Women choose practical over principle, anytime!

"Women and Politics."

The United States as well as most western nations are in social, political, moral quicksand. The important point in history what can be recognized as a mistake, greatly contributing to the present conditions was the addition to the US Constitution: Women voting rights . And there seems not to be a way back. Now you are thinking: he is nuts! You may change your opinion if you have seen the dots connected to the current societal problems.

Follow me. I will try to go step by step, but forgive me: I have the tendency to jump. Also, understand: what I write is not an opinion. It are observations. I have been there, almost from the begin.
Without disparaging the good intentions for adding the 19th Amendment to the US constitution, (8-18-1920) it led to societal changes, which where not foreseen. That is: they where not foreseen by those with good intentions. However it started a chain reaction.

One most important consequence, has been the destabilizing effect on the family unit. No surprise to find this in the Marxist fundamentals (Communist Manifesto, Dass Kapital )where this is among the prescribed methods to undermine the structure of naturally and historically formed societies.
For the well intending, with the "justice for all" aim , it seem to be a good thing to let women become more independent, with a greater say in society, for married as well as the single women. Moral men went along with this development, not forseeing what the result was going to be.

With the effect of some social inertia, the slowly developing effect of the addition to the US Constitution was the equalizing father-mother position in the family. It required the family-unit to function democraticly, only possible to work on compromises. It made men have to compromise. Actually it made the family-unit a body with two heads: a monster (high-verbally).

This devellopment in both the US and Western Europe, took place in the years between the first and second World Wars. For the US it broke out in "the roaring twenties".The great depression and WWII temporary delayed the devellopment. The "Home Front" stimulated the independens of women during the war and also the appreciation for men after the war. It took a new generation to end up in the hippie-anty-Vietnam-flower-power-sexual-revolution eara, what impede family structure further.

Current the term "head of the family" has become un-applicable; it may still have value to the IRS, it does not have functionality in the family anymore. How this has become a cause of conflict follows.
The reason is the difference of motivation of women from men. The particular characteristic of women and consider it an axiom:

Women, in a position to have to chose, will chose practical over principal, anytime!

Equalized positions makes the man, the father in the family at least uncomfortable. A mans position in life and thus in his family is to make his decisions based on principle. You may say that men not always do. Agreed. But for a man to be good, he should.

However with this new requirement to compromise principle, men had to put principled motivations to the site. By compromising, he is compromised. Did we forget the definition of the word?

In some families to compromise may not be a problem. Some families have still done well. For a family with a wimpy husband with a strong wife it made no difference. However for families with real manly husbands there will come a situation in which compromise for the man is unacceptable and conflict becomes unavoidable.
It may be the most important reasons for the increased divorce rate. I am not denying selfishness of the (equal) partners would not play a role, Women may like to explain it with: "all man are pigs". What women have become, is conveniently disregarded. Women have become hard to live with.

And for women to become more equal to men, they needed to behave like man. However they will not shed their natural preference for practical before principle.

Hollywood and TV produces the many depictions of highly principled heroins; it makes for nice entertainment. It will however be hard to find such females. It does not mean that there are no fantastic good women; it only meens that in the end their motivation is protective, defensive. And what is wrong with that?

For mankind the natural, or if you can bear it, the God given drive is, to pare up, to become a couple, form a family and raise offspring, applying balanced attributes of both gender parents. The betwetering expert sociologists, psychologists (under cover politico's or useful and arrogant idiots) have done their best and to a large extend succeeded in pushing society into accepting that all options are open and two mommies or two pappies is just as natural as the fishes in the sea. If that is some wisdom resulting from their pseudo-science, than with what other bull are they ready to bamboozle us?

According statistics there are in the US at the moment more single women than married. Even if this statistical number is somewhat embelished, by the inclusion of the 16-21 demographics, our experience would led us to recognize the change from the past societal structure.
That is, if you are old enough; otherwise you have no clue. The first 10 to 16 years of your life was time to condition you to believe that the present is as it always was and referring to the previous quarter century standards is like talking history and so passť.
Check statistical records of one year before you where born, no mater your age.

Here I get to the next dot to connect: Speaking in general, with the greater independence of women also came a breakdown of morality. See what has happened.

The greater independence caused an increasing percentage of single women: unmarried or divorced. Include the sexual revolution (other article), would those single women be living a sexless life? What about the divorcees, those non-virgins?
Maybe some. Most will not. With whom would they have relation? A percentage might have moved on to lesbian relations, because it seems to be so much easier than to have to deal with men, but most will have interaction with single man. And some get their hands on married man. Also many single women, for the convenience of having a man around the house who can do " other" chores, will have boyfriends, without the intention at some time to marry.
This all has made women accessible for less than committed relation, including one night stands: The "S-x and the city culture." Few men have complained about this aspect of societal change, to their shame.
In the contemporary state of the morals in the larger US and European cities, this has become better than acceptable; it has become normal. There was a time, not that long ago, that these activities where called: promiscuity. Hollywood filmmakers, TV, chem.med comps producing birth control pills and other medication (Viagra, Levitra, Cialis, ....) etc. are pimping this unhealthy development.

Pre or extra marital sex has become normal in the larger part of society. Men are not blameless! Men liked that women became more "easy".

In current situation,mens natural s-x-drive is redirected, away from marriage, while women also have less reason to get into marriage where they have to relinquish some of their independence, to get back some of what is their natural yearning.

Now the politics of it. I previous mentioned the Marxist aim at undermining the Western Civilisation.

The definition of politics is: the actions to advance the interest of a group of persons, not including violent actions.

There was always politics in family. It is called relationship. Gender as political factor has stepped out of of family into society and back into family. It came back with destabelising power of the law.
The whole Womens' Lib movement was a political however destructive movement. It has resulted in, among other, two distinct aspects and conditions: the "chickefacation" and the "sisyfacation" of society. The chickefacation is who is telling: the Pelosi-Boxer-Feinstein etc. politicians, judges, info babes, burocratesses: they all tell men what to do.
The sisyfication (also called woosefacation) is what it causes: The weakening of the male character of men and society. It will take a whole separate article to discus that topic.
An even more harmful effect of women's political emancipation to society will be handled in the article: "A Generation of young Whores."

The political advance was to have "equal say" in society. We could shine some light om that "equal".

Let me remind you of my axiom:
Women, in the position to have to chose, will chose practical over principal, anytime!
You want me to prove it? Or why should you believe me? You should check-it yourself!

Women, questioned about their decisions will deny and rationalize with a stream of words. They are not irrational arguments; they are logic, but they are not based on principle; they are based on self (women) interest.

There is obvious difference between Principles and group-principles. The last are obvious not the real thing.
The women movements had devised for themselves some groups principles. The devisers, mostly from Marxist pedigree, used, just like their fellow travelers, halve truth to convert the power-hungry, already receptive, women-kind. If you are told that you are offered more power, would you decline? If a group is told that they are withheld their deserved whatever, would'nt they get in an uproar? Is'nt that what unions do? It is the "contradiction &apt;struggle principle" of Marxism.

We have arrived at a moment in time that the destructive effect of women political power has become eminent manifest.
How to square that: it is always "for the children" and they also require abortion on demand?
We have women blabbering politics everywhere. We have a women Democrat front runner for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, who tempts the women voters with: "What about you, I like women to be in charge!"
What value is there in being a women, if you are aiming at choosing the best person for the job, wile you promote the notion that women can do just as good a job as man can?
Her personal ambition to grab power of the # 1 World-power and motivation, combined with her views and plans to make changes to the fundaments of the US, brings chills to your bones or drives blood to your head. The presidency is for service to the Nation; not for having power to advance particular interest. What good would do any democrat do to the Nation anyway? Less personal responsibility? More dependence on Government? Incremental move to socialism?

For women it will always be practical before principal.
What is this characteristic? What causes it? Is it that they don't have a conscience? They have a conscience just like men. It is challenged just as much as mans's conscience; only by different levels of the same kind of challenges. Naturally there are also personal differences. But those are only gradations.
The following paragraph would take a whole separate article; but let's keep it short.

I hope you will be able to distill the correctness of this explanation from the following example: compare the Clintons.
One of Bill's obvious challenges is s-x. Power is an other. Truth is an other. These factors we all are aware of.
Hillary has no moral challenge at s-x, we know of, but for power it surpasses Bill's. That's why she still is with Bill. And truth, not so much different from Bill.

Man have accepted that women are intellectual equal and able to learn anything, do anything. However, their gender specific priorities in judgement will always be practical over principal. All men should understand this characteristic. And it should be understood by man in political functions. There is no way to reverse and revoke the 19th amendment. The only way I see, to get some reversal of the breakdown is: men must help women to understand, where and when their decisions go wrong. And women should recognize and accept the inherent capability of good men and relinguish some female selfinterest.

Women are smart, very smart, sometimes too smart. But smart does not mean right or good.

The Western society has developed morally in the wrong direction. That science, technology and economy have grown should not lull us into believing that contemporary morals can be bunched-in as progressive; they are not. They are regressive.
O yes, we have freedom. We have choice. And our choices define us. Liberalism is to be defined as morally liberal and restricting, controling others.

Is our society worth fighting for by the best of our country, if we not restore where we went wrong?

For the women who read this: You may want to argue the content of this article. You would do that for groups interest purpose. My purpose is to show why what went wrong with the whole of society and help to make it better, for men, women and children.

The text will be amended at any time fit, to make the complex more clear.