Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

If they did so despite men being better suited to caring for the children, that would be direct discrimination. But you haven't demonstrated that they are acting unfairly. It may well be that in most cases the judges are making women the principal carers because of the children's wishes or because they are better suited to it, or both.

The exisitence of Poland's Foundation of Court-wronged Dads tells it all. And that's only one such organisation in Poland. If such groups exist in puny, little Poland, imagine how many there msut be in the West. But I'll leave that to you to Google and track down.

In Poland, it is difficult to communicate with their own children when you do not live with them, I decided regardless of the unfavorable reviews, look at this problem more closely. Fathers in Poland after the breakup and the married, have almost no potency to influence on the development of their children. Everyone knows that the most important person in the life is proper targeting at a young age. "What shell soaked in his youth that smacks of old-age." A man is most sensitive at a young age when his head first appear interests and passions.

fundacjaojcow.org.pl

They don't. As many women would be able to tell you, if you ever listened to what women have to say.

Pretty much the only thing Polish family court judges can be relied upon to do is to rule against foreigners and in favour of Poles.


You'll find that our American friend Polo very rarely bothers to demonstrate what he claims; instead he tells people to do their own research to support his claims.


As I was saying.

Professional feminists in pursuit of sexual pleasure equality

Nope. I'm in favour of kids being brought up in the best possible conditions; the best possible conditions will, of course, vary according to the given individual situation. It's a pity that you think you have the right to force your morality and your standards on to other people.


Is that the claim which you are simply lying about me making? Oh yes, it clearly is.

And an unwed teenaged mother bringing kids into the world with passing-through boyfriends I suppose is one of those best possible conditions.

Nope, but she is most probably an example of how Poland needs to do a better job with sex education, availability of contraception and availability of emergency contraception, as well as not limiting availability of abortions to only those able to pay for either foreign travel (plus a legal abortion) or an illegal abortion.

Polonius, I don't think anyone is denying that the optimum environment for a child is to be with two parents who love one another and their child very much, and who are both well-balanced and altruistic. However, there is a big gap between this and a blanket belief that parents must stay together no matter what. Would you suggest a child is better off with both parents when one of them is physically violent, a sex abuser, an alcoholic, a criminal or for some other reason a disruptive influence?

In such situations, one protective parent may be better than being with two parents, one of whom makes the child unhappy, even if we overlook the argument that the parent who isn't to blame is him or herself also entitled to a happy life.

Data about the difference between patrist and matrist values
ourcivilisation.com/whatis/chap12.htm

Men begin to complain
askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/142_dating_advice.html

Random guy talks about the feminization of our society
fredoneverything.net/Feminization.shtml

Yet another article about our feminization, this time with wacky theory at the end

Guy actually writes a book

A woman's point of view
drmelissaclouthier.blogspot.com/2006/08/feminization-of-america-no.html

The neo-nazi **** heads speak!!1

A counter current to feminism is born
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

A clear example of the damaging effect of feminization
city-journal.org/html/16_3_schools_boys.html

As you can see, this sh!t is all over the chart, often from completely unrelated sources which somehow seem to land on the same points. It's true, women have finally gained real power for themselves and real power over society, which is most definitely a good thing, at least in theory. However, it's apparent the only way for us men to fit in is to become like women. And that's where things get tricky, though i can see a lot of men seem to have grown to like it.

You see it on commercials, where men are always portrayed as football loving imbeciles as opposed to their often frustrated, intellectually superior significant others. You see it in movies, where female values are always glorified and women are always held as perfect creatures of impeccable moral rectitude as opposed to us weak, morally corrupt pigs. F*ck, even our so called 'male' entertainment is geared mostly for women. Have you seen the last Superman? What was once the very definition of manliness has been Vaanized to high heaven, with most of the plot revolving on Lois Lane, relationship 'drama' and a stupid kid which was the very definition of every woman's fantasy child, that of a perfectly manageable, angelic little boy, who's job is to be as adorable and as cute as possible. Supposedly, this is the image women have in mind when they think they can raise children using only 'love' and 'understanding'. Of course, if all else fails, there's always ritalin.

On a more serious note, political correctness, feminization of schools, relativism (which has led to the destruction of art), child worship and the ban on discipline, the nanny state, this are some of the things which can be blamed on the feminine values governing our society.

There's a fine line between equality and tilting the balance for reversed oppression.


All my posts where I have demolished your arguments have been deleted, though. Shall I bother to type this? Lenka is going to delete it anyway.


You kept calling for my suspension, when you realised you are unable to face my towering intellect. Femininsm in a nutshell.

The patrist/matrist distinction is quite interesting. Other terminology of an ethical nature could be used -- altruism and egoism, virtue and debauchery, decency and 'anything goes' -- but it is difficult to argue that the matrist approach has been steadily growing. To the detriment of society and leading to societal collapse! Unfortunately its horse-blinkered advocates fail to see the long-term consequences.

PMSL lol lol lol...
mate if you had any kind of intellect you might be doing more with your life than sitting in your parents' basement spending hours putting hate-filled posts on the internet.

Kondzior, having read the link you posted about patrist vs matrist societies, I would much rather live in the latter. Does that make me a fool who has been feminised by man-hating feminists? Or just someone who prefers civilised and democratic values?

A kid might much rather play computer games, watch the telly and munch on unhealthy snacks than go to school, but......
Hopefully an educated adult person has a bit more foresight than a 10-year-old and does not limit everything to liking, disliking and personal preference.

OK, I'll phrase it differently. I believe that a matrist society is more productive and pleasant for people generally to live in.

Just look around. The western civilisation is falling apart before our very eyes.
Science today is only seen from the direct benefits it can give to people (or corporations) where unfettered research is considered useless (Nasa is a common victim of this).

Here:
math.washington.edu/Commentary/science.html

The type of sh!t that passes as 'art' today has managed to alienate society to the point only popular art (popular music, comic books, video games ect.) is appreciated, most of which is kiddie art.

Happiness has nothing to do with empty slogans such as 'freedom', or 'personal 'rights', but has everything to do with the morale of a healthy society. Today, many people are able to enjoy more wealth, more liberty and more freedom then any king in any point in history, yet, it looks like everybody is just so fuc*king miserable and our entire way of living is becoming more and more deranged.

If you want to know what an happy society is capable of, read some Goethe, or listen to some Mozart, and think both men and the incredibly uplifting art they produced lived during an age of totalitarian kings and the shameless 'oppression' of women.

Anyway, the material Kondzior has posted has helped put things into sharper focus. One thing that has become abundantly clear is that allegedly oppressed pet PC minorites always cry 'victim' when in actuality they are terrorising society. Through various overt and covert means, mostly crafty and clever propaganda and behind-the-scenes social engineering, they are taking over. Anyone who dares disagree, let alone criticise them can expect public ostracism or even administrative sanctions, job loss and/or blackballing.

Which pet PC minorities are you talking about? Do you have any examples?

We've been through this many times. But just to give you a hint, it's the minorites the murkstream media immediately spring to defend by hurling their stock 'anti-', '-phobe' and '-bashing' labels. 'Anti-Polish', 'Polanophobe' and 'Church-bashing' are of little interest to the murkstreamers.

That is still an empty rhetoric. I see most of the "hurling" here is done by you.

"A Theory Of Civilization" by Philip Atkinson. I didn't know who this Philip Atkinson was so I googled him. Is this the same guy who believed that George W. Bush should abolish American democracy and establish himself as a dictator and throw out all Arabs from Iraq? :D

I wonder what would I find if I checked other links too lol


Unrelated sources? You mean right-wing/conservative leaning sources?


Tsk-tsk. And you think women aren't trying to fit in? I don't see you guys wearing skirts, dresses, but we women wear trousers. Some even wear ties. One of my female bosses was wearing no make-up, completely short hair, almost invisible earings and greyish, elegant but dull clothes. I've noticed Polish female MP's, for some reason, have short hair too. I also often alter my behaviour a bit when I'm dealing with men.


And computer games probably also? Yeah, all those almost naked women with their armour barely covering their nipples, don't make me laugh :D
I obviously can't watch too much US commercials here in Poland but there are plenty of American films on Polish TV and in cinemas and I can tell you that you must be really biased and delusional.

No? Then give examples of those commercials and films.


You mean that guy in red-blue pajamas? lol I always thought he's the most gay of all superheroes :)


Perhaps there is, but blaming everything you think is wrong in societies on feminization is silly and illogical lol


You haven't demolished anything, dismissing my argument because I linked to Wikipedia isn't "demolishing" anything, I demolished your silly theories by using... logic and evidence :)


I didn't keep calling for anything. I stated that if you were writing such theories and comments about Jews or black people you would be suspended and that was the truth. I've noticed that reactions to what you were writing were pretty mild (except for sobieski, who called you "a facist" I think). I don't think it would be the case if it was about Jews or black people. So, I wasn't calling for your suspension, since you're a pretty good example of a male chauvinist for everybody to see (a type that I would call "a theorist" = everything bad is the fault of women, feminization, etc. lol), but writing about something that irked me.


"Towering intelllect"... OMG ;D Kondzior, discussing with you is like playing chess with a five-year-old who throws pawns on the chessboard left and right and screams "I've won, I've won" ;D I like playing chess, but I prefer to do it with adults :)

You're a great example showing that men fail at logic easily, just like anybody, when they're prejudiced. It's a shame you put so much intellectual effort into making so many stupid theories.

You can't see past your prejudices and conservative views. They impair your reasoning.


And that's the fault of women/feminization too? :D


You clearly have no knowledge or understanding of art. Depictive arts were greatly valued in the times when there was no... photography.
Because of photography there's no such demand for realism in art. Why paint for months or years if it takes a few seconds to take a photo?

Furthermore, art, as everything is changing and it was changing when it was still men that dominated everything, including art.
It was a man who put a porcelain urinal into a gallery and called it "Fountain" - Marcel Duchamp - I hope you don't mind a Wikipedia link :):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29
Pablo Picasso, you've heard of him? Still a man.
Impressionists? People like their art, it's popular because it's pretty, but they, as many before them and many after them, were revolutionists, scorned by traditionalists.

Btw, I like traditional art, can't say I'm a big fan of porcelain urinals in galleries, but there are some interesting things in modern art too. Modern art seems to be more intellectual, I guess.

It doesn't mean there are no traditional artists nowadays, both men and women.


"Everybody is just so fuc*king miserable"? Maybe you are?


Thanks, but I prefer Wisława Szymborska :)


It was opression, not 'opression'. Many women are still opressed in parts of the world. And it was wrong and it is wrong, no matter how many Mozarts or Hitlers the societies of the past produced.

The fault of your logic is that you attribute all the changes you don't like in our civilisation to women gaining more rights.
But it's the other way around. Women gained rights because our civillisation has changed. It evolved. Slavery was abolished, serfdom was abolished, many women gained equal rights with men. Panta rhei, everything changes.

If you want to live in a country where women have almost no rights, then go to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or Kongo which is "the rape capital of the world". I'm sure they produced many Goethes and Mozarts for you :)


+1000 ;)
I'm always fascinated by such people, after all, there are so many more interesting and productive things to do in life, even when you're bored, than feeding your prejudices. I mean, there are tons of evidence of all kinds of evil, decay, bad work and everything lame and disgusting done by men, and If I wanted I could spend my days searching the internet reading about this stuff and making all kinds of theories. Still plenty of evil done to women by men and societies in general all around the world. And yet I don't write whole essays on internet forums trying to prove that men are inferior to women and the fact that they have rights is the root cause of all problems and misfortune lol :)

Hey Englishman what about me? Have you lost your spunk?
lol

Patriarchy doesn't equal oppression of women, that's feminist thinking.

Patriarchy is just set of values which i believe are fundamental to the progression of a society. Today we live in a culture centered around a complete rejection of patriarchal ideals, and the effects are disastrous. That is the root of my argument.


Yeah, don't make me laugh. Toady strong, independant female game characters, able to beat any man, are pushed down our throats, and if even a bit of a cleavage is shown, feminists would cry "sexsizm", "objectification" etc.

Really? Then what does it equal?


And what are those values?


What are those disastrous effects?


Sorry, kondzior, but computer games usually aren't famous for realism in general :) It's not like in real life there are first aid kits and mana potions lying everywhere :)))


I'm not talking about "a bit of a cleavage", I'm talking about metal bikinis while men are completely covered in armour, you can't even see the eyes lol

Oh, and don't start me on comic books! lol Even some men joke about female costumes, here's an example:
nebezial.deviantart.com/art/ever-wonder-how-black-cat-keeps-her-costume-on-344144784

Btw, it's usually men who make games and comic books. And both games and comic books are usually made for boys and men. So they get what they want.

Kondzior, what about those commercials and films?


Sorry, it should be "flaw", not "fault" ;)


don't get me started

*sigh*
;)

Only male dominated families can work towards the disciplining of other males. Feminists always say that patriarchal families are a tool of female oppression, but the truth is that primary concern of a male dominated household is the rearing of male children towards a duty oriented model. Female dominated households are only concerned with what's good for the mother, which means children, particularly male children are allowed to indulge in their own impulses, which leads to unruly and defiant behavior.

Thus, why the influence of the Church as the main civilizing force in the essentially matriarchal European tribes.


Patriarchy is the very antithesis of self interest. Patriarchy demands duty, honor and responsibility out of men. If self interest was the primary motivation behind the alleged oppression of women, why did patriarchy disappear so quickly in our society? If all that matter in your life is your own personal gain, would you care for the welfare of a system that promotes duty, hard work and sacrifice towards a fixed set of values? Do you think men "oppressed" women so they could have sex anytime they want? Aren't men having sex anytime they want right now, more so then ever, without fear of responsibility and accountability? What do men gain under a patriarchal system, if self interest is their only motivation?


It used to be like that, but not anymore, sadly. Feminists destroyed the male gaming, as they are destroying everything else.


You don't even know what you don't know, that's how few you know. Back in the 19th century, it didn't take a lot to see Beethoven towered among all his contemporaries. Concepts like 'personal taste' and 'we all have our opinions' didn't even enter the equation. The intellectual landscape of those times was a complete warzone. Thinkers and artists lashed at each other constantly, and spared nothing. Everybody was under assault. Every idea, every new work of art, everything was used as fresh ammunition. When Stravinsky premiered his Rite of Spring, the audience reaction was so strong they literally broke into a full fledged riot, with Debussy screaming 'Genius, Genius' trying to make himself heard above the chaos.

All this fighting meant that 'opinions' were subject to a process of natural selection. Only the most assertive minds, the ones with the most ferocious of intellect and the greatest analytical skills were able to rise above the others and squish the competition. Their opinion became truly objective because it survived every single point of view imaginable. This is what got eventually wrote down in history books.

Under the feminine paradigm things today don't work that way anymore. All the fighting and the challenging of ideas has been greatly reduced. Today, you are supposed to respect other people 'opinions'. You are supposed to be polite and always mindful of offending others. This intellectual sterility has pretty much obliterated the need to figure out who our greatest minds are. What's the fu*cking point? You can't say who's great and who isn't, because it's all a matter of opinion. History books will be written to be as politically corrected as possible, which means in 200 hundred years people will have absolutely no fuc*king idea which work of art if worth remembering in the first ******* place.

Another reason is probably that a lot of modern art, most of which is completely cut off from the tradition of the past or has made a mockery of it (senseless avant-garde), is not comparable anymore. A modern rock band may use an unusual harmony, or an odd time signature, and think they are being radical not knowing their 'experiments' have already been explored to death. It's like trying to reinvent the wheel all over again. A lot of modern art is on an infancy stage and the general unwillingness to explore the ideas of the past (associated with authority therefore liable to rejection) means that real progression is completely fubar.

@ Paulina, kudos to you for demolishing kondizor's flawed logic; I hadn't realised that the author he quoted makes Dubya seem left-wing (and sane!). It isn't the first time a woman on this thread has undermined one of the more extreme misogynist's arguments. Given their tendency to assume that one example stands for all, hopefully they are now beginning to consider the possibility that women may be intellectually superior to them, and therefore, by their own imperfect logic, to men generally.

I like your argument that women alter their behaviour to be more like men, for instance by wearing trousers, whereas men don't act correspondingly by wearing skirts and dresses. Likewise women increasingly seek to have lifestyles and do jobs that were once seen as 'male', whereas the opposite (men who are happy to be homemakers and full-time carers for their children) are rare. I think this may in part be because sexist society has ascribed higher status to the traditionally male and lower status to the female. And it occurs to me that one of the reasons why some men fear feminism is because of their own insecurity - they can only define themselves by their roles as heads of households, main breadwinners or people who do certain kinds of jobs, and they fear that emboldened women will take this away from them, just as, by wearing trousers, they have eliminated an element of sartorial difference.

One possible solution, I think, is to reassure such men that women don't want greater freedoms at men's expense, and also to ask them to consider whether there are other ways that we can define ourselves and measure our success as human beings.

Zimmy, would you hire a female long-haul trucker, oil rig operator, roofer, welder, bomb disposal technician, hazmat diver, timber worker...etc?

If you were given the choice between a female roofer and a male one, which would you choose? And why?

I have to say, for myself, I would choose the male roofer. Why? Because it is a biological fact that men are physically stronger than women, therefore making most men more suitable for roofing than most women. Of course, there are some scrawny men out there and some muscular women, but in general I would hire a man over a woman. This isn't sexism... it's capitalism. The best service or product for the best price wins. (There are actually women roofers, by the way... and a lot of women do go into those jobs, at least in the U.S. There are also plenty of women who want to and go into the military).

However, it is also a scientific fact that while women may not be as physically strong as men, they have the same mental capabilities. Therefore, I would hire a lawyer based on his or her record and intelligence, rather than gender. This may mean that I hire a female lawyer over a male one (in the US there are now more young female college graduates than male). Again, this isn't sexism... its capitalism. The lawyer with the best record and the superior intelligence wins, even if she happens to be a female.

By the same token, I would hire a female nanny over a male one. Of course, there some men out there who are much more nurturing and intuitive than some women. But, in general, women tend to be more nurturing than men, so in the average case, I would choose a woman. Again... capitalism.

Yes, there are plenty of crazy, man-hating feminists out there, and I do agree that the modern feminism in countries like the U.S. is bordering on the crazy. But the basic premise of feminism is to judge people by their abilities, not by their gender.

I did dismiss it as absurd, but since Englishman brougt it up...


Why obsessing about clothes? I was talking about behaviour. Oh, I see... It is just thae fact women represent the "paradisaical" aspect of human life. Where man seeks transcendence by thought and action, woman represents divine truth in her being.

Anyway, I think it is VERY "on topic":

I was away for a while, and I'll be away again but it's always amusing to see what the feminists come up with to justify their warped perspective on society: )


Ask and you shall receive:


You honestly don't see it as such when you do it because well, you're a modern feminist and therefore lack objectivity. You think you can accuse a man of hating women based on nothing whatsoever and you're simply not able to figure out that is a baseless accusation (and in such chronological proximity to your question too).


I come across as bitter? Take a look at the following and then let another modern feminist illogical leap explain your take on that.

I'm not bitter, she is. I'm just frustrated with your inability to actually look at the issue objectively. I grow weary of your obtuse nature: )

But anyway, Paulina here's how you "care" Paulina:




How does one go from "I care about 'x'" to "I do nothing 'x'" -honestly?
It appears you have confused "I care" with "it pi$$es me off enough to do nothing about it."
A good many "feminists" are manipulative in that you cry and whine about women being raped and abused but are actually only willing to do anything about it insofar as you stand to gain something yourselves where you are. You only seek to use the issue of others' suffering to your own advantage. I find that part and parcel of the Western Feminist Mantra -"What's in it for me?"

Women in the west not only have equality, they have tipped the scales of social balance in women's favour. You'll pardon me if I don't get on board the program to further put males at a disadvantage in society just to placate feminists.

Men are expected to put women before us in nearly every aspect of living and then, should we expect a woman to, at some point, know her place in a matter, we're brow beaten about some disgusting man who raped a woman somewhere or that women bear children and somehow this is makes us worse human beings. I've even heard women who've never given birth to a child try to use that as some trump card in arguments.

From what I've seen, Western Feminists want consequence free living for themselves and if a woman in China should benefit as well, then so be it but as long as there are women truly suffering, this suits them and their agenda best.


Nile CLEARLY understands and articulates his understanding of the issue better than anyone on this thread. I'm impressed Nile, I wish I had your way with words.

Those jobs are 95+ percent dominated by males so the odds favor hiring a male but I would like to see a female "timber worker" wield her ax for 8 hours.

Of course those sorts of 'careers' are the reason why males account for 94 percent of all job related deathsI annually.


.......unless a female affirmative action (quota) or any quota for any alleged aggrieved group is involved. Affirmative action is not capitalism!

The cries of "equality" always seem to ring out by those purporting to support feminism. I've previously given examples of its true unjust nature and of its socialist origins. What does "equality" really mean? Back in the suffragette era women wanted shorter work hours. Modern feminists however, accused the "patriarchy" for keeping women from working as long as they wanted too.... and so it goes in so many other venues.

If feminists really wanted "equality" then why don't they walk their talk? Just a few examples of 'inequality':
There will never be real equality until women work as much as men in heavy, dirty and dangerous jobs as men.
There will never be real equality until there are as many female workplace deaths as there are male workplace deaths
There will never be real equality until men have as much to say about what happens to an unborn child, as women have to say about it.

There will never be real equality until men are allowed to act or be weak, a privilege women use as needed.
There will never be real equality until men receive as much money in alimony as women.
There will never be real equality until feminists fight for being included in registering for the draft. (odd how that one escapes them, eh)
There will never be real equality until men and women are treated by the court and by the law in exactly the same way.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

The list is almost endless but the point is made. This constant cry of "equality" is generalized just as the word patriarchy is. Some examples out of many here.:

Particularly in the old west, men were responsible for their wives . If a woman committed a crime in her husband's presence, he would be the one responsible and if serious enough would go to jail.

In Mississippi, a man cannot seduce a woman by lying, and claiming he will marry her. This law did not apply to women.
In Missouri, single men between the ages of twenty-one and fifty must pay an annual tax of one dollar (enacted in 1820).
In Nebraska, the male parent could be arrested if his child cannot hold back a burp during a church service

Of course these seem laughable but the idea of "equality" evolved over time. Both men and women seemed content, at least most were, by the standards of the day but the point is this; Protections were afforded women and of course the notion of "women and children first" carried the day on many occasions. We see remnants of that today by continuing to give women privileges and keeping men with responsibilities.

Merged: Screaming feminists take to the streets with hateful abuse

The radical feminist wing of the KOD trough-defenders' movement were out in force again screaming, screeching and spouting very unladylike vulgarities. "Freedom, equality and abortion on demand" - they chanted. One placard read: "PiS of sh*t" (without the asterisk!) They did not represent average Polish womenhood but a fringe or niche group of professional feminist agitators, career-obsessed and or loose-living females, Church-bashers and KOD operatives. Studies have shown that most Polish women are satisfied with the existing 1993 abortion compromise, attach the most importance to family and are practising Catholics. They would not talk about uteruses or other intimate parts in public the way the agitators do.