Search Results: strong women

Fr. Gabriele Amorth writes that instead of improving society, modern feminism has caused men and women to lose their roles in the family, weakening parental authority and spiritual foundations. Has feminism led to the downfall of traditional families?

Modern feminism encouraged women to abandon femininity, not embrace it. It tried to make them men, not honor who they already were. That’s not empowerment. That’s erasure. – Eva ❤️

‘The protection of men has been replaced by the state… now women are dictating what the government does, often to the detriment of civilization itself.’ Do you think the decline in traditional male roles has led to the collapse of societal stability?


There’s truth in this. When the role of protector and provider is stripped from men, and instead handed to a faceless system, what’s left is emotional disconnect, purposelessness, and instability. The state isn’t a husband, and bureaucracies don’t love. When women begin to dictate state policy based on fear or ideology, rather than collaboration with strong men, we drift into imbalance—where safety becomes control and protection becomes power.
Real civilization thrives when men protect and women nurture—not when the state replaces either.
– Eva ❤️

In the last century many changes have rolled through society between the sexes. Changes in dynamics, expectations, responsibilities and appearance.

This last one is where the question is about. The last few generations of humanity have seen women's attire change from feminine to masculine and everything in between and men have generally accepted and been welcoming of such things and little has happened in regards to whether men will see women dressed in skirts and dresses or jeans and hoodies are appealing and attractive and worthy of dating and this leads me to see men as more accepting of this change.

However, I do not believe the same can be said for women. WOULD women still find a man dressed in more feminine ways as appealing and attractive and worthy of dating?

Firstly, all respect to those of nonbinary gender identity. Represent by selecting C (or applicable poll response) and commenting to weigh in.

Also; I do not deride SJWs. I'm more than qualified as one myself. It just makes sense for us all to ask one another to maintain healthy standards of political correctness, AND of simple interpersonal respect.

It's the mark of the true SJW, though, to hold oneself to consistent standards, and to admit it when one lapses. It erodes our good name when we over-enforce, or when we simply deny our mistakes.

This question is about first-world nuisances. Hope most of us regard it as a necessary nuisance when someone counter-intuitively corrects you on someone else's pronoun preferences (i. e. when you're told not to call that hottie in form-fitting jeans "her"). Stay on watch for those personal pronoun preferences.

And it makes sense to say "they" if you know an individual specifically prefers you to. And it's okay to say "they" if you lack knowledge of an individual's gender identity, or especially if you don't know her/his/their actual gender. (Note my example of the articulate solution. It's rarely asking too much to write or to say "he, she, or they.")

Whereas the trend of PRONOUN OVERWATCH is an unnecessary nuisance. If you know someone likes to be called "her/she" and someone else likes to be called "he/him," then why say "them/they?"

When I noted that this bothers me, it felt like healthy emotional self-honesty. It soon got me wondering if maybe being bothered is more of a guy thing, so I decided I might as well poll. I considered polling women only, but realized there's no reason not to keep it open to all.

For the first time in its history, Israel the so-called Holy Land is exposed as the unHoly Land of criminals and terrorists that it has been since WW2 ended. For the first time, every lie ever told by Zionist Jews right from the founding of that terrorist occupation state, has been exposed. For the first time, the brainwashed genocidal society of Israel has been exposed.

They claim it is their land because their ancestors lived there 2000yrs ago. By that logic, the entire North and South America should belong to the Native Indigenous populations who lived there 2000yrs ago too but were killed by the European settlers and had their land stolen. Zionist Israelis are doing to Palestinians exactly what was done to the Natives of North and South America by the Europeans. Except the Zionists have the Holocaust as an excuse to be such evil only equalled by the Nazis.

If Hamas are terrorists, then George Washington was the biggest terrorist of all, because he was a separatist settler coloniser who went again the crown of England to give his people freedom. But he is regarded as the father of the stolen land. Hamas is doing nothing different but fighting for freedom and liberation, except Washington stole from the Natives and Hamas is fighting for their own land.

Jews were persecuted in Europe. Israel is a land of cowards who claim to be one of the strongest militaries while killing women and children. If they are that strong an army, why not wage a war against Germany or Spain or wherever else they were persecuted?

Ashkenazi Zionist Jews are racist to even other Jews from Africa, Middle East or South America, they have no love for anything other than white supremacy surpassing even the Nazi's obsession with the Aryan race. They treat other white Europeans with contempt and think of themselves as above them all.

There is absolutely nothing that gives Israelis the right to Palestine.

The emphasis is on Zionist genocidal Ethnotheocratic racist Jews. Not Jews in general.

The Vances oppose abortion for religious reasons, but tends not to mix that subject with the birthrate conversation except to say that with all the new restrictions on reproductive choice, it would make sense to do more for young mothers financially.

Rather than religious belief, Musks supporters are motivated by a fear that humanity will not replace itself. They dismiss immigration as a remedy, arguing that it can weaken the culture of the receiving country.

This Musk aligned group, which embraces assisted reproduction, is most visibly identified with Malcolm & Simone Collins, a media-friendly couple with 4 children born through IVF. They favor using genetic selection to pick embryos with desirable characteristics, an approach that Christian groups typically oppose. The Collinses said they recently composed a suite of suggested executive orders and sent them to allies in the White House. They include deregulating child care businesses to bring down the cost, and loosening car seat laws, which can now require buying larger vehicles to accommodate more than two children. Another would create an award for women who have six or more children, versions of which exist in a handful of countries, including France.

An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. Groups like Population Connection worry that the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren’t as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be. And increasing numbers of young people do not want to burden the planet by having children of their own.

Nevertheless, pro-natalists want the administration to establish a commission to elevate and study the subject, as well as to infuse their priorities across the federal government. The Biden administration screened many policies and grant applications for their impact on climate change and racial equity, they point out; the same could be done for procreation.