Mothers defending their city against Trump thugs
Scroll to see replies
Original post by LiberOfLondon
Pinkisk is very anti-feminist.
Indeed, never heard feminism being linked to broken homes before though
Original post by Fullofsurprises
DHS goes. Things calm right down. No link, clearly.
Again, the riots began long before the Federal units arrived.
It didn't 'calm down', there were Bibles being burnt and protestors burnt a pig's head on a US flag.
This was last night:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289492170345312256
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289490684169170945
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289479016852856835
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289457932011069441
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289474891599589376
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289454672579670016
Have a listen to the 'Oberster Führer der Schutzstaffel' himself: https://twitter.com/i/status/1289362192706334720
https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1289268789570236417
Yeah... it's all love, peace and flowers.
Original post by Napp
Indeed, never heard feminism being linked to broken homes before though
“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Feminist, professor Linda Gordon, Functions of The Family in WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation.
One of the most fundamental principles of the feminist revolution is the destruction of the nuclear family and its replacement by an open community, where there are no families.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s argued that the family is a sexist institution that enslaves and subjugates women to men by giving power to men over women.
"We have two life cycles: the man's and the woman's. To the man there is growth, struggle, conquest, the establishment of his family, and as much further success in gain or ambition as he can achieve. To the woman, growth, the securing of a husband, the subordinate activities of family life, and afterward such social or charitable interests as her position allows." Charlotte Perkins, Herland, 1915.
"[The family is] simply an institution for the more complete subjugation and enslavement of women and children" Francise Swiney, The Ancient Road: Or the Development of the Soul, 1918.
"[The word family] comes from the latin famulus, meaning a servant or slave [which] is itself a reminder that wives and children along with servants, are historically part of a man's property" Casey Miller and Kate Swift, Words and Women: New Language New Times, 1976.
"We take a stand against the nuclear family. This stand is very threatening to many people, but we regard it as basic. The very term "family" was invented by the Romans to denote a new social organism, whose head ruled over the wife, children and slaves, and was invested under Roman Law with rights of life and death over them all.
Famulus means domestic slave, and familia is the total number of slaves belonging to one man. This unit is no longer economically necessary, just as slavery is not. But it is psychologically necessary for men who are trying to live up to an identity based on this traditional but now obsolete power." Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"[The nuclear family is] the basic institution of sexism with father at the head and mother and children in a lump together dependent on father's good will" Stephanie Dowrick, Why Children?, 1980
"There is no question that women's oppression is founded on their economic dependence on men and men's control over their labour power and other economic resources as well as their reproductive capability and sexuality. Nor is there any doubt that the institution of the nuclear family is the instrument through which domination is exercised." Jennifer Abbassi and Sheryl Lutjens, Rereading women in Latin America and the Caribbean, The Political Economy of Gender, 2002.
"The relationship between the sexes in the nuclear family is unequal, because men have power over women. The subordinate position occupied by women derives from the control that men exercise over sexuality, abortion and women's work [yes, this feminist is actually arguing that men are the ones who have control over sex in marriage, that men control abortion and that men control women's work in marriage, the complete opposite of reality]. This control carries over from and at the same time reflects existing social relationships." Maria Pilar Aquino, Our Cry for Life: Feminist Theology from Latin America, 2002
"It seems unlikely [that a sexual revolution] could take place without drastic effect upon the patriarchal proprietary family. The abolition of sex role and the complete economic independence of women would undermine both its authority and its financial structure. An important corollary would be the end of the present chattel status and denial of rights to minors. The collective professionalisation (and consequent improvement) of the care of the young, also involved, would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women. Marriage might generally be replaced by voluntary association, if such is desired. Were a sexual revolution completed, the problem of overpopulation might, because vitally linked to the emancipation of women, cease to be the insoluble dilemma it now appears” Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1970.
Feminist animosity for the nuclear family has often also taken on narratives with racial overtones. Feminist theorists of ethnocentric and racist persuasions have argued that the nuclear family is a creation of whites to oppress people of colour:
"The family has been used by the white agency to perpetuate the state, and blacks have been used as an extension of the white family, as the prisoners of war, enslaved to do the dirty work of the family, i.e. the state. If the family as an institution were destroyed, the state would be destroyed, if Black people were destroyed, but the family left intact, the basic structure of the state would allow for rebuilding. if all white institutions with the exception of the family were destroyed, the state would also rise again, but black rather than white" Kay Lindsey, The Black Women as a Woman in The Black Woman: An Anthology, 1970
"The white nuclear family is built on women's unpaid work: bearing and raising children, doing housework, providing sex and emotional support for men. There are a lot other family arrangements that similarly oppress women elsewhere in the world" Sona Osman,A to Z of feminism, Spare Rib Magazine, 1983.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s written thousands of books, about their ideal world. This world is always one made up of open communities, where there is no such thing as family, marriage, motherhood or fatherhood. These open communities are always ruled by women who often in these books reproduce through artificial means. Men in these feminist utopias always either have no power, no say and no control or are killed off in their entirety by women. Examples of these books highly celebrated in the feminist movement are the Herland trilogy by Charlotte Perkins, The Female Man by Joana Russ, Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, The Wonderground trilogy by Sally Gearhart and the City of Ladies by Christine de Pizan.
"Belief in the nuclear family ideal remains entrenched in social myths, expectations and discourse. Solutions to the disadvantages women face will require the official acceptance of a new ideology of family formation based on female autonomy as a legitimate alternative to the nuclear family" Dorothy Stetson and Dorothy McBride, Women's Rights in the U.S.A.: Policy Debates and Gender Roles, 1997
"There is a subculture emerging in this society which is establishing communal living as its basis... a commune set up on the right basis (female liberation) seems to offer the only humane arrangement for the care of children" The commune should never be just another kind of family unit. Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
In these open communities women are allowed to have children, preferably through means such as artificial insemination and not through intercourse or relationships, which are seen in feminism as a distraction, a problem.
"Single women, we advise them to remain single, and to deal with the problems of being a woman alone and free, living autonomously in control of her own life. The most demanding and rewarding arrangement is to live completely alone...Attention should be given to the problem of the development of emotional dependency on other members of the commune. One can't work in a vacuum, but neither can one work in an environment full of distractions...In a healthy, humane society, the burden and responsibility for children would be on the society, not on the woman who produces them. It is not the duty of individual women to reproduce the species; it is the concern of the society as a whole. Support of the children would be on the society and care of the children would be delegated to those who have the talent and interest in child care, and they would be rewarded for their work in the same way as bridge builders or teachers. The private home as it now exists will appear a torture chamber to post- revolutionary people" Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." Simone De Beauvoir narrated by Betty Friedan in It changed my life: Writing on the Women's Movement, 1976.
One way by which feminists have accomplished the destruction of the nuclear family is through laws that facilitate this goal. Here in the UK, you can find no better example of such laws than in the Children Act 1989. In the UK the rights and responsibilities of parents to their children fall under this piece of legislation. It was put together by feminist politicians in the late 80s and ratified in 1991.
The Act was the first of its kind anywhere in the world. For the first time in human history, this Act denied fathers equal rights to their children, whilst automatically giving rights to mothers under all conditions. It also allowed mothers to prevent fathers from seeing their children without any consequence for this action.
Before the enactment of The Children Act in 1991, feminist politicians Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt got together to write a policy paper called “The Family Way” to advise the government on how to go about implementing this aforementioned legislation. In it they wrote the following:
“It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.”
As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases became awarded to the mother with little or no consequence for parental alienation carried out against the father. As a result of these feminist policies fathers became ostracised and alienated from the family unit.
There are many other ways by which feminism has encouraged the destruction of the nuclear family. One example of this is indirect by separating women from men and vice versa, by discouraging marriage, heterosexuality, romance etc. in favour of homosexuality, separatism and divorce. I can expand on these matters, but I will have to write a lot more and unfortunately I don't have the time right now.
I've only touched very briefly on the question of feminism and the family unit here, but feminism has played and continues to play a very significant role in the break up of families, much to the ignorance of the vast majority of people.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Pinkisk
“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” Professor Linda Gordon, feminist/historian, “Functions of The Family” in “WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation”.
One of the most fundamental principles of the feminist revolution is the destruction of the nuclear family and its replacement by an open community, where there are no families.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s argued that the family is a sexist institution that enslaves and subjugates women to men by giving power to men over women.
"We have two life cycles: the man's and the woman's. To the man there is growth, struggle, conquest, the establishment of his family, and as much further success in gain or ambition as he can achieve. To the woman, growth, the securing of a husband, the subordinate activities of family life, and afterward such social or charitable interests as her position allows." Charlotte Perkins, Herland, 1915.
"[The family is] simply an institution for the more complete subjugation and enslavement of women and children" Francise Swiney, The Ancient Road: Or the Development of the Soul, 1918.
"[The word family] comes from the latin famulus, meaning a servant or slave [which] is itself a reminder that wives and children along with servants, are historically part of a man's property" Casey Miller and Kate Swift, Words and Women: New Language New Times, 1976.
"We take a stand against the nuclear family. This stand is very threatening to many people, but we regard it as basic. The very term "family" was invented by the Romans to denote a new social organism, whose head ruled over the wife, children and slaves, and was invested under Roman Law with rights of life and death over them all.
Famulus means domestic slave, and familia is the total number of slaves belonging to one man. This unit is no longer economically necessary, just as slavery is not. But it is psychologically necessary for men who are trying to live up to an identity based on this traditional but now obsolete power." Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"[The nuclear family is] the basic institution of sexism with father at the head and mother and children in a lump together dependent on father's good will" Stephanie Dowrick, Why Children?, 1980
"There is no question that women's oppression is founded on their economic dependence on men and men's control over their labour power and other economic resources as well as their reproductive capability and sexuality. Nor is there any doubt that the institution of the nuclear family is the instrument through which domination is exercised." Jennifer Abbassi and Sheryl Lutjens, Rereading women in Latin America and the Caribbean, The Political Economy of Gender, 2002.
"The relationship between the sexes in the nuclear family is unequal, because men have power over women. The subordinate position occupied by women derives from the control that men exercise over sexuality, abortion and women's work [yes, this feminist is actually arguing that men are the ones who have control over sex in marriage, that men control abortion and that men control women's work in marriage, the complete opposite of reality]. This control carries over from and at the same time reflects existing social relationships." Maria Pilar Aquino, Our Cry for Life: Feminist Theology from Latin America, 2002
"It seems unlikely [that a sexual revolution] could take place without drastic effect upon the patriarchal proprietary family. The abolition of sex role and the complete economic independence of women would undermine both its authority and its financial structure. An important corollary would be the end of the present chattel status and denial of rights to minors. The collective professionalisation (and consequent improvement) of the care of the young, also involved, would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women. Marriage might generally be replaced by voluntary association, if such is desired. Were a sexual revolution completed, the problem of overpopulation might, because vitally linked to the emancipation of women, cease to be the insoluble dilemma it now appears” Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1970.
Feminist animosity for the nuclear family has often also taken on narratives with racial overtones. Feminist theorists of ethnocentric and racist persuasions have argued that the nuclear family is a creation of whites to oppress people of colour:
"The family has been used by the white agency to perpetuate the state, and blacks have been used as an extension of the white family, as the prisoners of war, enslaved to do the dirty work of the family, i.e. the state. If the family as an institution were destroyed, the state would be destroyed, if Black people were destroyed, but the family left intact, the basic structure of the state would allow for rebuilding. if all white institutions with the exception of the family were destroyed, the state would also rise again, but black rather than white" Kay Lindsey, The Black Women as a Woman in The Black Woman: An Anthology, 1970
"The white nuclear family is built on women's unpaid work: bearing and raising children, doing housework, providing sex and emotional support for men. There are a lot other family arrangements that similarly oppress women elsewhere in the world" Sona Osman,A to Z of feminism, Spare Rib Magazine, 1983.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s written thousands of books, about their ideal world. This world is always one made up of open communities, where there is no such thing as family, marriage, motherhood or fatherhood. These open communities are always ruled by women who often in these books reproduce through artificial means. Men in these feminist utopias always either have no power, no say and no control or are killed off in their entirety by women. Examples of these books highly celebrated in the feminist movement are the Herland trilogy by Charlotte Perkins, The Female Man by Joana Russ, Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, The Wonderground trilogy by Sally Gearhart and the City of Ladies by Christine de Pizan.
"Belief in the nuclear family ideal remains entrenched in social myths, expectations and discourse. Solutions to the disadvantages women face will require the official acceptance of a new ideology of family formation based on female autonomy as a legitimate alternative to the nuclear family" Dorothy Stetson and Dorothy McBride, Women's Rights in the U.S.A.: Policy Debates and Gender Roles, 1997
"There is a subculture emerging in this society which is establishing communal living as its basis... a commune set up on the right basis (female liberation) seems to offer the only humane arrangement for the care of children" The commune should never be just another kind of family unit. Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
In these open communities women are allowed to have children, preferably through means such as artificial insemination and not through intercourse or relationships, which are seen in feminism as a distraction, a problem.
"Single women, we advise them to remain single, and to deal with the problems of being a woman alone and free, living autonomously in control of her own life. The most demanding and rewarding arrangement is to live completely alone...Attention should be given to the problem of the development of emotional dependency on other members of the commune. One can't work in a vacuum, but neither can one work in an environment full of distractions...In a healthy, humane society, the burden and responsibility for children would be on the society, not on the woman who produces them. It is not the duty of individual women to reproduce the species; it is the concern of the society as a whole. Support of the children would be on the society and care of the children would be delegated to those who have the talent and interest in child care, and they would be rewarded for their work in the same way as bridge builders or teachers. The private home as it now exists will appear a torture chamber to post- revolutionary people" Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." Simone De Beauvoir narrated by Betty Friedan in It changed my life: Writing on the Women's Movement, 1976.
One way by which feminists have accomplished the destruction of the nuclear family is through laws that facilitate this goal. Here in the UK, you can find no better example of such laws than in the Children Act 1989. In the UK the rights and responsibilities of parents to their children fall under this piece of legislation. It was put together by feminist politicians in the late 80s and ratified in 1991.
The Act was the first of its kind anywhere in the world. For the first time in human history, this Act denied fathers equal rights to their children, whilst automatically giving rights to mothers under all conditions. It also allowed mothers to prevent fathers from seeing their children without any consequence for this action.
Before the enactment of The Children Act in 1991, feminist politicians Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt got together to write a policy paper called “The Family Way” to advise the government on how to go about implementing this aforementioned legislation. In it they wrote the following:
“It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.”
As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases became awarded to the mother with little or no consequence for parental alienation carried out against the father. As a result of these feminist policies fathers became ostracised and alienated from the family unit.
There are many other ways by which feminism has encouraged the destruction of the nuclear family. One example of this is indirect by separating women from men and vice versa, by discouraging marriage, heterosexuality, romance etc. in favour of homosexuality, separatism and divorce. I can expand on these matters, but I will have to write a lot more and unfortunately I don't have the time right now.
I've only touched very briefly on the question of feminism and the family unit here, but feminism has played and continues to play a very significant role in the break up of families, much to the ignorance of the vast majority of people.
One of the most fundamental principles of the feminist revolution is the destruction of the nuclear family and its replacement by an open community, where there are no families.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s argued that the family is a sexist institution that enslaves and subjugates women to men by giving power to men over women.
"We have two life cycles: the man's and the woman's. To the man there is growth, struggle, conquest, the establishment of his family, and as much further success in gain or ambition as he can achieve. To the woman, growth, the securing of a husband, the subordinate activities of family life, and afterward such social or charitable interests as her position allows." Charlotte Perkins, Herland, 1915.
"[The family is] simply an institution for the more complete subjugation and enslavement of women and children" Francise Swiney, The Ancient Road: Or the Development of the Soul, 1918.
"[The word family] comes from the latin famulus, meaning a servant or slave [which] is itself a reminder that wives and children along with servants, are historically part of a man's property" Casey Miller and Kate Swift, Words and Women: New Language New Times, 1976.
"We take a stand against the nuclear family. This stand is very threatening to many people, but we regard it as basic. The very term "family" was invented by the Romans to denote a new social organism, whose head ruled over the wife, children and slaves, and was invested under Roman Law with rights of life and death over them all.
Famulus means domestic slave, and familia is the total number of slaves belonging to one man. This unit is no longer economically necessary, just as slavery is not. But it is psychologically necessary for men who are trying to live up to an identity based on this traditional but now obsolete power." Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"[The nuclear family is] the basic institution of sexism with father at the head and mother and children in a lump together dependent on father's good will" Stephanie Dowrick, Why Children?, 1980
"There is no question that women's oppression is founded on their economic dependence on men and men's control over their labour power and other economic resources as well as their reproductive capability and sexuality. Nor is there any doubt that the institution of the nuclear family is the instrument through which domination is exercised." Jennifer Abbassi and Sheryl Lutjens, Rereading women in Latin America and the Caribbean, The Political Economy of Gender, 2002.
"The relationship between the sexes in the nuclear family is unequal, because men have power over women. The subordinate position occupied by women derives from the control that men exercise over sexuality, abortion and women's work [yes, this feminist is actually arguing that men are the ones who have control over sex in marriage, that men control abortion and that men control women's work in marriage, the complete opposite of reality]. This control carries over from and at the same time reflects existing social relationships." Maria Pilar Aquino, Our Cry for Life: Feminist Theology from Latin America, 2002
"It seems unlikely [that a sexual revolution] could take place without drastic effect upon the patriarchal proprietary family. The abolition of sex role and the complete economic independence of women would undermine both its authority and its financial structure. An important corollary would be the end of the present chattel status and denial of rights to minors. The collective professionalisation (and consequent improvement) of the care of the young, also involved, would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women. Marriage might generally be replaced by voluntary association, if such is desired. Were a sexual revolution completed, the problem of overpopulation might, because vitally linked to the emancipation of women, cease to be the insoluble dilemma it now appears” Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1970.
Feminist animosity for the nuclear family has often also taken on narratives with racial overtones. Feminist theorists of ethnocentric and racist persuasions have argued that the nuclear family is a creation of whites to oppress people of colour:
"The family has been used by the white agency to perpetuate the state, and blacks have been used as an extension of the white family, as the prisoners of war, enslaved to do the dirty work of the family, i.e. the state. If the family as an institution were destroyed, the state would be destroyed, if Black people were destroyed, but the family left intact, the basic structure of the state would allow for rebuilding. if all white institutions with the exception of the family were destroyed, the state would also rise again, but black rather than white" Kay Lindsey, The Black Women as a Woman in The Black Woman: An Anthology, 1970
"The white nuclear family is built on women's unpaid work: bearing and raising children, doing housework, providing sex and emotional support for men. There are a lot other family arrangements that similarly oppress women elsewhere in the world" Sona Osman,A to Z of feminism, Spare Rib Magazine, 1983.
Feminists have since the mid 1800s written thousands of books, about their ideal world. This world is always one made up of open communities, where there is no such thing as family, marriage, motherhood or fatherhood. These open communities are always ruled by women who often in these books reproduce through artificial means. Men in these feminist utopias always either have no power, no say and no control or are killed off in their entirety by women. Examples of these books highly celebrated in the feminist movement are the Herland trilogy by Charlotte Perkins, The Female Man by Joana Russ, Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy, The Wonderground trilogy by Sally Gearhart and the City of Ladies by Christine de Pizan.
"Belief in the nuclear family ideal remains entrenched in social myths, expectations and discourse. Solutions to the disadvantages women face will require the official acceptance of a new ideology of family formation based on female autonomy as a legitimate alternative to the nuclear family" Dorothy Stetson and Dorothy McBride, Women's Rights in the U.S.A.: Policy Debates and Gender Roles, 1997
"There is a subculture emerging in this society which is establishing communal living as its basis... a commune set up on the right basis (female liberation) seems to offer the only humane arrangement for the care of children" The commune should never be just another kind of family unit. Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
In these open communities women are allowed to have children, preferably through means such as artificial insemination and not through intercourse or relationships, which are seen in feminism as a distraction, a problem.
"Single women, we advise them to remain single, and to deal with the problems of being a woman alone and free, living autonomously in control of her own life. The most demanding and rewarding arrangement is to live completely alone...Attention should be given to the problem of the development of emotional dependency on other members of the commune. One can't work in a vacuum, but neither can one work in an environment full of distractions...In a healthy, humane society, the burden and responsibility for children would be on the society, not on the woman who produces them. It is not the duty of individual women to reproduce the species; it is the concern of the society as a whole. Support of the children would be on the society and care of the children would be delegated to those who have the talent and interest in child care, and they would be rewarded for their work in the same way as bridge builders or teachers. The private home as it now exists will appear a torture chamber to post- revolutionary people" Indra Dean Allen et al., Editorial, WOMEN: A Journal of Female Libration, 1970.
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." Simone De Beauvoir narrated by Betty Friedan in It changed my life: Writing on the Women's Movement, 1976.
One way by which feminists have accomplished the destruction of the nuclear family is through laws that facilitate this goal. Here in the UK, you can find no better example of such laws than in the Children Act 1989. In the UK the rights and responsibilities of parents to their children fall under this piece of legislation. It was put together by feminist politicians in the late 80s and ratified in 1991.
The Act was the first of its kind anywhere in the world. For the first time in human history, this Act denied fathers equal rights to their children, whilst automatically giving rights to mothers under all conditions. It also allowed mothers to prevent fathers from seeing their children without any consequence for this action.
Before the enactment of The Children Act in 1991, feminist politicians Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt got together to write a policy paper called “The Family Way” to advise the government on how to go about implementing this aforementioned legislation. In it they wrote the following:
“It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.”
As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases became awarded to the mother with little or no consequence for parental alienation carried out against the father. As a result of these feminist policies fathers became ostracised and alienated from the family unit.
There are many other ways by which feminism has encouraged the destruction of the nuclear family. One example of this is indirect by separating women from men and vice versa, by discouraging marriage, heterosexuality, romance etc. in favour of homosexuality, separatism and divorce. I can expand on these matters, but I will have to write a lot more and unfortunately I don't have the time right now.
I've only touched very briefly on the question of feminism and the family unit here, but feminism has played and continues to play a very significant role in the break up of families, much to the ignorance of the vast majority of people.
There needs to be a shortened version of this...
Nevertheless, what does any of it have to do with the tweet...? Nuclear families being irrelevant to cervix's.
Original post by Napp
what does any of it have to do with the tweet...? Nuclear families being irrelevant to cervix's.
This is a different thread to the cervix one.
Original post by Pinkisk
This is a different thread to the cervix one.
Whoopsy my bad on there, not paying enough attention
.Fair enough though.
Original post by Occitanie
There's a lot to break down in your post.
1) "militarised Homeland Security police": These were Federal officers sent by Homeland Security to protect a Federal Court House.
Info:
2) Post by Homeland Security describing the 47 days of continuous public unrest in Portland, Oregon.
“The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city. Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it."
“This siege can end if state and local officials decide to take appropriate action instead of refusing to enforce the law. DHS will not abdicate its solemn duty to protect federal facilities and those within them. Again, I reiterate the Department’s offer to assist local and state leaders to bring an end to the violence perpetrated by anarchists,” said Acting Secretary Chad Wolf"
As you can see, thanks to the timeline provided by the DHS, it is not the first time the Hatfield Courthouse in Portland has been targeted: 29/05; 30/05; 01/06; 07/06; 08/06; 10/06; 13/06; 17/06; 25/06; 01/07; 02/07; 03/07; 04/07; 05/07; 09/07; 12/07; 15/07
The Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Federal Building was also vandalised multiple times (see timeline). Attempted breach on 14/07.
To say the Feds used unreasonable and disproportionate violence, and that they were arresting "protestors" for no reason is preposterous.
These "protestors" were continuously attacking federal buildings and a courthouse. Homeland Security sends federal officers to protect federal buildings and you the media are surprised?! And this to you is "Fascism"?!?! Give me a ****ing break.
Nancy Pelosi claiming these are stormtroopers (lol)... they're federal officers protecting federal assets.
3) Portland Police statement on 18/07:
Portland Police Statement 17/07:
Obviously what is continuing to happen, much like during the protests immediately following George Floyd's murder, is that while vastly peaceful, these protests are being hijacked by violent anarchists.
To say that Federal officers protecting Federal buildings and arresting violent rioters for "no reason" is in any way "fascist" is totally disingenuous. They're doing their job. That's their "legal basis".
And somehow, according to Oregon leaders, it's Trump's fault a Federal officer was injured?!?!?!
1) "militarised Homeland Security police": These were Federal officers sent by Homeland Security to protect a Federal Court House.
Info:
Spoiler
2) Post by Homeland Security describing the 47 days of continuous public unrest in Portland, Oregon.
“The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city. Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it."
“This siege can end if state and local officials decide to take appropriate action instead of refusing to enforce the law. DHS will not abdicate its solemn duty to protect federal facilities and those within them. Again, I reiterate the Department’s offer to assist local and state leaders to bring an end to the violence perpetrated by anarchists,” said Acting Secretary Chad Wolf"
As you can see, thanks to the timeline provided by the DHS, it is not the first time the Hatfield Courthouse in Portland has been targeted: 29/05; 30/05; 01/06; 07/06; 08/06; 10/06; 13/06; 17/06; 25/06; 01/07; 02/07; 03/07; 04/07; 05/07; 09/07; 12/07; 15/07
The Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Federal Building was also vandalised multiple times (see timeline). Attempted breach on 14/07.
To say the Feds used unreasonable and disproportionate violence, and that they were arresting "protestors" for no reason is preposterous.
These "protestors" were continuously attacking federal buildings and a courthouse. Homeland Security sends federal officers to protect federal buildings and you the media are surprised?! And this to you is "Fascism"?!?! Give me a ****ing break.
Nancy Pelosi claiming these are stormtroopers (lol)... they're federal officers protecting federal assets.
3) Portland Police statement on 18/07:
Spoiler
Portland Police Statement 17/07:
Spoiler
Obviously what is continuing to happen, much like during the protests immediately following George Floyd's murder, is that while vastly peaceful, these protests are being hijacked by violent anarchists.
To say that Federal officers protecting Federal buildings and arresting violent rioters for "no reason" is in any way "fascist" is totally disingenuous. They're doing their job. That's their "legal basis".
And somehow, according to Oregon leaders, it's Trump's fault a Federal officer was injured?!?!?!
Safe to say you completely owned him
Original post by Napp
Whoopsy my bad on there, not paying enough attention .
Fair enough though.
.Fair enough though.
Lol Napp u drunk?!
Original post by Occitanie
Lol Napp u drunk?!
I wish, my wine delivery got stuck in Taupo after some **** head closed the road
Original post by Napp
Indeed, never heard feminism being linked to broken homes before though
I have. Most of the time the argument behind it is that feminism led to less people being married and more divorces, or that more women in work meant that children weren't cared for by a full-time housewife.
Original post by Occitanie
Again, the riots began long before the Federal units arrived.
It didn't 'calm down', there were Bibles being burnt and protestors burnt a pig's head on a US flag.
This was last night:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289492170345312256
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289490684169170945
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289479016852856835
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289457932011069441
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289474891599589376
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289454672579670016
Have a listen to the 'Oberster Führer der Schutzstaffel' himself: https://twitter.com/i/status/1289362192706334720
https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1289268789570236417
Yeah... it's all love, peace and flowers.
It didn't 'calm down', there were Bibles being burnt and protestors burnt a pig's head on a US flag.
This was last night:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289492170345312256
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289490684169170945
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289479016852856835
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289457932011069441
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289474891599589376
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289454672579670016
Have a listen to the 'Oberster Führer der Schutzstaffel' himself: https://twitter.com/i/status/1289362192706334720
https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1289268789570236417
Yeah... it's all love, peace and flowers.
Comrade Occitanie, this is a thoughtcrime against the glorious People's Republic of Portlandistan! Please report to your local Antifa group for reeducation.
Original post by LiberOfLondon
I have. Most of the time the argument behind it is that feminism led to less people being married and more divorces, or that more women in work meant that children weren't cared for by a full-time housewife.
Comrade Occitanie, this is a thoughtcrime against the glorious People's Republic of Portlandistan! Please report to your local Antifa group for reeducation.
Comrade Occitanie, this is a thoughtcrime against the glorious People's Republic of Portlandistan! Please report to your local Antifa group for reeducation.
Original post by Napp
Comrade Napp, the Republic of Portlandistan thanks you for your anti-bourgeois working-class laughter in the glorious year of 172 After Marx, and awards you ten People's Social Credits. You may spend them on luxury handbags, People's Telescreens and bottles of Hennessy, which, according to Comrade Ocasio-Cortez, are considered ”bread”.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Anyone else here watch snooker?
- who is donald trump
- Things that worry me a little
- How good is this 30 maker? illiad
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Why girls like tall guys
- Im 18 and my parents still hit me
- GCSE Early Elizabethan England 16 marker Attempt
- Make it More Superstition-ey !!
- London universities
- can someone mark my english language question 5 please (40)
- Walking on eggshells at home
- How to convince Muslim parents to let me get a nosejob
- York or Durham
- Is Fury more likely to fight Usyk after Dubois fight?
- A-level law exam questions and structuring
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Feeling Depressed since MSc Rejection
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
