to a more domestic lifestyle as perhaps housewives, again? Most answered they would not because their female peers would lose faith in them in that they accepted a so-called lesser role than they had taken before, as if there was something wrong with being a housewife.
And it’s that attitude, that of her peers who will think less of her if she returns to a lifestyle in the home, it is that attitude that tells me that even though The Sexual Revolution has brought us many great things, it has in fact not given today’s woman more freedom but less, it has shackled her mind. Because what once was a social movement designed to give a woman more power to choose what she does with her own life has in fact taken away one of her most significant choices, to take care of her own family, to do what she may very well need to do for herself and her own family by acting in their best interest.
The Sexual Revolution has in fact brought fewer choices to today’s woman, not more. And you have to ask yourself…why?
And you have to ask, “has The Sexual Revolution really been a revolution at all?”
Because what it is…is usually what it does, and The Sexual Revolution is definitely not “What it is.”
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.
Is the Pro-Life Movement a Left Wing Subterfuge? Because What It Is…Is What It Does.
Posted by: William Thien on: July 11, 2010
Did you ever drive by an abortion clinic during an anti-abortion protest? Were the protestors displaying large pickets with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses on them? Were the protestors shouting at cars as the cars passed by? That’s usually how such protests go off around here, like a witch hunt. It’s meant to be shocking, to drive you away from the idea of having an abortion if you are pregnant or know someone who is, and it’s meant to gather the support of others in the movement to ban abortion. But as the dictionary defines a subterfuge as a deceptive stratagem or device, I believe that is what the pro-life movement is to the conservative.
I believe that the pro-life movement has a negative effect to the conservative upon fifty percent of the voting body, the female vote, and may in fact drive a substantial portion of the female vote away from the conservative side of politics, that side of politics wherein resides the pro-life movement in the first place.
The predominant view out of the feminist movement regarding abortion is that since it is a woman’s body, it is her right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I don’t agree entirely with this perspective in that I believe it is chauvinistic because it removes the father from the equation, but it is to this day the prevailing point of view on the matter.
So, if there is a political movement such as the pro-life movement now telling the woman that she should have no choice in the matter, it will be in her nature to question that sentiment. And who can blame her? It is her body. And even though I disagree with that feminist perspective on abortion, that it is only her choice that matters and the father plays no part, one would be ignorant to disregard what the net effect of something such as the pro-life movement would be to the psyche of a newly pregnant woman who was not expecting the pregnancy nor can support it.
It is human nature to want more choices, not fewer. And the pro-life movement tells the woman she has no choice but to have the baby. Naturally the woman will gravitate towards the political ideology that refrains from restricting feminine discretion in the matter.
In other words, like a simple machine, a wedge in this case, the Pro-Life movement has the potential net effect of driving the entire female vote to the liberal side of things over one issue.
That, to me, seems like a political subterfuge. And though that may not be what it is, that is exactly what it does. And you know what they say about that.
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.
William Thien 
Is the Media Really as Liberal as They Say?
Posted by: William Thien on: October 20, 2010
How many times have you heard the statement that the reason the media slants things so far to the left is because the media is “liberal?” You have probably heard such a statement hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.
I have a different perspective on the matter. I do not believe the reason the media appears to slant things to the left is due to the fact that the media is liberal. I believe it is something else entirely.
First, let’s ask the question, ‘What do many people do when they are at home if they are not taking care of some domestic requirement?’ Watch television. Nothing wrong with that.
I think the media is up to something else entirely than simply making life better for everyone by instilling so-called liberal values to everyone sitting in front of the tube. Knowing that slanting things to the left is not good for our industrial economy, that portion of our economy which has traditionally required the greatest number of employees, and will put companies out of work and send people home, the media has implemented a business plan. The media know that if people are out of work, they watch television. And you know what? That is good for ratings. And ratings in the television world mean advertisers have to pay more for advertising time. The supposed liberal slant is good for media business. And what is liberal about that? Nothing.
And there are entire social groups that such behavior appeals to since they don’t want to work anyway. They have brought up several generations on entitlements and increased their populations while simultaneously being catered to by such a media. Consumer products are tailored to such populations. The liberal slant is really a multi-level marketing plan with a so-called liberal media in complicity, implementation.
There is of course a humanistic slant to the media. But the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads,” or what story begins the news show, a common journalistic saw, indicates predation, not liberalism. What more must one say?
No, the media is not liberal. I believe instead the media is exercising an elaborate business plan, all the while hiding behind the constitution, surreptitiously undermining our economy to improve its own. The men and women of the media are not wholly humanistic as we would like to believe. They are chosen based on thorough studies completed by massive media conglomerates. Since when are corporations liberal?
And who can blame them? It is business. Since when was business easy?
That is what is going on with the media. The media could care less about liberalism, otherwise. The apparent left slant to the media is a business plan to increase ratings and thereby improve its bottom line.
And our constitution supports that type of behavior, the subtle yet elaborate deconstruction of our economy and way of life for better ratings.
Copyright © William Thien 2010
Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe!
Share this: