Blaming Feminist for loss of "men's purpose in life", Congressman Claims U.S. should work its way back to 1960

[wing2000]

...or so claims Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) in a House floor speech this past Thursday:

excerpts (a portion of the speach is available on C-Span, emdeded in Raw Story link)

"Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) blamed the "angry feminist movement" for emasculating men and called for the nation to "work our way back" to the 1960s if former President Donald Trump wins reelection.

"Another effect that I don't know was necessarily anticipated by Lyndon Johnson is they kind of took the purpose out of the man's life," the lawmaker said. "Because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom."

"They've taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family," he continued. "And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs."

 

[wing2000]

...maybe the GOP will invite him to speak at the Convention next week?

 

[BCP1928]

...or so claims Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) in a House floor speech this past Thursday:

excerpts (a portion of the speach is available on C-Span, emdeded in Raw Story link)

"Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) blamed the "angry feminist movement" for emasculating men and called for the nation to "work our way back" to the 1960s if former President Donald Trump wins reelection.

"Another effect that I don't know was necessarily anticipated by Lyndon Johnson is they kind of took the purpose out of the man's life," the lawmaker said. "Because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom."

"They've taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family," he continued. "And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs."

I wonder how they think men can be "feminized" when they also assert that it is impossible for them to be trans?

So anyway, it's back to the sixties, when men could be men the way they wanted and women had to want them for it. Now women increasingly don't want men like that (and men increasingly don't want women who want men like that). So men will have to change the way they go about being men even though it irks conservatives.

 

[Hammster]

...or so claims Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) in a House floor speech this past Thursday:

excerpts (a portion of the speach is available on C-Span, emdeded in Raw Story link)

"Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) blamed the "angry feminist movement" for emasculating men and called for the nation to "work our way back" to the 1960s if former President Donald Trump wins reelection.

"Another effect that I don't know was necessarily anticipated by Lyndon Johnson is they kind of took the purpose out of the man's life," the lawmaker said. "Because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom."

"They've taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family," he continued. "And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs."

Make Medieval Great Again.

 

[Brihaha]

...maybe the GOP will invite him to speak at the Convention next week?

Yeah, I'm just wondering if this guy should speak before or after Dana White* lol.

* White runs UFC and Power Spapping fighting leagues.

 

[comana]

So now that women can provide for themselves, men need to bring more to a relationship that an income and a house. Women becoming more discerning in their choice of partner shouldn’t be a problem for men who value an equal relationship.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Well, to his credit, at least he was upfront about his idiocy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, to his credit, at least he was upfront about his idiocy.

Grothman is pretty open about that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yeah, I'm just wondering if this guy should speak before or after Dana White* lol.

* White runs UFC and Power Spapping fighting leagues.

Is he really speaking at the RNC? lol I don’t know what’s a joke anymore.

He’s a step up from Scott Baio, I suppose.

 

[Brihaha]

Is he really speaking at the RNC? lol I don’t know what’s a joke anymore.

He’s a step up from Scott Baio, I suppose.

I also heard a man nama Tucker is on tap as a surprise keynote something something too. At least the characters are somewhat entertaining in this circus show caucus of conservatives. I doubt they will even miss Mr Bannon in all the excitement. This representative from Wisconsin may be too boring to retain attention speaking at this convention.

UFC CEO Dana White set to introduce Donald Trump at Republican National Convention

UFC CEO Dana White is set to serve as the speaker who will introduce Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee as he accepts his nomination to run as president in 2024

www.mmafighting.com

 

[FireDragon76]

...or so claims Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) in a House floor speech this past Thursday:

excerpts (a portion of the speach is available on C-Span, emdeded in Raw Story link)

"Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) blamed the "angry feminist movement" for emasculating men and called for the nation to "work our way back" to the 1960s if former President Donald Trump wins reelection.

"Another effect that I don't know was necessarily anticipated by Lyndon Johnson is they kind of took the purpose out of the man's life," the lawmaker said. "Because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom."

"They've taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family," he continued. "And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs."

Looks like Grothman is trolling for the Incel vote.

 

[Zaha Torte]

...or so claims Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) in a House floor speech this past Thursday:

excerpts (a portion of the speach is available on C-Span, emdeded in Raw Story link)

"Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) blamed the "angry feminist movement" for emasculating men and called for the nation to "work our way back" to the 1960s if former President Donald Trump wins reelection.

"Another effect that I don't know was necessarily anticipated by Lyndon Johnson is they kind of took the purpose out of the man's life," the lawmaker said. "Because now you have a basket of goodies for the mom."

"They've taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family," he continued. "And if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs."

Feminism does not defend femininity in women or masculinity in men - it destroys everything it touches and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[bèlla]

Bring them home or restrict their earning power.

~bella

 

[BCP1928]

Feminism does not defend femininity in women or masculinity in men - it destroys everything it touches and should be avoided at all costs.

Social roles for both men and women are changing, as they have always changed. 125 years ago (not that long in the grand scheme of things) women got the right to own property and a bank account in their own name. A little over 100 years ago they got the vote. But it wasn't until 1974 that they were allowed to take out mortgages. Women are changing their role in society. Their needs in a partner will also change. Men need to catch up and start contributing to the change instead of trying to stave it off.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Social roles for both men and women are changing, as they have always changed. 125 years ago (not that long in the grand scheme of things) women got the right to own property and a bank account in their own name. A little over 100 years ago they got the vote. But it wasn't until 1974 that they were allowed to take out mortgages. Women are changing their role in society. Their needs in a partner will also change. Men need to catch up and start contributing to the change instead of trying to stave it off.

No thanks. Feminism is evil. Penned by Satan himself. To destroy the family and make everyone miserable.

 

[BCP1928]

No thanks. Feminism is evil. Penned by Satan himself. To destroy the family and make everyone miserable.

It won't destroy the family. People have been coupling up to create families for tens of thousands of years and will continue to do so.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It won't destroy the family. People have been coupling up to create families for tens of thousands of years and will continue to do so.

And what roles were the males and females fulfilling for those tens of thousands of years?

And simply "coupling" does not a family make.

 

[bèlla]

Feminism does not defend femininity in women or masculinity in men - it destroys everything it touches and should be avoided at all costs.

I don't support feminism but I'm practical too. Some can live comfortably on one income and others can't. Working is a requirement for most or some degree of contribution. Going backwards requires reciprocal reductions in the cost of living, housing, and a new familial dynamic. There was more support from loved ones and neighbors during that period than there is today.

~bella

 

[BCP1928]

And what roles were the males and females fulfilling for those tens of thousands of years?

And simply "coupling" does not a family make.

I meant to form a family; "marriage" whatever that meant to them then. A little study will show what they did. Hunting, gathering, farming. parenting, herding, making pottery, textiles, etc. the usual. Roles were apparently pretty flexible. It is now known, for instance, that neolithic women hunted and fought along with men. In more recent times there was large scale factory work and roles changed. That's when our present model of "family" was introduced as well, with the woman at home charged with housekeeping and child rearing under the protection of a man who worked to support the household but otherwise played little part in its activities, since he was now away from home most of the day when at his work.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't support feminism but I'm practical too. Some can live comfortably on one income and others can't. Working is a requirement for most or some degree of contribution. Going backwards requires reciprocal reductions in the cost of living, housing, and a new familial dynamic. There was more support from loved ones and neighbors during that period than there is today.

~bella[/COLOR

This issue is about more than simply who is working out of the home - but the destruction of the family itself.