Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 38 minutes ago, beetle said: Did men not start wearing western clothes ...like tousers snd shirt,suits and jeans. If it fine for men to change and doesn't effect their lives...why is women changing to something they like not the same . Women should stay at home..women should wear traditional clothes...women this women that...no wonder women want to go out and get careers and live seperately. Who would want this kind controlling surrounding! Because men started working during British times and they were required to wear trousers and shirt. Women who worked during that time wore frocks. Its mainly a city trend. My dad's family are from the village and my grandparents from that side never wore modern clothes. My uncle still wears a dhoti even though he is in the city for a long time. When he used to work, he wore trousers and pants. My aunt worked in a bank always wore a saree to work. Jeans became popular in the 80s I think. I have never seen my dad ever wear one. The last para you typed you are assuming how I think. I won't even bother replying to it if you think I'm some kind of a tyrant. I was basically saying how my childhood was in comparison with my friend's current household with alam dar velu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 On 9/19/2019 at 3:03 AM, Real McCoy said: Most of these social movements were invented by the elite. Imagine a small village with a population of 400 with 100 men, 100 women and 200 children. The men indulged in hard labor and earn money. The women take care of household activities and the children. Now a man from outside the city wants to rule over this city. What will he do. He will divide and conquer. He will say to the women that she too can indulge in hard labor giving slogans and feel good stories. Now 200 people are working outside but it still remains the same amount of work and same amount of money at play. So 200 people working means more labor at work and the pay rate is cheapened. Moreover, the children are left in the lurch. This happens in a global scale now. Can't believe most people don't see this. What used to be a simple life has become more complicated by more tactics from the elite. We have become slaves to them by their deviousness. Feminism is not invented by a woman. It was a ploy by the elite to further enslave the masses. My grandmother had a much more richer life than these women today. And no she wasn't rich in monetary terms What you describe is basically Marxist sociology, made by Engles: Social Conflict Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory Quote Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus. Through various forms of conflict, groups will tend to attain differing amounts of material and non-material resources (e.g. the wealthy vs. the poor). More powerful groups will tend to use their power in order to retain power and exploit groups with less power. Conflict theorists view conflict as an engine of change, since conflict produces contradictions which are sometimes resolved, creating new conflicts and contradictions in an ongoing dialectic. In the classic example of historical materialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that all of human history is the result of conflict between classes, which evolved over time in accordance with changes in society's means of meeting its material needs, i.e. changes in society's mode of production. Specific to this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sociology Quote Feminist sociology is a conflict theory and theoretical perspective which observes gender in its relation to power, both at the level of face-to-face interaction and reflexivity within a social structure at large. Focuses include sexual orientation, race, economic status, and nationality.[1] Charlotte Perkins Gilman's (1860-1935) work helped formalize feminist theory during the 1960s. Growing up she went against traditional holds that were placed on her by society by focusing on reading and learning concepts different from women who were taught to be housewives. Her main focus was on gender inequality between men and women along with gender roles placed on by society. Where men go to work secure proper income for the white ±family while women stay at home and tend to the family along with house hold chores. She "emphasized how differential socialization leads to gender inequality". Yet, she did agree that biologically there is different between those born with female and male parts kmt. Conflict Theory 101 Flowchart : Indoctrinate people that everyone is born equal--> It logically follows that if everyone is born equal, any random in-group one defines must be equal with the out-group based on a selected outcome --> when there is an inequality between the in- and out-group (ie out-group performs better than in-group) explain the inequality as based on the out-group discriminating against the in-group --> promote the idea of discrimination by the out-group(oppressor ) on the in-group(victim/oppressed) to create a wedge between two groups --> encourage conflict between the groups, sometimes violent, until there is "equality" between the two groups in that selected measure, something hardly ever actually comes. It's a nice blueprint for perpetual conflict and revolutions that Marxists dream about. History of the West post-Cold War: Marxists and their co-travelers capture education, and teach these "theories" unchallenged for decades creating over-educated, low-IQ, victim-classes which lack the critical thinking skills to challenge the dogma. Percentage share of University professors professing Radical, Activist, and Marxists ideologies Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: I have no reason to keep women under control. I want everybody (that includes men too) to show some thought and restraint in how they conduct themselves. No you didn't read it or you're purposefully dodging it. I gave you a microcosm of todays situation. Its not a conspiracy if its the truth. You think some women bound together and started feminism. As according to feminism, these women had no rights to start something. So how did they start feminism. It was started by some elite rich guys who had the privilege of poor men working under him to further enslave humanity. My grandmother married early and she studied college after marriage. She was also an English teacher in a school. She also privately tutored some children. Her sister worked as a headmaster in a different school. They had the freedom back then also. Lots of people think that women were mistreated back then when that is not the case in our family. What they didn't do is like that ad which Deepika Padukone promoted where she wanted to do whatever she wanted. You don't think that Deepika put her own money doing that ad, do you. Lots of foreign investment comes in and they need a front to put that poison in our tv. That is the most extreme version. There are more lighter versions that promote friction in marriages. And most of them come from movies and reality shows. I lost whatever respect I had for Kamal Hassan when he did that big boss reality show. So your gandma was also a working woman and happy doing so. Good. That is what most women want. What is good for the goose is good for the gander .... They don't need some power lobby of elite rich guys to slide them the idea....they started working because they needed to go out and work and then realised that being a working women gives them more options in life. It is as simple as that . As for feminism ...it started because there was need for women to have a voice and need for a more fair life for women. Edited September 20, 2019 by beetle riya and Alam_dar 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 33 minutes ago, beetle said: Sorry quoting different parts ...a bit distracted. The modern woman goes out and works...specially ones who choose to do it. She is like the bird who has come out of the cage and learnt to fly. She can decide what is better. If she is flying then she must be happy doing it....atleast happier than she was in the cage. The old lady is like the bird in the cage who never ever flew in life. She does not know hence can't know if staying in the cage is better or flying is better. Simple is not always better...simple is sometimes just lack of options or freedom of options. The old lady case can also be compared with many men. There are cab drivers who want to work in white collared jobs. The old lady's case was her situation. That is life. You can't say that alam dar's aunt had the same fate. She must have lived in some middle class household. Anyway that old lady lived happily while today many working women are not so happy even with this so called freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tibarn said: What you describe is basically Marxist sociology, made by Engles: Social Conflict Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory Specific to this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_sociology Conflict Theory 101 Flowchart : Indoctrinate people that everyone is born equal--> It logically follows that if everyone is born equal, any random in-group one defines must be equal with the out-group based on a selected outcome --> when there is an inequality between the in- and out-group (ie out-group performs better than in-group) explain the inequality as based on the out-group discriminating against the in-group --> promote the idea of discrimination by the out-group(oppressor ) on the in-group(victim/oppressed) to create a wedge between two groups --> encourage conflict between the groups, sometimes violent, until there is "equality" between the two groups in that selected measure, something hardly ever actually comes. It's a nice blueprint for perpetual conflict and revolutions that Marxists dream about. History of the West post-Cold War: Marxists and their co-travelers capture education, and teach these "theories" unchallenged for decades creating over-educated, low-IQ, victim-classes which lack the critical thinking skills to challenge the dogma. Percentage share of University professors professing Radical, Activist, and Marxists ideologies Dude cut the long winding BS with tabular columns and sh1t. Its an elitist mindset be it communist or capitalist. Its all the same. Even the communist regimes had inner circle members living in luxury. Check Pakistan its basically a cryptocommie govt with army as the politburo. Whats the difference if you get punched with your opponent's left hand or right hand. What matter is you are getting punched and nobody even realizes it. That's the beauty of it. Elites operate on a different level. Peshust 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: The last para you typed you are assuming how I think. I won't even bother replying to it if you think I'm some kind of a tyrant. I was basically saying how my childhood was in comparison with my friend's current household with alam dar It was not a personal statement at you....it is about the objections people have to women having freedom in their own life. As for clothes...that is the question I was asking ,if it is fine for men to change for work...why can't women do that too? My mom wore sarees all her life ,day in and day out . Now she doesn't give a crap and wears salwar kameez because it is so convenient . She is now favoring palazos because they are more loose and airy ... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scoopwhoop.com/amp/news/hyderabad-girls-college-bans-above-knee-kurtis/ College Bans Short Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Will Get Good Marriage Proposals HyderabadHyderabad College Bans Short Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Wil Good rriage Proposals College Ban Kurtis As It Feels Long Ones Will Get Good Marriaopos Edited September 20, 2019 by beetle riya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted September 20, 2019 Author Share Posted September 20, 2019 32 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: I have no reason to keep women under control. I want everybody (that includes men too) to show some thought and restraint in how they conduct themselves. No you didn't read it or you're purposefully dodging it. I gave you a microcosm of todays situation. Its not a conspiracy if its the truth. You think some women bound together and started feminism. As according to feminism, these women had no rights to start something. So how did they start feminism. It was started by some elite rich guys who had the privilege of poor men working under him to further enslave humanity. My grandmother married early and she studied college after marriage. She was also an English teacher in a school. She also privately tutored some children. Her sister worked as a headmaster in a different school. They had the freedom back then also. Lots of people think that women were mistreated back then when that is not the case in our family. What they didn't do is like that ad which Deepika Padukone promoted where she wanted to do whatever she wanted. You don't think that Deepika put her own money doing that ad, do you. Lots of foreign investment comes in and they need a front to put that poison in our tv. That is the most extreme version. There are more lighter versions that promote friction in marriages. And most of them come from movies and reality shows. I lost whatever respect I had for Kamal Hassan when he did that big boss reality show. You MCP Real McCoy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, beetle said: So your gandma was also a working woman and happy doing so. Good. That is what most women want. What is good for the goose is good for the gander .... They don't need some power lobby of elite rich guys to slide them the idea....they started working because they needed to go out and work and then realised that being a working women gives them more options in life. It is as simple as that . As for feminism ...it started because there was need for women to have a voice and need for a more fair life for women. BS. Read up on the topic and come back My grandma worked when my grandpa had to quit working due to an illness which eventually killed him and cost a lot of money. That wasn't her first choice. She preferred to stay home so did my mom and my aunts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: Dude cut the long winding BS with tabular columns and sh1t. That "long-winding BS" is what allows people to understand differences in ideologies rather than making generalizations, and is what, if anything, will convince people to change their minds, IMO. You are free not to read next time,and I won't quote you with these types of analyses anymore Quote Its an elitist mindset be it communist or capitalist. Its all the same. Even the communist regimes had inner circle members living in luxury.Check Pakistan its basically a cryptocommie govt with army as the politburo. Whats the difference if you get punched with your opponent's left hand or right hand. What matter is you are getting punched and nobody even realizes it. That's the beauty of it. Elites operate on a different level. That is an oversimplification, IMO. Any system has "elites" because hierarchy is the "nature of nature". That isn't proof of elitist mindsets of proponents of either. Communists don't believe in hierarchy at all, their philosophy is far from elitism, but they end up with it because a society without hierarchy is not really feasible or hasn't shown to be yet. Capitalists embrace the creation of elites and hierarchy, so long as people can fluidly move in and out of the elite class based on their competence/merit, however, it is also not of an elitist mindset as even an underdog can become an elite in their view of their system. Both have elites but they react to them for different reasons. Edited September 20, 2019 by Tibarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: BS. Read up on the topic and come back My grandma worked when my grandpa had to quit working due to an illness which eventually killed him and cost a lot of money. That wasn't her first choice. She preferred to stay home so did my mom and my aunts But she did get to exercise that choice to work when needed. What would have happened if the society decided women should not work outside ? That is what women want...to have freedom over their lives ... For some it is need for money for medicines ...for others it is other stuff like having financial freedom or a better life or the need to put their potential to best use or just do what they want. As for feminism..that is the basic behind it... I don't need to read up because there is a lot of BS written like the BS about elite men conspiring to get women to work outside home. Edited September 20, 2019 by beetle riya and Alam_dar 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tibarn said: That "long-winding BS" is what allows people to understand differences in ideologies rather than making generalizations, and is what, if anything, will convince people to change their minds, IMO. You are free not to read next time,and I won't quote you with these types of analyses anymore That is an oversimplification, IMO. Any system has "elites" because hierarchy is the "nature of nature". That isn't proof of elitist mindsets of proponents of either. Communists don't believe in hierarchy at all, their philosophy is far from elitism, but they end up with it because a society without hierarchy is not really feasible or hasn't shown to be yet. Capitalists embrace the creation of elites and hierarchy, so long as people can fluidly move in and out of the elite class based on their competence/merit, however, it is also not of an elitist mindset as even an underdog can become an elite in their view of their system. Both have elites but they react to them for different reasons. Let's agree to disagree. There will always be elites of certain bloodlines running this place. There may be some change in ranks lower to their positions and that is what many people assume to be rags to riches stories. Case in point, anyone can become a PM of England but they still come under the British royalty. Despite many news media posts, many people even in England don't like the Queen and claim she is the biggest welfare recipient in the world. But she is still there Yeah I have a history with tabular columns. I don't even wanna go there velu and Tibarn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, beetle said: But she did get to exercise that choice to work when needed. What would have happened if the society decided women should not work outside ? That is what women want...to have freedom over their lives ... For some it is need for money for medicines ...for others it is other stuff like having financial freedom or a better life or the need to put their potential to best use or just do what they want. As for feminism..that is the basic behind it... I don't need to read up because there is a lot of BS written like the BS about elite men conspiring to get women to work outside home. I can't recollect a story were a woman wanted to work to support her family and she was banned to not work outside. I must be imagining those women who worked in govt offices, banks, schools, restaurants, maids, farmworkers. And this was before feminism. If you don't read up, why do you keep quoting me then Peshust 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 21 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: I can't recollect a story were a woman wanted to work to support her family and she was banned to not work outside. I must be imagining those women who worked in govt offices, banks, schools, restaurants, maids, farmworkers. And this was before feminism. If you don't read up, why do you keep quoting me then So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves? To put there education to use ? To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ? Only if the family needs? According to your theory...woman were hoodwinked into working by the elite men ....else they were better off not working outside...which confirms to a society where women were better off at home. I really don't get what you are trying here. Your granny was a happy english teacher ...but women were better off without working . Wonder why such backward thinking theories are so easily accepted when they don't even make basic sense. You can also stop quoting me....I won't mind . riya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 56 minutes ago, beetle said: So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves? To put there education to use ? To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ? Only if the family needs? According to your theory...woman were hoodwinked into working by the elite men ....else they were better off not working outside...which confirms to a society where women were better off at home. I really don't get what you are trying here. Your granny was a happy english teacher ...but women were better off without working . Wonder why such backward thinking theories are so easily accepted when they don't even make basic sense. You can also stop quoting me....I won't mind . Lots of people working means cheap labor. You seem to be dodging this point. You don't find any unscrupulous minds thought that and made use of that by introducing women into the work force. My friend works for a living while his wife stays at home and takes care of their two kids. This is how things used to be. They seem to be more happy than my other friends who have both people working. Don't label this as backward thinking. My friend and his stay at home wife are well educated and make informed decisions. They priority is their children and their family unit and not extra income or financial freedom as you put it. Peshust and Singh bling 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Real McCoy said: Lots of people working means cheap labor. You seem to be dodging this point. You don't find any unscrupulous minds thought that and made use of that by introducing women into the work force. My friend works for a living while his wife stays at home and takes care of their two kids. This is how things used to be. They seem to be more happy than my other friends who have both people working. Don't label this as backward thinking. My friend and his stay at home wife are well educated and make informed decisions. They priority is their children and their family unit and not extra income or financial freedom as you put it. As time goes by, the middle class disappears. As it’s happening in the west. 30 years ago one engineer could support his family of 4 on single income. Now it’s not possible. So encouraging both parents to work is a good thing. Also it doesn’t have to be the woman who stays at home and husband works, after breastfeeding days are over. riya and beetle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 3 hours ago, beetle said: So women can only work to support families when there is no other source of income ? They can't work for themselves? To put there education to use ? To make better use of the brains and ability that nature has given them ? Only if the family needs? It goes for both ways. Men too are forced to pick only high paying careers. Can't they just work for themselves. But the fact is if they don't choose high paying careers then women and their parents will not select them. Here is Pakistani spoof on marriages for middle class which is similar to Indian situation. Real McCoy and velu 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Singh bling said: It goes for both ways. Men too are forced to pick only high paying careers. Can't they just work for themselves. But the fact is if they don't choose high paying careers then women and their parents will not select them. Here is Pakistani spoof on marriages for middle class which is similar to Indian situation. Wahan bhi bikte hain. They can choose whichever career and then find a girl who loves them and marry her instead of going throw the arranged route because that is a different animal . If the guy has average salary....find a girl who also works and then both can run their homes with two salaries.Treat her like an equal partner.... Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry... There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry. Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ? So either have love marriage or settle for a simple marriage without dowry/ gifts or pay for own marriage ....bahut ladkiyan mil jaengi ...... Edited September 21, 2019 by beetle riya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 10 hours ago, Muloghonto said: As time goes by, the middle class disappears. As it’s happening in the west. 30 years ago one engineer could support his family of 4 on single income. Now it’s not possible. So encouraging both parents to work is a good thing. Also it doesn’t have to be the woman who stays at home and husband works, after breastfeeding days are over. My friend is making it work on single income. Eroding of the middle class makes a nation poor. Isn't that a form of slavery velu and beetle 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, beetle said: Or if you want to go the arranged route...look for girls from poor background and have a simple wedding without dowry... There are plenty of good girls in poor middle glass families ready to marry guys who wants a simple wedding without dowry. Why would parents spend their ife earning and savings and may be go into dept for marrying their daughter to a poor guy ? What will happen to the poor guy. you don't care right. feminist hypocrisy 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: What will happen to the poor guy. you don't care right. feminist hypocrisy 101 May be you should read the post. Poor guy should marry a poor working girl in a small simple marriage without dowry and treat her equally as a life partner so that they can both help each other lead a better life. Is that so hard ? Real McCoy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts